-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New Holding Co - X
- Thread starter Paul_SF
- Start date
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
For the purposes of epistemological discussion, I immediately foresee fearful forces fraught with frightening outcomes.
I decide, for example, that a dedication of human endeavor to the long-term benefit of the planet most appropriately can occur were each person to apply himself or herself to productive work by abstaining from procreating until, as in my and my wife’s situation, when he is in his 7th decade and she in her 5th. Were this to be universal, then humans would be using their 20s - 40s/50s not just working productively, undistracted by the indisputably challenging task of raising offspring, but also would be gaining the wisdom and maturity and, in the kind of socioeconomic situation present in the United States, the economic security so beneficial to thereafter be so much more able to nurture a child. From my own experience, I’m reasonably confident that few parents of such age would be so eager to raise more than a very, very small number of children; thus other incentives to limit offspring to two or even one would likely not be necessary.
The multi-generational repercussions of this action very quickly would bring the earth’s human population, and its depredations of the rest of its natural systems, to responsible levels. Goal achieved.
BUT - regardless of how effectively such a proposal would work, how well would it be received in, oh, about 100.00% of this planet’s societies?
More succinctly: who is to decide the goals?
I decide, for example, that a dedication of human endeavor to the long-term benefit of the planet most appropriately can occur were each person to apply himself or herself to productive work by abstaining from procreating until, as in my and my wife’s situation, when he is in his 7th decade and she in her 5th. Were this to be universal, then humans would be using their 20s - 40s/50s not just working productively, undistracted by the indisputably challenging task of raising offspring, but also would be gaining the wisdom and maturity and, in the kind of socioeconomic situation present in the United States, the economic security so beneficial to thereafter be so much more able to nurture a child. From my own experience, I’m reasonably confident that few parents of such age would be so eager to raise more than a very, very small number of children; thus other incentives to limit offspring to two or even one would likely not be necessary.
The multi-generational repercussions of this action very quickly would bring the earth’s human population, and its depredations of the rest of its natural systems, to responsible levels. Goal achieved.
BUT - regardless of how effectively such a proposal would work, how well would it be received in, oh, about 100.00% of this planet’s societies?
More succinctly: who is to decide the goals?
It would allow us small fish a way to invest in other Musk company's.
SpaceX being a big one.
it makes no practical sense, honestly. Some people want children, some don’t.
What’s for sure is that we might see a population collapse in the future.
The idea that we are too many is flawed, and Elon explained that in the interview in Germany I think.
Every society that gets out of poverty and gains comfortable lives, as a rule, it seems to make less offsprings. They don’t make 2 copies of themselves to replace themselves, they usually make 1 and put everything they have in them.
but this discussion should be on a different thread, I think.
henderrj
Active Member
Of course, the effect on the child should possibly be considered as well. it's a sad state that we have children not for the child, but for ourselves nowadays.
What would be the benefit of creating a holding company? I don't understand what problem it is solving. I also don't understand the point of Alphabet for Google and Waymo.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
In the big picture, that might only be happening because we're still in scarcity mode and haven't transitioned to a society based on sustainable abundance. Once that happens you might find people much more willing to reproduce recreationally.
As a 43 year old, I can tell you this generation has had an absurdly stressful and unhealthy time parenting on average. We're the first generation not only expected to have a two spouse income, but actually for a long time shamed mom's who weren't in the workplace. Not easy when income has been flat literally our entire lives and costs were 4-10x the 70's-80's.
We've been spread too thin, but that's just a function of scarcity and peak wealth inequality IMO. It'll rapidly reverse starting 2025 or so. I think you'll see a nice flat "replacement rate" after that. Though who knows, maybe we'll have some really awesome birth control and cure all venereal disease by then!
As for "X"......I love the idea. It would allow Elon to tiptoe away from the Tesla automotive day-to-day and flatten a lot of the equity volatility that comes with Tesla. With SPACs and these new direct IPO rules, I say we do it next week!
Also, explain to me why we aren't just making up stuff like this and "leaking" it like these hedge fund clowns just did with the Apple EV "news". We need to be more coordinated and ruthless!
LN1_Casey
Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus
I'd be excited for investment into a conglomerate of Overlord Musk's companies. I mean, they're all fairly connected anyway (ie, SpaceX using Tesla Motors, Boring company making a rave cave under a Gigafactory, etc), but this would be more direct of helping the mission as a whole and not just a branch of it.
Once Overlord passes however, it would be a frighteningly powerful entity. Hopefully would get passed into good hands.
Once Overlord passes however, it would be a frighteningly powerful entity. Hopefully would get passed into good hands.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
jhm
Well-Known Member
Given all the drama Tesla experienced as a public company until recently and Elon's views that SpaceX shouldn't go public until it's sustainably cash flow positive, Elon's support for this idea may suggest that he believes Tesla will have sufficient cash flow to ensure the whole "X" enterprise is sufficiently cash flow positive to avoid the nasty "run on the bank" tactics of short sellers. Or perhaps he is thinking that this idea would make sense when Starlink is a little more mature and generating cash, which shouldn't take too long. Either way, will be interesting to see how this unfolds.
Similar threads
