Husseinisdoingfine

Are Elon Musk's ideas here unhealthy?

128 posts in this topic

@Preety_India You don't need my permission to make threads.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, captainamerica said:

o.O

@aurum Why so? 

Read the posts I wrote earlier in the thread, I explained my position there.

 

 

 


Loving a new world into being.

Energy healing, music making, tree hugging, sacred being.

YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/k_gzVJIeTlI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Space said:

100% I don't deny the hippy consciousness. I am a Green hippy at heart ^_^ I just recognise its limitations. It's why I perceive Musk in a much better light than a lot of people. He has a lot of Orange, but I also recognise his Green heart and Green intentions. He wants to save the world, but he's doing it with a rational, logical and scientific mindset, which is people think he's only in it for the money.

And I don't doubt his intentions either. I'm criticizing his paradigm, not his morality.

6 hours ago, Space said:

The solution to the car problem is a complete replacement of all petrol cars over the next 20-30 years, in addition to a complete transformation of our energy network. This has to happen - full stop. Governments don't have any incentive to do this. So it has to be done through a capitalistic business. Tesla is forcing this into action by producing electric vehicles that are better than petrol cars. This is forcing all the other car companies to follow or they'll go bankrupt. 

This is not a guarantee at all.

This assumes that a) the biggest ecological crisis we face is climate change and b) that climate change can be solved by reducing a simple metric like carbon.

In reality, climate change is just a symptom of a much larger ecological crisis being caused by industrial civilization.

The economic incentive and paradigm we have for solving this is simply to replace one huge industrial project (petrol cars) with another one (electric cars). This is justified by statistics in carbon reduction emissions.

But of course, you cannot reduce the ecological healing that needs to happen to reducing carbon. Not even close.

We are headed for a world where we see nature as alive. And that changes everything.

Governments have every incentive to act on the ecological crisis. They are the public sphere, it's there job to actually care about the welfare of everyone. But the problem is the government has been massively corrupted by the private sphere.

6 hours ago, Space said:

I don't deny that we shouldn't be planting trees. It's extremely important. Only it won't solve the environmental crisis. Its a much deeper issue.

If our concern is actually healing the ecology, I'd take planting a tree over an electric car any day. Just saying.


Loving a new world into being.

Energy healing, music making, tree hugging, sacred being.

YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/k_gzVJIeTlI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 7:40 AM, 4201 said:

But if feeling tells you to work 80h/week, nothing's gonna stop you and it's not the number that's gonna kill you.

Authentic feeling will never tell you to work 80h/week, at least not consistently.

That's what you're not willing to admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@aurum How do you think that will solve the problem of meeting the needs of the growing population? Should people just stop having babies?

Also, counter-intuitively, "just planting a tree" is not even viable. Even if we assume the resources and transportation, who will do it for you?  It's not "just planting a tree", lot more is happening beneath the surface.

Are a thousand such people willing to live in forests, away from the society, and do such work. Then how do you expect a shift in the needs of the other billions of people? They want the housing with heating capacity, social media, tech and a sense of security for their future. And so do the people with utopian ideas as they have the same needs which is why they won't move to forest in large numbers to form an alternative community. 

Edited by captainamerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, aurum said:

They are the public sphere, it's there job to actually care about the welfare of everyone. But the problem is the government has been massively corrupted by the private sphere.

What about the govt. of China? 

https://theconversation.com/with-the-us-now-calling-chinas-treatment-of-the-uyghurs-genocide-how-should-nz-respond-153717

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/china-surveillance/552203/

What about the govt. of Pakistan?

They funded terrorism. And still do, after the terrorists started bombing their own country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism

https://www.britannica.com/event/Peshawar-school-massacre

The idea that socialism or abolishing private companies will solve corruption is BS. Corruption will just take another form, probably worst than it is now as the degree of coordination at a national level relative to the avg. person's development will be significantly less. 

In the time of Kings, they use to marry their daughters to the rival king so there is no war among them and kings will have multiple wives. Corruption will just change the form and likely degrade even more due lack of proper system, that's not solving the problem...

Edited by captainamerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/01/2021 at 8:43 AM, aurum said:

That includes space mining, hyperloops, AI or whatever else.

But again, be careful about trying to solve problems caused by technology and development with more technology and development.

1. Those technologies are not even made yet. They are in very early stages, far from the imagination.

2. At a certain level that's like saying be careful about replacing one set of cells in the body with another set of cells. That's how it happens. Do you see what Technology is fundamentally?

