TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Site Claims Musk & Tesla Are Anti-Environmental

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by cshafer, Nov 9, 2009.

?

Because Elon Musk has so many kids is he being environmentally irresponsible?

Poll closed Nov 23, 2009.
  1. No, Go ye forth and multiply.

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  2. No, if he can afford it, so what.

    4 vote(s)
    18.2%
  3. Yes, over-population is root of all other environmental problems, so he looks like a hypocrite.

    2 vote(s)
    9.1%
  4. He may not be green, but it shouldn't affect the positive eco impact of his cars.

    10 vote(s)
    45.5%
  5. We should not be interested in his personal life

    3 vote(s)
    13.6%
  1. cshafer

    cshafer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6
  2. qwk

    qwk Model S P2681

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,817
    I didn't click on the link because it's probably not safe, but this looks like another spambot posting.
     
  3. NBB1

    NBB1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7
    It's interesting that Steven Kotler has adopted the tactic of personally attacking a proponent of green "initiatives" (for lack of a better umbrella term) that is often used by anti-environmentalists. One can find innumerable examples of people attacking Al Gore for alleged hypocrisy on environmental issues because it's effectively impossible for a person like Al Gore to have zero impact on the environment (i.e., try to tour the world promoting green initiatives with zero impact or in an electric vehicle).

    It's incredibly easy and lazy, and I expect more of somebody who is allegedly "pro" environment to use such a tactic. If it wasn't "too many children", you could find something else Musk did that wasn't 100% eco-friendly. It's ridiculous to take a personal activity and use it to attack something as far reaching as Tesla and what it means for the development of electric cars in the United States.

    Second, having too many children? Really? Is he *really* attacking having 5 kids? Why not take that to the logical conclusion and say environmentalists shouldn't have any children? That would be *really* eco-friendly. How many children is OK according to Kotler? When you start criticizing someone for not being environmentally sound because they have children, you're really sliding down a slippery slope into ridiculousness. A slippery slope that can lead to all sorts of endless bickering about "who is eco-friendly *enough*?" that can lead to nothing good.

    So, in the end, I think this guy not only makes a terrible argument, but it's completely counter-productive to what it appears that he is supporting.
     
  4. tomsax

    tomsax Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Sammamish, WA
    While I agree that our growing population is the biggest problem our species faces, dismissing the value that Tesla Motors has in either solving our petroleum-based transportation problem or motivating the big automakers to do something helpful simply because the CEO has five kids is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

    Do you suppose there's a single automaker on the planet that has no executives with two or more kids? And why limit this argument to automakers? By Kotler's reasoning, before doing business with any company, we should look at all the employees to see if there's anyone at the company that isn't sufficiently green to earn our business, while we're living in our off-grid yurt and eating only vegetables from our own organic garden.

    Frankly, anyone who is blogging is using more than their share of the planet's resources, me included. That doesn't mean we can't make significant progress toward a sustainable economy by driving electric.
     
  5. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    What a ridiculous hack job. Yes, over population is a problem, but there are other issues to consider. Elon has gone on record as saying he basically thinks that it's a moral obligation for smart people to have more kids so that we have more smart people around. He might have said it with more tact (or not), but basically he'd like to counter balance the prevailing trend:

    Idiocracy - Opening Sequence - Video
     
  6. Arnold Panz

    Arnold Panz Model Sig 304, VIN 542

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    Amen. And didn't Musk have twins and triplets? Not that it would be a big deal if he had planned on having 5 kids, but it doesn't sound like that was the case at all.
     
  7. cshafer

    cshafer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Overpopulation is THE top environmental proplem

    First, I'm not a SPAMbot.

    Second, there is no danger in clicking the link--or just copying it into one's browser. Also, it can be accessed from digg at The Anti-Environmentalism of Tesla Motors� Elon Musk

    Third, I reread the essay attacking Musk and think the author has a good point. If one is environmentally irresponsible in his personal life, how can he be taken seriously when he tries to sell a "green" product.

    But what really bothers me, if it is true, is Musk saying that smart people should have more kids than other people. This is not a good survival tactic for the human race. What we need is a good mix of spiritual people, physically strong people, creative people, empathetic people and most importantly people who are NOT arrogant--a criteria Musk does NOT meet. Arrogance has gotten us into many more problems than smart people have ever been able to get us out of. If Musk really in favor of eugenics?
     
  8. Palpatine

    Palpatine Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Seattle
    #8 Palpatine, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
    Tom, I have seen that little shack you live in. Blogging is not even registering in your footprint. :)
    Or mine.
     
  9. domenick

    domenick Nerd

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Location:
    Florida
    Apparently this Kotler guy is not too keen on anyone having kids. This guy's twisted, ill-informed logic makes me seeth, so I shall stop typing now before I say something like, "Too bad his Mother hadn't had that same attitude" or something similar.
     
  10. Palpatine

    Palpatine Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Seattle
    #10 Palpatine, Nov 10, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2009
    This is always going to be a very touchy subject. Many people feel the need to have a child and continue their family in some manner. My two kids are the best thing ever for me and I find a great deal of happiness raising them.

    So it would be very hypocritical for me to suggest that others not have that same experience. Should everyone else sacrafice their future family except those that already have children? That doesn't seem like it will fly.

    At the same time, overpopulation of the planet is clearly an issue.
    Family planning seems like the answer. Two children per family.

    Most of Europe and Russia are already in a population decline with less than 2 children per family. It is mostly the developing world with massive population growth.

    From my amateur reading on the topic, the best thing to do is education of women so they have other opportunities.

    This really has nothing to do with Tesla and it is idiotic to target Elon Musk as anti-environmental because of his children. Elon Musk has funded Solar City and Tesla Motors. I think he has done FAR more than most of us to advance renewable energy and sustainable transportation technology.
     
  11. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    Launching personal attacks to make a largely unrelated point is bad enough, but attacking someone's family is decidedly uncool!
     
  12. cshafer

    cshafer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Two kids per family is a good policy because then human populations will decline, which is what we need to do since we have already far exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet according to most experts.
     
  13. AntronX

    AntronX Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Miami, FL, USA
    Actually, dumb people tend to reproduce in greater numbers than smart, so Musk's case is a noble cause. See Idiocracy.
     
  14. qwk

    qwk Model S P2681

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,817
    I apologize. I saw this was post #1, along with logic that doesn't make any sense.
     
  15. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    I don't think you need to apologize. It had many tell tale spam signs.
     
  16. JRP3

    JRP3 Hyperactive Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,142
    Location:
    Central New York
    Overpopulation is our most serious problem, but attacking Musk for his existing family has no bearing on Tesla's environmental impact. I'd rather see Octo-Musk than Octo-Mom.
     
  17. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    #17 vfx, Nov 12, 2009
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
    ABG
     
  18. richkae

    richkae VIN587

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,917
    totally disagree

    I totally disagree that overpopulation is the worlds biggest problem.

    A far greater problem is that a small fraction of the world's population consome most of the world's resources and thus the worlds food. There is enough food produced in the world every year to feed everyone on the planet, but the poorest cannot afford it.

    Most of the countries where hunger is widespread are actually net food exporters, they export to the rich countries that can pay more for their food as animal feed than the poor can afford to spend to consume it themselves.

    The "new green revolution" stuff is bunk. If we produced more food there would just be a slightly larger group at the top eating luxury food items while the same poor were hungry.

    If everyone in the world had the same consumption footprint of those in the US, the sustainable population of the planet would probably be less than half of what it is now. Who wants to tell the other half?


    Read: World Hunger 10 myths by Lappe,Collins,Rosset
     
  19. richkae

    richkae VIN587

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,917
    environmental impact of a dog

    Without debating the validity of the dog vs land cruiser point, of which I am dubious, I am quite confident that a hamburger has a much larger environmental impact than a dog.
     
  20. doug

    doug Administrator / Head Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    15,914
    Location:
    Stanford, California
    Really? A single hamburger versus the entire lifetime consumption of a dog? What if that dog eats hamburgers?
     

Share This Page