More Everything Forever

2025-04-2316:13157291www.nytimes.com

In “More Everything Forever,” the science journalist Adam Becker subjects Silicon Valley’s “ideology of technological salvation” to critical scrutiny.

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

In “More Everything Forever,” the science journalist Adam Becker subjects Silicon Valley’s “ideology of technological salvation” to critical scrutiny.

This photo shows a desolate landscape of brown rubble on the surface of Mars.
Surface radiation and toxic dust are among the issues humans would face on Mars, Adam Becker writes; life there is bound to be worse than life on our own planet. Credit...NASA/Jpl-Caltech

MORE EVERYTHING FOREVER: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity, by Adam Becker

Elon Musk predicts that a million Earthlings will be living on Mars in 20 years — not just for the exciting adventure but as a matter of survival: “We must preserve the light of consciousness by becoming a space-faring civilization & extending life to other planets.”

Not so fast, says the science journalist Adam Becker. As he puts it in his smart and wonderfully readable new book, “More Everything Forever,” life on Mars is bound to be worse than life on our own planet, however much ecological havoc we have wreaked.

Becker, who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics and is the author of a previous (equally readable) book about quantum theory, clearly lays out the many problems of getting to, and surviving on, the Red Planet. There is the not insignificant issue of enormous amounts of surface radiation. There is also the not insignificant issue of the toxic dust. Exposure to Martian air will boil the saliva off your tongue before it asphyxiates you.

And even if astronauts manage to build a system of pressurized tunnels for living underground — a very big if, given the difficulties of getting astronauts there, let alone construction materials — the number of people living in such bunkers would have to be pretty small. They would require regular shipments of food and water from Earth, presumably via Musk’s company SpaceX. “Even the air the Mars residents breathe would cost money,” Becker writes. It sounds like a miserable way to live. “Mars would make Antarctica look like Tahiti.”

The plan to colonize Mars is just one of the fantastical scenarios Becker writes about in “More Everything Forever,” which traces the various plans advanced by billionaire tech entrepreneurs in their grand bids to “save humanity.” From artificial intelligence to colonizing outer space, the animating force behind such projects is what Becker calls “the ideology of technological salvation.” The ideas it propagates have three main features, he says. First, they are reductive. Second, they are profitable, aligning neatly with the tech industry’s imperative of perpetual growth. Third, and most important, they offer transcendence — the promise of an imagined end that justifies blowing through any actual limits, including conventional morality.

The futuristic visions that flow from this ideology are binary: paradise or annihilation. Becker draws an incisive portrait of the debates over artificial intelligence, showing how A.I.’s champions and doomsayers occupy two sides of the same coin. On one side are techno-optimists like Ray Kurzweil, who predicts a day when all-powerful machines will eliminate poverty and disease and allow us to “live as long as we want.” The doomsayers, by contrast, worry about “A.I. alignment,” or the prospect that such machines will one day take our jobs or even kill us all. An influential thought experiment among the doomsayers involves a “superintelligence” whose sole goal is to manufacture as many paper clips as possible; eventually this creature turns everything into paper clips.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By aeturnum 2025-04-2317:1212 reply

    I am surprised this obviously correct take is so controversial! The problem, essentially, is that the "more everything forever" crowd wants to get paid for the idea of the future today and then will never actually deliver what they promise. They are selling snake oil for the new millennium.

    Yes, of course I support space travel and settling on mars. I expect that, if we doubled or tripled NASA's budget, we could get a few humans on mars within 100 years (optimistically). It will be hard! There are many problems to solve (as the book seems to note). There's a place there for SpaceX and all other competent private companies - I love public-private partnerships.

    I actually think this kind of low-information escapism about the future (we will "fix it" with technology in a way that is impossible) is similar to religious faith in a coming apocalypse. Faith in an impossible event raising you up and casting down your doubters and opponents. Technology can do a lot! It has a lot of potential! But we cannot fix any of our big problems (climate change, eventually making humans multi-planet, equality) with technology alone and the people who tell you we can just want to scam you out of your money.

    • By aoeusnth1 2025-04-241:474 reply

      100 years optimistically!? That's an incredibly pessimistic timeline, maybe one of the most hardline "nothing ever happens" outlooks I've ever heard articulated.

      • By pasquinelli 2025-04-244:043 reply

        that's crazy to say. mars is very cold and very dry and not shielded from radiation and doesn't have much air and that air isn't breathable.

        i wouldn't say we've settled antarctica, which is on our planet and has air.

        100 years would be a wild amount of time for us to settle mars.

        • By rsynnott 2025-04-2412:32

          It's also particularly awkward to land on, as it has just enough atmosphere to be annoying, but not enough to be particularly helpful. Most Mars landings have involved some sort of ridiculous Rube Goldberg machine or other (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_crane_(landing_system) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Pathfinder#Entry,_descent... ) which would not be viable for humans (and were only arguably viable for the probes they were used for; the risk of failure was high).

        • By peterlada 2025-04-244:28

          Add to that a soil and dust that's toxic to humans. Our biology, unsurprisingly, is only compatible with a single planet.

        • By b112 2025-04-248:521 reply

          We purposefully decided not to settle there socially, yet we have settled there permanently with research and military stations.

          Just as we will with Mars.

          And yes we grow things there, even if just green onions and herbs.

          Not to mention the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by.

          100 years is beyond pessimistic. We could easily have settled Mars with 1970s tech.

          • By griffzhowl 2025-04-2414:061 reply

            > the reason for this isn't that it is insurmountable, merely that far better land is close by.

            times a few orders of magnitude and this is the main reason to doubt a settled Mars colony.

            Possibly a research outpost, but why would that be staffed by humans rather than robots?

            • By b112 2025-04-2415:531 reply

              There is no 'few orders of magnitude', because it's conquered, you're not allowed to settle there, and it's not a new frontier.

              Yet Mars is a new frontier, and endless, massive numbers of humans would go to Mars in a heartbeat.

              Frankly, settlers travelling to the new world in the 1400s faced a far more dangerous journey and living conditions than a trip to Mars.

              We're talking first explorers here, so many died on boats, of starvation the first year, on and on.

              Modern tech does not remove said risk, but it tips the playing field.

              • By ckemere 2025-04-250:26

                Given that no one has yet traveled to Mars, “faced a far more dangerous journey” seems a ridiculously hyperbolic statement. (Thinking even about the lost colony at Roanoke.)

      • By hnbad 2025-04-2411:33

        Colonizing Mars isn't a problem. Colonizing Mars is a goal. Making that happen requires addressing a ridiculous number of problems and sub-problems.

        If history teaches us anything, the biggest problem is supply chains - and supply chains have been so difficult to get right that they've led to countless famines, lost wars, failed businesses and economic crises. And those have all been supply chains here on Earth, mostly between fixed locations at fixed distances with relatively few environmental hazards and risks compared to space travel.

        If we want to create a sustainable multi-planetary future, we need to solve this incrementally. Colonizing the moon would be a logical stopgap. But as it stands now we haven't even established a presence on the moon - let alone a permanent one. The only presence we have off-planet is the ISS and that one's still in Low Earth Orbit, no different from regular communication satellites, so that only qualifies as "off-planet" by not being on the surface of the planet.

        Remember that we can't just scale up space travel indepently either. Even if SpaceX figures out how to do space launches every other day, that still requires a supply chain for fuel, parts, refinement, resource extraction, etc, all of which also needs to be scaled up accordingly. And that's just for launching stuff into space, which so far has mostly meant LEO.

      • By paulryanrogers 2025-04-242:461 reply

        Have you read about the natural conditions on Mars?

        I doubt there will be a permanent settlement in a thousand years.

        • By Unit327 2025-04-244:47

          I think you are both on different pages about settlement vs just a visit.

      • By Spivak 2025-04-242:441 reply

        Eh, it's a reasonable prior. The timeline is "it will never happen" until the leap forward happens that makes it "within 2 years." Basically the same as air flight.

        You can't know when the leap will happen so it's basically picking a year that seems far enough off to be pretty darn sure.

        • By Unit327 2025-04-244:461 reply

          It doesn't require a leap forward, we could put boots on the ground with 1990s tech.

          • By red-iron-pine 2025-04-2413:351 reply

            aye we could have. and they'd all be long dead on the surface of Mars by this point. getting them there isn't enough.

            • By Unit327 2025-04-270:53

              Keeping them alive and returning them doesn't require "a leap" which is the central point of OP I am disagreeing with. We have all the technology, material science etc to do it.

              Sure, it requires some research, engineering and a crapload of investment, but it doesn't require anything that is currently "science fiction".

    • By margalabargala 2025-04-2317:283 reply

      100 years optimistically?

      We developed and flew the Saturn V in less than a decade.

      We have plenty of rockets that can do one way trips to Mars that if we really, really needed to get a person there could do it with some modifications.

      It's mainly a question of will. If the will existed, we could do it in a decade with doubled or tripled funding. Not a century.

      • By aeturnum 2025-04-2317:383 reply

        I really think you are under estimating things here. The trip to mars is ~145x longer (at minimum!) than the trip to the moon. Let's say it only takes us twice the time to develop a rocket & ship that can do that (and come back ofc) - so that's 20 years (for 145x the distance). Then you gotta develop structures and building techniques, some of which you can look at with robots, but some of which will need human feedback. The trip itself takes 7~10 months, adding extra time.

        If all of humanity devoted ourselves to setting up a mars base it would take less than 100 years! My timeline was based on NASA with 2-4x the budget, which I think is very reasonable. I think you are being foolish.

        • By margalabargala 2025-04-2318:315 reply

          The goal was "get a few humans on Mars". Not the insane goal of "a million in 20 years".

          Firstly, there's no reason the trip can't be one-way, or at least, temporarily one-way.

          Secondly, there's not a huge need to develop a new rocket. We've delivered lots of one-way cargo to Mars using the Atlas V; something like the SLS could deliver much more, plenty for a couple humans to get there and not die. We've already launched SLS uncrewed around the moon, there's no reason to think it would take decades of dedication to launch one again 1-way to Mars.

          • By ryandrake 2025-04-2322:311 reply

            Consider what it takes just to keep McMurdo Station (staffed by only 200-1000 people) running on Antarctica, and that's on our own planet. I don't know what the cost is, but according to [1] the budget for the US's Antarctic program overall was $356M in 2008. And it depends on reliable logistics to get people and things to and from it.

            From there, step up to the ISS, which costs about $4B/year to maintain and operate, an order of magnitude more.

            It's likely another order of magnitude (tens of billions/year) and probably more like two (hundreds of billions/year) to do the same thing on Mars.

            1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Antarctic_Progra...

            • By marcus_holmes 2025-04-243:282 reply

              Which makes it just a matter of priorities. If the USA spent 10% of its defence budget for a year on it, we'd be done. Would humanity benefit more from a Mars base than it does from 10% of the USA's defence budget? Almost certainly.

              Though, to be fair, there are a lot of other things we could spend 10% of the USA defence budget on that would benefit humanity a lot more in the short term.

              • By hcknwscommenter 2025-04-245:09

                10% is not even 100 billion. You are wildly optimistic. 100B a year is likely closer to the cost of just maintaining a mars base. The cost to actually build one is likely an order of magnitude higher.

              • By thelastgallon 2025-04-259:04

                The defense budget is a subsidy to oil companies to protect oil supply chains and pipelines. Which rich person/companies assets are being protected on Mars? Tax money is spent mostly as a direct/indirect transfer of money to the super rich while using words to manipulate the gullible: security, defense, laws, etc.

          • By dmonitor 2025-04-2321:393 reply

            We also haven't specified if we're sending live humans to Mars. Just shuck someone onto the next rover we send over and call it a night.

            Sending a live human, or group of humans, on a suicide mission in the name of bragging rights as a species would be really bleak. I doubt you'd get much political support for a Mars mission without a return plan, or at least a sustainability plan.

            • By travisgriggs 2025-04-244:511 reply

              To some degree, wasn’t the exploration of the poles that took place at the beginning of the previous century similar? For country and glory. Motivated tons of men to have a go at the foolish. Many died, some prevailed. After all that we get to maintain a station there.

              Don’t take this as support of mars colonoziation which I think is a fools errand. Just pointing out that “suicide mission” seems to actually be motivational to the intrepid adventurer.

              • By ema 2025-04-248:52

                There's a big difference between being wildly over-optimistic about your odds of making it back and expecting from the get go you won't make it back.

            • By marcus_holmes 2025-04-243:31

              There is the odd school of thought that sending a bunch of tardigrades would be better. They'd have a chance of surviving, and they'd evolve there, and in only a few million years we might have another planet teeming with life. In the (very) long term, a much better use of our resources than trying to colonise Mars ourselves.

            • By sudoshred 2025-04-242:381 reply

              There’s always an element of risk in any endeavor, just because prior space missions (the ones that get recorded and remembered) were successful does not mean that this outcome was certain. There are records of space missions that were known to be unlikely to sustain human life prior to launch.

              • By marcus_holmes 2025-04-243:33

                The same is true of early expeditions around the world. The odds of making it back alive were low, yet plenty of people signed up. We remember the ones who made it and forgot the ones who didn't.

          • By aeturnum 2025-04-2319:021 reply

            I think you're imagining a limited mission that's pretty far outside the tradition of space travel up 'til today. Consider the public reaction to Apollo 13 or Vladimir Komarov. Certainly, we could deliver a one-way small number of people more quickly, but I didn't think that's what we were talking about (it's certainly not what the article is talking about).

            Edit: I suppose I should have said "a few humans [permanently settled] on mars, [able to return whenever they like]" in 100 years.

            • By netsharc 2025-04-241:11

              I suppose grandparent comment is saying that a possible timeline is to send some people there today and finish building the rocket to pick them up and bring them back in say 5 years. A bit like the Boeing clusterfuck last year...

              It'd also be cool to send an empty rocket with auto-landing capabilities and supplies way before the manned mission, and when those Mars visitors arrive, they can move the tech needed for survival (which would've been invented/improved in-between) to the return rocket.

