Elon also experienced near-death back in 2000 during a visit to South Africa. He almost died from cerebral malaria. (According to an interview) He tweeted about it here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/152394000857448448
Elon also experienced near-death back in 2000 during a visit to South Africa. He almost died from cerebral malaria. (According to an interview) He tweeted about it here: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/152394000857448448
I've always been in awe of Elon and quite simply that doesn't seem like changing any day soon.
This might be true. But Elon stands to be the first private citizen with a chance to reach the moon or Mars. The chance is (admittedly) slim, but the expected value of being commercially successful at reaching the moon or Mars is exponentially greater than Microsoft.
I'd be more surprised if he didn't reach the moon or Mars
Zubrin has argued that the colonization of Mars is analogous to North America, and will produce unprecendented wealth.
No, good point. That one doesn't count as pedantry on your part, but as a d'oh on my part!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historical_f...
John D. Rockefeller: US$392 billion to US$663.4 billion in adjusted dollars for the late 2000s, and it is estimated that his personal fortune was equal to 1.53% of the total U.S. annual GDP in his day. PS: He was worth a billion dollars in
Cornelius Vanderbilt: US$178.4 billion adjusted for the late 2000s; Henry Ford: $188.1 billion; Andrew Carnegie US$75 billion to US$297.8 billion; , Astor has a real wealth estimated at some US$116 billion when adjusted for the late 2000s; John D. Rockefeller
Is donating your fortune to charity in your will really altruistic? You're just giving away something you would no longer need, something which you wouldn't be able to use in any way after you're dead.
On the other hand, by writing that will now, you get to feel damn good about yourself and also have a lot of people praise you.
I think the people volunteering their life and their youth for an NGO and going to work with people in need NOW are the ones who deserve praise, not billionaires who are pledging to helping the poor without risking anything. I wish I could be one of the former, yet our society always encourages and rewards the latter.
NB. I'm not arguing against Ellon Musk, I'm arguing against the way you phrased that sentence, and what people are sometimes mislead into viewing as a great deeds. See also Orwell's Burmese days.
That sentence was from Elon Musk himself, not mine. So really, you're arguing against Elon Musk. Did you even read the picture I posted? http://i.imgur.com/Mnk7U.jpg
He goes further on twitter to set the basic premise that it's better to try to address some of the world's problems than to create an aristocracy of wealth.
He has donated to charitable organizations like MSF, UNICEF, Peace & Justice, Doctors without Borders, and personally bought presents for kids at the orphanage on Xmas. His established Musk Foundation helps to promote science education, pediatric health and clean energy.
All of his companies has the ultimate goal of having a positive effect on the world, whether it's space exploration, solar energy generation, or electric cars. Elon personally said that he worked 80-100 hours a week for 15 years, and at one point invested nearly all of his assets in order to keep Tesla & SpaceX alive back in 2008. Source: http://archive.mensjournal.com/elon-musk%E2%80%99s-risky-bus...
Your claim of Elon being one of those billionaires pledging to help the poor without risking anything is flat out wrong. He risked everything and gave it his all, to the point of waking up in tears during the 2008 economic crash, when he thought all 3 companies would die and his marriage was ruined. He almost had a nervous breakdown. Source: 34:42 mark http://www.bloomberg.com/video/73460184-elon-musk-profiled-b...
1. Give away your money after you make it.
2. Give away your money as you make it.
3. Stop making money once you've earned enough of it.
Elon has chosen #1, and that is a viable option. It's viable because fortune begets fortune, and if he'd chosen #2 (or certainly #3) he might not have been able to create as much wealth.
That fact that he's not choosing to set his children up for life (apart from, I'd imagine, enough to get them through grad school comfortably) is to his credit and to their ultimate benefit.