Musk, Twitter and the future: His long-term vision is weirder than you think
salon.com
salon.com
So instead of caring about everyone suffering and humanity being wiped out, he should only care about the suffering of "poor people in the Global South"? And we're meant to believe that this author's moral compass is better calibrated than Elon's?
I really don't like Elon Musk, but I think you're correct on this point.
That is, "99.99% of the people died, but the race survived, so we're all good" is a worse moral vision than "only caring about the poor people in the Global South".
For example, Elon believes that Starship's launch costs[0] will be $10/kg, and the average human adult weighs about 70kg, so they would need $700 to pay for a ticket (ignoring food costs). Over 90% of the world's population earns more than $1.90 per day, so it would take about a year for them to buy their ticket.
(Okay, admittedly, they will probably end up having to pay for their ticket with money they earn on Mars, since the currencies of an uninhabitable Earth won't be much use to their Martian rescuers, and thus these refugees will effectively be indentured servants in a horrific twisted parody of the transatlantic slave trade, but this awful moral vision would only have to last for a couple of years while they paid off their debt.)
But even that isn't the issue. Here's what I think the real issue is: Let's say Earth is going to be uninhabitable in 100 years. There's 8 billion people. OK, are you going to be able to move 80 million people a year?
And, you've got a self-sustaining Mars colony? That's nice. Can it sustain 8 billion people?
> More recently, Bostrom has said that "unrestricted altruism is not so common that we can afford to fritter it away on a plethora of feel-good projects of suboptimal efficacy," such as helping the poor, solving world hunger, promoting LGBTQ rights and women's equality, fighting racism, eliminating factory farming and so on.
If you actually link to the article, the quoted sentence does exist, but the following implications very clearly are absent. There is no such suggestion that "fighting racism" is a "project of suboptimal efficacy". This is very clearly a disingenuous argument.
As are many of the other of the article's points. There's plenty of room for honest and productive critique - this is not that.