              But that all sounds like Kerbal scenarios rather than real life ones.

          • By imtringued 2025-04-246:58

            >Firstly, there's no reason the trip can't be one-way, or at least, temporarily one-way.

            This is the ultimate admission that it can't be done. Anyone sane would at least propose a free-return trajectory like Artemis 2. Even if you are crazy enough to sacrifice your astronauts on a one way trip, you would still need to practice a lot of free-return trajectories just to train your astronauts and test the hardware.

          • By johnea 2025-04-240:033 reply

            And Zeroly, there's absolutely 0 reason for people to go to Mars, AT ALL.

            This whole idea is the stupidest thing I've heard people seriously discuss.

            What would be the point?

            If you want to experience "life on Mars", bury a cargo container in your back yard, and live in it for a year.

            If there's some burning need to go live underground, as you would on Mars, why not just do it in Nevada? The grocery store is a lot closer.

            The post at the top of this thread is correct in saying the logistics of supporting a colony on Mars would take decades, and cost billions (at least).

            I'm an advocate of exploration and science, and in the modern world we have effective automation. There is NO need to send people to Mars, absolutely not in any large number.

            > there's no reason the trip can't be one-way

            If the crew includes elon, I am actually in favor of this...

            • By Unit327 2025-04-244:521 reply

              Humans are better at exploring and doing science than rovers, they could get things done a lot quicker and better. They can repair things and are very adaptable. A mission to spend 6 months on the surface would be great. Perhaps not worth the risk and expense though.

              • By queenkjuul 2025-04-271:151 reply

                When it comes to doing science where there is no food, water, or air, robots are actually much better at it.

                • By Unit327 2025-04-288:051 reply

                  It depends how you are defining "better". Much cheaper and safer sure, but also much slower and much more limited. If it was me making the decisions I'd still go with robots, but I wouldn't call them "better".

                  Apollo 17 astronauts drove roughly 12 miles in around 8 hours to get to a site and do some science. The curiosity rover's longest drive in a day is around 150 meters. If it drills a rock and encounters some difficulty, it has to wait send a reply home, wait another 4-24 minutes for the message to get there, wait 4-24 minutes for a message to come back before proceeding. It's also obviously unable to conduct repairs on itself or it's tools, or even do something as basic as cleaning the dust from itself.

                  Robots certainly have the advantage in longevity; curiosity has been operating since 2012 and is still going, but it's like comparing a roomba vs a team of professional cleaners. I think if you asked a planetary scientist if they'd could go back in time and instead of sending curiosity, send a couple of people for six months, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

                  • By queenkjuul 2025-04-288:291 reply

                    There's no reason a robot couldn't do repairs on itself or clean dust from itself.

                    Think of all the science the robot will get done in the decades of research and engineering necessary to figure out how to get a human there and back to do science without immediately dying.

                    • By Unit327 2025-04-291:58

                      There are many reasons why that you're dismissing with a wave of the hand. But regardless, we are both in agreement that sending robots right now is the wise decision.

            • By anarticle 2025-04-248:511 reply

              > I'm an advocate of exploration and science, and in the modern world we have effective automation. There is NO need to send people to Mars, absolutely not in any large number.

              Can you write this with a straight face? This feels like the opportunity of a life time for someone who wants to push the envelope on what is possible. Yes it will be expensive, but the tech and lessons we learn will surely be worth more. Consider all the developments from the Apollo program. This level of pessimism always shocks me, shouldn’t we rise to the challenge?

              • By hnbad 2025-04-2411:561 reply

                A rover is expendable, a human much less so. The PR cost of having a human smash into the surface of Mars the way it happened with a rover would easily outweigh the PR boost of having a human successfully land on Mars. And even if we managed to actually land someone, they'd most likely die there before we could bring them back.

                A rover runs mostly on solar power. Humans need breathable air, food, potable water, medical supplies, stable temperatures, radiation shielding, etc etc just to survive, let alone actually do anything. Unlike sunshine, Mars has none of those things. And if any of them fail, your human rover would quickly go kaput.

                It seems far more reasonable to use automation to build a livable outpost before sending a human there - especially because a human is going to need that outpost to survive anyway. So even if we want to send people to Mars eventually, automation would be step one.

                • By anarticle 2025-04-2419:391 reply

                  I agree that automation and robots are a good proxy for exploration. And yes it will be tough. That won't stop people from trying.

                  PR or not, there are still skydivers and wing suit people pushing the envelope. I really don't agree with the doomerism/well actually crowd on these sorts of things, there is still the indomitable human spirit, no matter how irrational it seems. We still have field scientists that get sent to the edges of the earth to explore and find things, even when we think they have completely been explored. A friend of mine is an arctic botanist that spends 3-4m a year in the high arctic tundra doing research on plants in that biome.

                  There is no rational reason to want to cross the entirety of Antarctica, and yet humans have done it.

                  • By hnbad 2025-04-289:301 reply

                    I'm not saying we won't possibly land someone on Mars eventually. I just don't think that's going to happen in a reasonable near future. The resources involved are too much for one person willing to go on a suicide mission to do it themselves (and those who do have the resources are very much not interested in dying) and for a government to sponsor this you would need a culture of self-sacrifice rather than rugged individualism - in other words, a country like China might be more likely to take the lead here than the US and even that seems unlikely.

                    Again, the big problem here is scale. It takes a lot more resources to send someone to Mars than to Antarctica and it takes a lot more resources to keep them alive there. Your friend in the high arctic trundra probably also isn't living in collapsible tents and foraging for food - all the infrastructure available to him (even if it's just shelter) needs to be built on Mars too and is orders of magnitude more complex and more resource intense and the materials are much harder to ship and assemble - plus of course material failure is signficantly more lethal.

                    • By anarticle 2025-05-0113:37

                      Hate to break this to you, they do in fact go on expeditions in tents for quite a bit, with guns (polar bears). You've got them insofar as they don't forage for food, turns out we have portable food tech. There is a base camp but there are areas where they go far. They get govt issued Canada Goose jackets! What a perk! O Canada!

                      I agree with all you are saying, and those techs can be developed. I am a tech optimist. I see these as problems to try to solve, not a list of reasons why they can't happen.

                      We can agree as well that it will be fantastically more expensive and yes an order of magnitude etc etc. These are engineering problems, not physics problems. Probability vs possibility in my mind. We can disagree about if the resources are worth spending (that's not my call, I vote, which doesn't seem to do much). I can't predict the future.

                      Another point against it is it used to be a boat with dudes sent into the unknown with no way to know what to know what was happening. This was totally affordable for imperial seafaring nations at the time relative to the cost of rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_Age_of_Antarctic_Explor...

                      After this age there was a rise in using tech to do it. (mechanical age I think?)

                      It will be an insane feat to pull off, and I hope it happens in our life time.

            • By mcosta 2025-04-247:524 reply

              And Zeroly, there's absolutely 0 reason for people to go west, AT ALL

              - Portugal, 1490

              • By jhbadger 2025-05-080:32

                A lot of people would have been better off if they hadn't. This argument only works if you value the lives of Europeans (and their descendants, who often were equally racist against the indigenous peoples) over the native inhabitants.

              • By hnbad 2025-04-2411:40

                Except that the Americas were already inhabited prior to 1490 because they were in fact relatively easily reachable at an earlier point in history and extremely habitable. Mars by contrast is an environment that is actively hostile to life. Even the dust is lethal. And you're so far away from the rest of humanity you can only get resupplies every few years. The Americas had water, soil, edible plants and animals - and practically infinite amounts of breathable air. If you want to go homestead on Mars, dysentery is going to be the least of your worries.

              • By UncleMeat 2025-04-2414:46

                The explorers were seeking new trade routes with clear routes economic purpose.

              • By red-iron-pine 2025-04-2417:42

                there were lots of reasons to go west, since Europe was desperate and starved for spices and goods from the Silk Road.

                the Ottomans had cut them off following the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 (or where they didn't they taxed the hell out of them).

                they knew for sure there was good stuff over there, and just wanted a new way there.

                we know for sure that Mars is blasted, toxic, rock ball with less metal than Earth. what great and grand spices will future explorers be returning with? the Portuguese could prove that nutmeg and silk existed...

        • By kurthr 2025-04-2317:561 reply

          Yes, the quote "a million earthlings will be living on Mars in 20 years", is hilarious. It would require us to start launching hundreds of SpaceX Starship rockets a day every day, now. It's just dumb.

          I know that there can be an amazing level of self confidence and denial of current reality required to build a new company from scratch, but this stretches all bounds of credulity. I just don't believe that they believe what they're saying. It's so far beyond marketing hype and "self driving" being available in 2018. At some point, this moves from encouraging hype to pure cult level deceit.

          • By hnbad 2025-04-2412:02

            Remember that the quote is coming from the same guy who has been promising FSD for years and hasn't come any closer to delivering it because it turns out that the devil is in the details. Elon Musk allegedly has a photographic memory that allows him to commit entire science books to memory but he apparently fails to appreciate real-world complexity. Even if you would want to give him credit for being a hype man, ideas guy, visionary, whatever, it's pretty obvious that he doesn't concern himself with the nitty gritty of every step of the way and he also doesn't seem to actually conceptualize them.