Consciousness and Tech are like the lower limbs of a person. Saying one is overly important and you don't care about losing the other just doesn't make sense.

Edited by captainamerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, captainamerica said:

How do you think that will solve the problem of meeting the needs of the growing population? Should people just stop having babies?

How will what solve the problem? I didn't recommend any policy or actions people should take. I'm pointing out flaws in the narrative.

11 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Also, counter-intuitively, "just planting a tree" is not even viable. Even if we assume the resources and transportation, who will do it for you?  It's not "just planting a tree", lot more is happening beneath the surface.

I can assure that if I were to make a policy proposal, it would not just say "plant trees". I am making a point about what real ecological health looks like.

You're projecting all sorts of arguments I never made.

11 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Are a thousand such people willing to live in forests, away from the society, and do such work. Then how do you expect a shift in the needs of the other billions of people? They want the housing with heating capacity, social media, tech and a sense of security for their future. And so do the people with utopian ideas as they have the same needs which is why they won't move to forest in large numbers to form an alternative community. 

Again, I never argued this. Saying there needs to be a reduction in energy / consumption is not the same as saying "everyone go live in the forest tomorrow!!!".

I admit that these are extraordinarily complex social problems that do not have simple solutions.

However, I wouldn't be so sure that people want what you claim they want. That is, again, your own bias.

People want to meet their needs, sure. But what are our real needs? And how do we meet them? These are not trivial questions with obvious answers.

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

None of this takes away from my argument. The point is not that government cannot be corrupt, it's that its function is to serve the public. Which is inherently vastly different than the private sector, which essentially exists to serve private interests.

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

The idea that socialism or abolishing private companies will solve corruption is BS. Corruption will just take another form, probably worst than it is now as the degree of coordination at a national level relative to the avg. person's development will be significantly less. 

Again, more projection of things I never argued. Of course corruption can change form. You can look at the massive corruption in the USSR.

I never argued to abolish private companies, nor did I argue for socialism. I am not a socialist. But your jumping to conclusion says something about your bias around socialism.

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

1. Those technologies are not even made yet. They are in very early stages, far from the imagination.

Doesn't matter, they are part of what many people believe will save us.

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

2. At a certain level that's like saying be careful about replacing one set of cells in the body with another set of cells. That's how it happens.

No. It's like saying that the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Do you see what Technology is fundamentally?

Do you?

Do you understand that tech is largely the ego's backward attempt at control and survival advantage?

Do you see that tech can massively backfire on us?

10 hours ago, captainamerica said:

Consciousness and Tech are like the lower limbs of a person. Saying one is overly important and you don't care about losing the other just doesn't make sense.

Despite everything I said, I am not anti-tech. I made it perfectly clear in my posts that I do not want to just get rid of technology. I said that tech can be beneficial and our ability to create it is a gift that humans possess.

But we need conscious tech. And that does not include the vast majority that is available right now. Most tech creation is highly unconscious.


Loving a new world into being.

Energy healing, music making, tree hugging, sacred being.

YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/k_gzVJIeTlI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 3:59 AM, Leo Gura said:

Elon Musk is the perfect example of a very smart stupid person.

I realize this critique was posted a couple of days ago...but this is the best summary of Elon Musk I have ever read. The fact @Leo Gura said it is icing on the cake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/26/2021 at 5:57 AM, Vrubel said:

Criticizing Musk is similar to criticizing Newton for Newtonian physics. Even though his science was not the highest truth his discoveries were crucial for lifting science and humanity to the next level and formed the basis on which people like Einstein could stand to further revolutionize science.

Musk isn't a physicist. He's an inventor, businessman, and engineer. He's closer to Thomas Edison than Isaac Newton. 

On 1/26/2021 at 6:39 AM, Preety_India said:

 I think this Elon Musk guy is fooling everyone. 

Don't get me wrong, I respect his work. 

But the price of his product actually means that there is no real global benefit. 

It obviously makes him rich but a few millionaires driving his car won't make much of a difference in the environment. 

The only people I know who drive Teslas are engineers who think and behave like Tesla, and people who want to virtue-signal they are environmentalists "making a difference." Not the average person on the street. 

On 1/26/2021 at 7:00 AM, Preety_India said:

Bill Gates was trying to make computers affordable to every home. And it happened.. Literally everyone had a computer. 

Computers from Microsoft were even available in India and other countries. 

I do see this as a huge step towards helping people by Gates. Because he made the home computer affordable to every home. 

But I don't see this with Tesla. 

This guy is selling the car, which is a car, not a new invention remember that, it's a car with a technology and he is selling at a price that even millionaires might have to think twice about before buying. 

Tell me how this is affordable? 

This is like selling a chic handbag at $20,000. Obviously the company will make tons of profit.

But I don't see how this will help everyone. Because nobody can afford it in the middle class. 

Even in the rich class, only a few people can afford. 

So kinda looks like pure luxury brand based capitalism to me to be honest. 

Bill Gates wanted a computer on every desk. A Tesla is a luxury car. While it was helpful that Tesla showed there is a market for electric vehicles, other more mainstream car companies are getting into the fray and will probably create electric vehicles that will capture a greater share of the market within the next few years. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aurum said:

I never argued to abolish private companies, nor did I argue for socialism. I am not a socialist. But your jumping to conclusion says something about your bias around socialism.

My man, what does this mean:

"

He's obsessed with science, rationality, technology, work, etc.

This is not how you save the planet.

"

You are also against "industrial civilization."

If, as of today, you remove those approaches then what are you left with? 

Anyway, I respect your unique position. No worries.:)

Edited by captainamerica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nobody_Here said:

A Tesla is a luxury car.

That's a rather myopic view.

Tesla's value is more it its amazing battery technology and proof of profit within the electric car market. This has been very significant and important for pushing the entire auto industry forward. So it's not just about luxury cars. Soon we will have $25-$30k electric cars with good range. That's as important as computers. The luxury aspect is irrelevant. It was just an entry point.

Also, Musk's ambition and vision goes way beyond luxury cars. Space exploration, affordable reusable rockets, and satellite internet -- these are all important and amazing things.

So while Musk is undoubtedly an ego-maniac, unlike most Wall Street types or CEOs, he's actually harnessing that ego's energy to help mankind is important ways for raising consciousness.

You definitely cannot dismiss Musk as yet another greedy vacuous capitalist Wall Street banker. He's much more than that. But he's still not exhibiting a very healthy or conscious lifestyle (by my high standards).


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So while Musk is undoubtedly an ego-maniac, unlike most Wall Street types or CEOs, he's actually harnessing that ego's energy to help mankind is important ways for raising consciousness.

 

@Leo Gura The definition I found online:

"An egomaniac is a person who's obsessively self-absorbed. An egomaniac might only take photos of himself — never of another person."

Whereas your more nuanced definition includes someone who values external things more than his internal states or lifestyle and that's why Musk is an ego-maniac(?)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@captainamerica An ego-maniac is just someone with a big ego.

I'm guilty of it myself. The difference is I'm not out there promoting ego-mania and I will correct myself.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura @Leo GuraG

 

What do you think about his toughness with unions. Doesn't allow the workers to unionize. 

 

 

Edited by Preety_India

INTP loner....... Nothing else but to enjoy  the rest of my dream. Love it. 

Preety preety

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura

What do you think about his toughness with unions. Doesn't allow the workers to unionize.

That's part of his stage Orange and his egotism.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@captainamerica An ego-maniac is just someone with a big ego.

I'm guilty of it myself. The difference is I'm not out there promoting ego-mania and I will correct myself.

I don´t think he is more ego-maniac than a regular person.

He just have a sick personality which is oriented to pursue goals all the time. He was already like that when he was a kid.

 

I would say half narcissistic half idealistic dreamer

 

 

I agree he is not someone to imitate. Maybe just in his entrepreneurial enthusiasm and doing things efficiently. Of course work all the time is not same. It's a stupid Protestant idea; it has secular a theological explanation. My country is catholic and I never heard anybody saying it is good to work +40 hours wheares that achiever mentality is very popular in the US.

 

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2021 at 3:47 AM, Matt23 said:

@Yog  Luh dees peeps.  I think they're on to something with their system.  I wonder though how much they consider stages of development in their model.  I know they said to me they do consider other psychological theories and models and that they did mention that they think or notice there are levels of consciousness within personality types.  

Yeah, me too. It was about time for someone to take MBTI out of the flaky abstract waters and turn it into something concrete, consistent and scientific.  Also like the fact that they focus more on the original idea that Jung had behind the cognitive functions, having more of a diagnosis vibe.

I never heard them talk about other models too, they seem to use the undeveloped/developed language to indicate something vertical, but that's all there is. I would love to see someone talk more on how types mash with stages, especially SD stages.

Did you get typed by them btw ? You said you had personal contact.


O.o Ooo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Yog No, not yet.  I signed up and was thinking about it, but it kind of felt like a distraction at this point in my life.  You get typed?


"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down"   --   Marry Poppins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now