Entry 2141, on 2021-07-23 at 21:24:59 (Rating 3, Comments)
I have a love/hate relationship with capitalism. I realise that in theory it should produce optimal outcomes because of the "invisible hand of the market", but it never really works that way in practice. However, other forms of economics, especially more socialist models with central control, are generally even worse. So I support a mixed model where capitalism does most of the work, and that is supplemented and steered by sensible and moderate central controls. Of course, this is exactly what all countries have, to varying extents.
Maybe the most notable individual beneficiary of capitalism is the world's richest person: Jeff Bezos. He has been criticised in the past for the vast wealth he has accumulated while paying very little tax and treating his employees quite poorly. This is a fair criticism, but I think the real underlying problem people have is that he is just too successful. People don't like that, and this is often referred to as the "politics of envy".
Most recently, Bezos has received even more criticism than the normal background noise after taking a short ride in his new rocket to the edge of space with three selected fellow travellers. This has been criticised for many reasons, and here is a summary of the most common ones...
1. He should spend the money on something more valuable, like fixing poverty around the world, or stopping global warming, or some other very admirable goal.
2. He should be paying his employees more and he should pay a fairer share of tax instead of taking huge profits and spending them on a "vanity project", like commercial space travel.
3. The rocket launch generated about as much atmospheric carbon in 10 minutes as the average person does in a lifetime (an unverified statistic), so it would be better is he didn't do it at all.
4. Government organisations, like NASA, are the more logical choice to carry out space exploration, and private companies, like Bezos' Blue Origin should just keep out.
5. Bezos is a typical toxic white male boomer, and everything he does reflects his out of date attitudes to society and politics.
All of these points have some degree of validity, although some have very little, and are fundamentally irrational, but let's have a look at them, one at a a time...
First, should he be fixing poverty (or participate in some other noble social cause) instead of building a space launch company?
Well sure, if that was possible that would be a worthwhile aim, but it isn't possible for several reasons, including the fact that most poverty is a political problem rather than an economic one. We could throw as much money as we could at poverty in some parts of the world and it would all be wasted because the underlying problem is caused by military or religious conflict, or political corruption, and in most cases, all of those.
We must also ask: is that his responsibility? He is a private citizen and under no legal obligation to try to fix anyone else's problems. He does pay some tax and that is intended to be used partly to fix social problems. Beyond that he is not legally responsible. But is he morally responsible? Well, that is more debatable, but I would say no.
Note also, that a common definiton of poverty relates the income of the population in poverty to the median income for that society. By this definition there will always be people in poverty no matter how much money is thrown at the problem.
Second, should be pay his employees better, and pay more tax? Well, morally I would say yes, but what he is doing is fully legal so maybe the onus is on the law makers to ensure that he does more in these areas.
Also, if he was using his vast wealth to buy luxury yachts, private pleasure islands, and fancy sports cars only, then I would say more criticism is due. But putting the money into what I consider a more valuable and noble cause: making space more accessible, is easier to justify. I know many people will disagree, but I will support this view more later.
Third, is exploring space too damaging to the environment and is it something we should abandon, or at least minimise?
Again, many people would say yes, but I disagree. Sure, like every human endeavour, there are environmental consequences to space launches, but looking at the bigger picture we can see that the environmental impact of this is quite trivial when compared with power generation, conventional transport, and many other activities.
Fourth, is space exploration an activity which is better handled by state institutions, rather than the private sector?
I fully concede that there are problems with the commercialisation of space, but like everything else, I think there is a place for both commercial and state funded activities. The government should fund and administer scientific and experimental missions, and the private sector should be able to innovate in other areas.
It is difficult to imagine a private company being interested in developing, launching, and maintaining a scientific project like the Hubble Space Telescope, for example, but NASA has become bureaucratic and inefficient and people like Elon Musk (and to a lesser extent, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson) have shown how much more effective they can be.
Finally, the rather common, but hysterical and nonsensical point that Bezos - along with all the other private entrepreneurs working in private space projects - are "toxic white male boomers". OK, maybe they are, but without that demographic nothing would get done. I think we should celebrate toxic masculinity, whiteness, and people of the boomer era. They are the ones getting things done.
To illustrate this attitude I will mention an incident I experienced recently. I was working with an older female professor in humanities (I won't describe her any further to preserve her anonymity) and she casually brushed off my admiration for Elon Musk (because I admire him far more than Bezos) with a comment like "oh yes, the boys and their toys", as if that was a valid response with any merit.
Well yes, it was the boys and their toys which gave her almost everything she has and takes for granted today. Without them, we would still be living in the dark ages, or worse. You can promote as much woke, female driven, kindness as you want, but it will get you nowhere. And I think that is a big problem with the world today: the rise of feminine values. To be fair, they have some merit, and kindess is good, but they are the path to mediocrity and lack of tangible progress.
So, I say well done to Jeff Bezos, as well as Richard Branson and (especially) Elon Musk. They may be boys who are building fancy toys, but in the long run, that is exactly what we need more of.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-07-27 at 16:35:17:
I'm a bit torn about this. I do hate the boys and their toys sexist comment - one wouldn't dare say "girls and their dolls" would they?
However, the three "boys" are a bit egocentric, and if their goal was to better man/humankind then I wouldn't necessarily have an issue. However, I strongly suspect that in the case of all three, the ego has driven the act, and even if there are side benefits for "mankind", this is not their primary motivation and they are able to be judged on that.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-07-28 at 08:55:14:
Yes, there is the double-standard aspect of this. That was so obvious, and so widely seen today, that I didn't even comment on it!
Are those three a bit egocentric? Undoubtedly, although maybe not so much in Elon Musk's case. Is that a problem? I don't think so. That is all part of the economic model many people support where the individual striving to achieve for themselves, benefits society as a whole. Is that the only possible model? Obviously not. Is it the best model? Arguably, yes.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE