> Although most Fellows are elected on the basis of their scientific contributions, others are nominated on the basis of "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication". [Italics in original.]
But yes, you hit the nail on the head about Musk being within their supposed scope, but a disastrously bad fit for their org. Making him a Fellow (back in 2018) was a self-serving idiot move by the Society. And now the Wages of Dim are adding up.
The Royal Society is a club for great scientists and it has erred by expanding its definition of "contribution to science" to include businessmen and financiers who contribute through money and influence.
No it's not lol. you just decided to ignore the criteria for membership and invent your own, like a phD being requisite (it is not.)
Also, to call Musk a "businessman" is reductive as hell. I know a lot of people have pressure to hate him because of political reasons, but be real for once.
I was purposefully avoiding politics. You brought that up.