IF, like me, you’re half propeller-head, half social-justice warrior, it can be hard to get a handle on the various works of Elon Musk.
The Tesla and SpaceX founder can display equally as idiot plutocrat, and civilisation visionary, across any given week’s news cycle.
The last seven days have seen Musk’s name taken in vain at the Johnny Depp/Amber Rudd trial (aaargh). His endorsement of Kanye West for president has been retracted (Kanye doesn’t like vaccines, or even abortion). And we have reports that Musk’s $2.7 billion performance bonus is about to be triggered.
So far, so 0.0000271846% (the percentage of the world’s population that are billionaires). Why should we care a jot about Elon Musk?
Yet there’s another news strand. We are apparently very close to a “level-5” self-driving electric Tesla car (meaning no human input). Next month, there will be a major announcement on Musk’s Neurolink, a brain-implant tech that offers to blend humans with artificial intelligence.
Elsewhere on the wires, Musk is launching thousands of small satellites to provide internet access to every point on the Earth. As well as refining his plans for a rocket to Mars – the first stage in his plan to spread human civilisation into the cosmos.
The last report is usually the first blanket rejection of this awkward, blinking mogul. Rather than colonial dreams of Martian cities (“I’d like to die on Mars – just not on impact,” Musk has quipped), how about attending to beautiful blue Planet A first, not desiccated and dangerous Planet B?
And how typical of blinkered Silicon Valley elitists to look for their interplanetary escape clause – rather than deal with the inequalities and externalities their technology and business models often produce, on this old rock? Musk’s defenders roll their eyes here: we’re really not seeing his full picture.
The Scots-born techno-visionary and blockchain entrepreneur Vinay Gupta is trenchant on this subject. Musk’s passion, Gupta says, is to do something practical – indeed, commercial – to help minimise what is called “existential risk” (or x-risk). Basically, these are threats to the very existence of humanity.
Tick them off, suggests Vinay in his tweets. Musk’s electric cars, but also his investment in both battery manufacturing and cheap solar panels, is “raising the sustainable standard of living inside capitalism”. (Like Greta Thunberg, Musk is oriented to action, not warm words from establishments).
We should even regard Musk’s off-planet ambitions as laying the ground for a new wave of what the leftist commentator Aaron Bastani calls “extreme supply”. By this, Bastani means the abundance of vital minerals and metals available in asteroidal form in our solar system.
This could easily overturn Earth-based economics systems, usually founded on managing scarce resources. (There’s another x-risk here. Given we’re due another devastating asteroid strike this century, it might be wise to get a grasp of this realm).
So Musk’s pursuit of sustainable abundance answers the x-risk of a collapsing biosphere. He also seems to genuinely believe that humanity may need a “back-up” on another planet, if we don’t make it through “the great filter” down here. (The great filter is Enrico Fermi’s thesis that few civilisations in the universe make it past the stage of terminating themselves – which is why we don’t know of any other than ourselves, as we teeter on our own brink … ).
But Musk’s brain-machine interface tries to answer what could be regarded as another x-risk: the surpassing of human intelligence by machine intelligence.
While trailing his Neurolink announcement, Musk tweeted: “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Musk is also notoriously a great fan of the Scottish author Iain M Banks’s science-fiction “Culture” novels (“If you must know, I am a utopian anarchist,” he tweeted, “of the kind best described by Iain Banks”).
And in Iain’s Culture novels, it’s never quite clear: do the vast and powerful AI “Minds” (encased in cosmos-traversing spaceships) regard humans as their equals, or as charming and trivial diversions? In talking about his own cyborg product, Musk has regularly used Banks’s terminology for the humans’ link with these AI’s – the beautiful phrase “neural lace”. We don’t just join them, we intertwine with them.
However, is AI supremacy really such an existential risk? Google’s DeepMind programs might be able to teach themselves to beat any human (including grandmasters) on a board game like Chess or Go. But install that software in a clanky robot body, then ask it to display the same self-possession of a five-year-old human child … the sheer, stumbling failure is embarrassing to see.
One suspects the singularity – Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that computers would simulate human intelligence by 2029, and vastly surpass it thereafter – is a kind of “stretch-goal” for Musk and the Valleyists.
Something that pulls their more mundane R&D and engineering efforts forward into the future (ensuring, for example, that grannies aren’t flattened by an ill-natured Tesla robo-car).
My head-propeller spins with genuine curiosity on this one: let’s see what transpires. Musk suggests that, eventually, the filaments that link neurons with transmitters – four times thinner than hair – will be installed by boring laser holes into the skull. The discomfort will be “comparable to Lasik surgery on the eyes”.
That’s great. But eh, you go first, Elon.
So yes, he’s quite a blend – the ability to scale of Henry Ford, the imagineering verve of Walt Disney, the integrated vision of Steve Jobs. But he’s still an American
capitalist mogul with some pretty familiar traits.
For example, Musk’s programming has hit a glitch point when it comes to responding to Covid-19. This “anarchist utopian” really didn’t like the oncoming dystopia of coronavirus. He doubted its infectiousness, and its status beyond a standard flu, in the early months.
“THE coronavirus panic is dumb”, he tweeted. But Musk also reacted extremely poorly online when the states of California and New York asked him to close down his Tesla manufactories, for pandemic reasons (“this is fascism … FREE AMERICA NOW”). Reports of poor enforcement of mask wearing at his factories are rife. And for all the futurism on display, Musk’s attitudes to labour relations are predictably 19th-century.
Vox magazine reports a legal judgment from California authorities in 2019 that Tesla had broken US labour laws in 12 ways. This included threatening employees with the loss of various conditions if unions were set up, as well as harassing employees on distributing leaflets and wearing union badges.
(All other major US motor manufacturers are fully unionised).
It’s a bug on the windscreen of their gleaming vehicles (though that mess might actually improve Tesla’s ghastly Cybertruck). But tech supermoguls must accept – or be forced to – that they live in societies, among fellow citizens, to whom they are accountable.
We the people can enjoy, and benefit, from the pioneering ambitions of entrepreneurs.
The ideal rhythm should be that private innovation and market-making eventually settles, to become infrastructural and public service.
Yet I will concede to Musk in particular, and his defenders, their urgent point. To rely on standard political and democratic progress – after decades of knowledge about global warming and climate crisis as an existential threat – is a tough square to put all your chips on.
Leaving it to the engineers and investors could go mightily wrong. There are quite a few freelance geo-engineering schemes for anti-warming going around. Some involve pumping substances into the atmosphere that might rob us of blue skies for ever.
But boundary-crossing, pro-human innovators and designers are definitely required. Can their products and services make it easy for us to do the planet-saving thing? We seem to find it difficult to take any harder road.
I give 1.5 cheers for Musk – but more for the sapient, planetary and cosmic ambitions he represents.
We need thousands more like him, with many different conceptions of the big problems (and not too many “hims” either). Because the big clock is loudly ticking.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel