>It turns out it’s all true. The cars are impressive and their flaws get covered up. Musk is a lying ignorant grifter and he has inspired innovation in the electric car industry. Understanding that these seemingly contradictory things can be true simultaneously is important, because societies who cannot hold these two ideas at the same time may end up following scam artists and false prophets off the cliff and into the abyss.<p>===<p>Societal Donatism, Bastian Rieck
<a href="https://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2021/donatism/" rel="nofollow">https://bastian.rieck.me/blog/posts/2021/donatism/</a><p>Donatists were a group of Christians in the fourth century. Their core tenet was that priests need to be ‘faultless’ in order for their prayers and for their sacraments to be valid.<p>Societal Donatism & Its Implications<p>I believe that some recent trends can be seen as a form of Societal Donatism. By this, I refer to the unspoken requirement that any creator in our society needs to be (almost) faultless or (almost) morally impeccable in order for their work to be allowed to persist in the public sphere. If, retroactively, it transpires that a person committed a crime or behaved in an untoward manner, their work is immediately called into question. Are we still allowed to enjoy their music, their films, their lecture materials? Should their awards—if any—be revoked?
The author asks,"Is one of these facts untrue?". Clearly the answer is that the second "fact" is not a fact it's just provocative ranting from the mouth of yet another journalist who's trying to get clicks by invoking Musk's name.<p>Most people's view of economics serve primarily as an intellectual Rorschach Test and in this case both Musk's and this author's perceptions seem wide of the bull's eye but in opposite directions.<p>Economics has almost no "first principles" of which Musk is fond and so he lacks a reference point. The author on the other hand seems to be one of those who makes up their reality out of whole cloth. In short a "hedgehog" according to the book "The Signal and the Noise".<p>Surely we can do much better than Nathan J. Robinson.
I read the article to see 'how' we could do better. Certainly Musk could do better, especially on Twitter.<p>> But we can do better. Shannon Stirone of the Atlantic contrasts the futurism of Elon Musk with that of Carl Sagan, the great humanist astronomer, who had a far more socialistic vision, one that emphasized the universe’s beauty and mystery, and the folly of our earthly power struggles:<p>> Sagan inspired generations of writers, scientists, and engineers who felt compelled to chase the awe that he dug up from the depths of their heart. Everyone who references Sagan as a reason they are in their field connects to the wonder of being human, and marvels at the luck of having grown up and evolved on such a beautiful, rare planet. The influence Musk is having on a generation of people could not be more different. Musk has used the medium of dreaming and exploration to wrap up a package of entitlement, greed, and ego. He has no longing for scientific discovery, no desire to understand what makes Earth so different from Mars, how we all fit together and relate. Musk is no explorer; he is a flag planter.<p>Wow. This seems a very apples to oranges comparison and misses the point. We need both--what's the purpose of all that enthusiasm if not to eventually <i>do</i> something.