            It's very much like the reasoning problem many of us software developers face: because we're used to working in extremely complex business domains without having actual real-world domain expertise, we overestimate our understanding of those domains and thus underestimate the complexity of various domains in general. We look at problems, recognize patterns we're familiar with and think the problem is trivial to solve. Hence "second system syndrome" and all that - even when looking at software we underestimate the complexity because we see the general structure and mistake the complexity for cruft.

        • By blackjack_ 2025-04-2323:13

          This is a dumb argument. We are doing it now, already, no crazy budget explosions needed. Just some medium expansions of existing projects.

          Orion is going to send humans past the moon this year, and could theoretically send humans to mars not much further out than that. It is literally on the Lockheed Martin website that they would like to send humans to mars sometime in the 2030s, provided they can get the funding.

          I'm not involved in the project any longer, but this has been the ideal vision of the project since the mid 2010s. Currently the plan is to put people on the moons of mars, as we have no way of getting them back if we actually put people on the surface of mars.

      • By skybrian 2025-04-242:45

        Rockets are the easy part. More:

        The Shape of a Mars Mission: https://idlewords.com/2025/02/the_shape_of_a_mars_mission.ht...

        Why Not Mars: https://idlewords.com/2023/1/why_not_mars.htm

      • By moomin 2025-04-2410:25

        We haven't created a self-sustaining human population in earth orbit yet. We need to constantly supply the space station and even when we do, the health impact of staying there is really serious. That's table stakes for a Mars mission and no improvements in rocketry will compensate for the fact we simply can't keep someone alive for that long outside of earth atmosphere.

        Honestly, the number of people who think they know the ins and outs of living on Mars because they saw a Matt Damon movie is bizarre.

    • By shipp02 2025-04-2323:321 reply

      >actually think this kind of low-information escapism about the future

      I think this is called techno-utopianism. The "leaders" in technology have been doing this ever since the industrial revolution.

      People sold the idea that street lights would fix "public morals" and eliminate crime.

      Also see the progress trap and professor Simon Penny's work and what he calls the end of the anthropocene.

      • By kaonwarb 2025-04-242:561 reply

        There is some evidence that street lights reduce crime! E.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-020-09490-6

        • By pdimitar 2025-04-2410:191 reply

          Reduce, yes, absolutely. Eliminate -- no.

          • By Ukv 2025-04-2411:481 reply

            Were there any serious claims that street lights would entirely eliminate crime? A "sizable reductions in nighttime outdoor index crimes" sounds like a pretty positive result.

            • By pdimitar 2025-04-2411:52

              I can't claim anything objectively because I never truly looked at it scientifically.

              I simply come from bad neighborhoods and the amount of times I heard "shhh, don't go there, people will see you" from guys who clearly were looking to start for trouble, was substantial in its own right.

              Anecdotal evidence, sure, but from a psychological point of view the people who want to steal or harm others feel much safer doing so in the darkness, I have found.

    • By FL33TW00D 2025-04-249:292 reply

      Doubled or tripled NASA's budget? NASA has spent 32 BILLION on SLS with nothing to show for it. Each launch is expected to cost 2.5 BILLION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System.

      Starship is just orders of magnitude less than this. NASA is a moribund jobs program.

      • By os2warpman 2025-04-2410:561 reply

        > Starship is just orders of magnitude less than this.

        Starship does not exist.

        Starship is the name given to a design for a fully reusable superheavy launch vehicle intended to take 100t to LEO.

        The things being launched by SpaceX are not Starship.

        They are impressive, but are not Starship.

        They are called Starship, but are not Starship.

        Let me be clear. I am not saying that Starship will not exist.

        What I am saying is that today, right now, Starship does not exist and SLS does.

        You implied that Starship does exist, and is cheaper.

        Nobody, not you, not me, not Lord Ketamine, can predict when it will exist or how much it will cost with any degree of accuracy.

        I genuinely, sincerely, and earnestly WANT Starship to exist, but as of today, April 24th, 2025 it does not.

        • By FL33TW00D 2025-04-2411:121 reply

          We can argue technicalities all day long but to me, this exists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMGiNKcVSek

          • By os2warpman 2025-04-2412:171 reply

            The payload on that flight was a single stuffed toy banana, for scale.

            On all test flights with a payload exceeding the mass (~300 grams) of a single stuffed toy banana (for scale), the flight has failed.

            Flight 7: 20,000 kg payload (starlink mass simulators) - engines fail after 7m39s

            Flight 8: 8,000 kg payload (starlink mass simulators) - engines fail after 8m04s

            Flight 9 is not currently planned to carry a payload.

            None of this is a technicality. It is technicreality.

            • By FL33TW00D 2025-04-2412:291 reply

              Agree there are obviously still issues, but you've just made the case yourself. We are discussing Flight 9 for Starship ~5 years into development. 10 years into the development of SLS we won't even see launch 2.

              They just operate in different universes no matter how much you dislike the CEO.

              • By os2warpman 2025-04-2413:461 reply

                You are misunderstanding me.

                I am on two embryonic programs that are not viable without starship or an equivalent.

                If starship exists I will be able to cash out, buy a 54-foot catamaran and spend the rest of my life sailing around the world scuba diving and spear fishing.

                I want starship to exist and do not care who builds it.

                It does not exist and I know this because I am currently on the third floor of a boring cookie cutter business park building right now staring at computer screens and not off the coast of Gili T doing mushrooms after a dive.

                • By moralestapia 2025-04-251:33

                  >If starship exists I will be able to cash out, buy a 54-foot catamaran and spend the rest of my life sailing around the world scuba diving and spear fishing.

                  Highly doubt this is true. Everyone's rich on their wild little minds.

      • By apercu 2025-04-2414:271 reply

        For one, where is Starship and when did it last launch?

        For another, this hypothetical spacecraft (which does not yet exist) would not be wherever it is in terms of completion had NASA not existed.

    • By xnx 2025-04-2319:131 reply

      > Yes, of course I support space travel and settling on mars. I expect that,

      "of course"? Why? Putting people in space, on the moon, or on Mars seems like a huge waste of resources.

      We could have (conservatively) 100 JWST or 1000 Pathfinders for the price of a human mission to Mars.

      • By aeturnum 2025-04-2321:02

        I agree that missions to colonize exoplanets should be low on the priority list per marginal dollar - and also I think we should fund such research because its popular and interesting. We should fund it on the lowest practical level, which probably means establishing a 'starter' base on the moon and a base on mars in the coming centuries.

    • By Veedrac 2025-04-247:05

      These articles which are little more than blind scarequotes peppered with ad hominems invite little more meaningful discussion than more ad hominems. What is the value of a comments section filled with little but "this is stupid and anyone who believes it is a snake oil salesman"?

    • By DavidPiper 2025-04-243:53

      > low-information escapism

      What a great way to describe it.

      It's like a good sci-fi or fantasy novel, but for people who don't read.

    • By paulpauper 2025-04-2322:432 reply

      There is no pleasing the NYTs or other tech critics like Wired, Axios, or Arts Technica. Either tech is too profit-focused, too focused on mundane or minutia, violates user privacy, or its proposals are too far-fetched or unworkable. What would be the perfect tech or the perfect tech company? One that makes minimal profits , works on products that are not too outlandish, does not make big promises yet is able to secure large investments with modest proposals.

      • By sashank_1509 2025-04-2323:22

        Well said, I can’t imagine what the perfect tech company to the NyT journalist is, I assume it is something run by committee that uses 100’s of their journalists opinions to make every simple decision.

      • By foobiekr 2025-04-2323:121 reply

        Most of the criticism on display here is the outrageous, implausible lies that the tech industry leaders are telling to stupid people who believe it for propaganda purposes to avoid regulation and scrutiny.

        None of the bullshit coming out of Musk, for example, is real, it’s not even plausible, it’s just lies for dumb people.

    • By gsf_emergency 2025-04-245:29

      >wants to get paid for the idea of the future today

      One response (also by an abundance crowd?) to a similar sentiment:

      https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/serbia-limits-academics-...

      "Serbia limits academics’ research time to just one hour a day"

    • By stevage 2025-04-248:09

      Why "of course" you support colonizing mars? What's your reasoning?

    • By sershe 2025-04-2422:10

      Climate change can near certainly be served with technology, if society didn't stand in the way. We could all switch to nuclear - France did it decades ago, technology is not a problem, society is - hence the subjects of these articles. Looks at solar in China or even Texas vs California. Everything is like that.

      Putting humans on Mars is purely a technological problem.

      Inequality is not a real problem.

    • By dominicrose 2025-04-249:20

      Getting paid before delivery is clearly an Elon Musk strategy and in some cases it does mean that he (Tesla) will be able to deliver but he's clearly full of shit with crazy ideas like living on Mars because the Earth is doomrf or whatever. BS does also bring money or fame or whatever sometimes.

  • By janalsncm 2025-04-2318:245 reply

    I will say that our discourse is weighted pretty heavily towards people who don’t deserve it. Most genuine experts are careful to only talk about things they know, not bloviate about everything under the sun.

    I am sure Marc Andreesen is a very intelligent person but he built and sold a web browser. He isn’t an expert on every tech topic. Same with Peter Thiel and the rest of the PayPal mafia. PayPal isn’t revolutionary and getting rich off of that doesn’t make you an expert on (for example) AI.

    • By ivape 2025-04-2323:282 reply

      I am sure Marc Andreesen is a very intelligent person but he built and sold a web browser. He isn’t an expert on every tech topic. Same with Peter Thiel and the rest of the PayPal mafia.

      I would say it's similar to politicians. We won't really have your, I don't know, career Costco Manager in political leadership. We'll get AOC or a Vance (staying bipartisan to make the point, moving off this topic next sentence). The former knows more about basic commutes and the condition of public bathrooms than your average politician or tech mogul. Our tech leaders are not well-rounded or even representative. That's why they talk crazy shit because they are in a crazy rich insulated world. We tried some contrived way to get women and minorities to become CEOs, but I think it should start more grass roots and maybe think about stopping something like ycombinator (or Google for example) from constantly recruiting based on old boys club pedigree. Regular folks just don't get put into the mix for C-Level for whatever reason unless they are gifted at the ladder-climbing thing.

      Exceptionalism dictates that we will never put them into the mix, and I think the world is probably missing out on some good practicality and humanity just based on sheer regular folk experience some people can bring.

      Funny:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru8WeRqB0ts

      • By ferguess_k 2025-04-240:403 reply

        I think the ideal foundation of democracy consists of:

        1) All citizens get mandatory high education on Math, Science, Language and Logic (what level is high enough is open to debate. I'd say college level), regardless of career -> This is to make sure they have the basic knowledge to participate in meaningful discussions;

        2) All citizens are encouraged, and by law mandated to attend and organize political stuffs -> This is to ensure that they can speak out when they are not happy about anything;

        • By Veelox 2025-04-243:29

          >mandatory ... college level

          I'm curious what your experience is with the world that makes you think every citizen is capable of completing college level classes. People with an IQ of 85 or less are like 15% of population and I think most of them with have a very hard time with high level logic.

        • By hattmall 2025-04-242:06

          Mandatory as in what? You go to jail if you can't pass calculus?

        • By johngossman 2025-04-247:17

          This is pretty much Plato with the (major) caveat that full citizenship was restricted to a subset of the population

      • By Uehreka 2025-04-2323:362 reply

        You know AOC was a bartender before running for congress right? While most reps are lawyers, many come from a diverse range of backgrounds, there probably is in fact someone in congress who used to manage a supermarket. This diversity of backgrounds is generally seen as a good thing when it comes to understanding the impact of upcoming legislation.

        • By GauntletWizard 2025-04-241:561 reply

          AOC was an intern for Ted Kennedy before being strategically placed in a "bartending" position as part of her background grooming. Her family owned multiple New York Brownstones in the rich part of the city. She has as much claim to humble background as Trump.

          • By mikeyouse 2025-04-242:503 reply

            Source for any of those claims? It's pretty well known after a few weird political fights that she grew up in a tiny house in Yorktown and that her dad died when she was a freshman in college and that her mom was a house cleaner. [her childhood home: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhCMERUXUAAY68Z?format=jpg&name=...]. Hard to square with her family "owning multiple brownstones".

            Trump's dad gave him millions of dollars to start businesses and then left him somewhere near a billion when he died.

            I think those are two pretty different upbringings!

            • By puetzk 2025-05-0318:04

              > https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/about > > After high school, Alexandria attended Boston University, and graduated with degrees in Economics and International Relations (and tens of thousands of dollars in student loans). During this period she also had the opportunity to intern in the office of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

              She was indeed a congressional intern, but then her father died and family finances got rough, and a year later Ted Kennedy died (August 25, 2009) so she lost the job in his office.

              > Following the financial crisis of 2008, tragedy struck when her father passed away suddenly from cancer. The medical bills and other growing expenses placed their home at risk of foreclosure. Alexandria pulled extra shifts to work as a waitress and bartender to support her family,

              Her father seems to have been in the business of home remodeling and renovations. I haven't found any source for "owned multiple brownstones", but a little bit of house-flipping or some rental properties wouldn't be weird to see in that kind of business. Being a landlord with a mortgage doesn't necessarily mean huge wealth, and it it's easy to believe a combination of cancer treatment bills/being unable to work/2008 housing crisis could take a situation like that from comfortable to house-poor to foreclosure on upside-down loans in an awful hurry.

            • By ojbyrne 2025-04-243:452 reply

              Wikipedia supports the claim that she was an intern for Ted Kennnedy, but none of the rest. Interestingly she has an asteroid named after her.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

              • By huhkerrf 2025-04-247:081 reply

                I'm not an AOC fan, but I was an intern on Capitol Hill, and I'm sure as hell not from an upper crust background. I'm not holding that against her.

              • By mikeyouse 2025-04-244:161 reply

                Right - the rest is pretty much nonsense. She grew up in a 2-bedroom house and went to the ~4th best school in Boston and we're supposed to believe she's some long con plant? Just silly.

                • By indoordin0saur 2025-04-2816:14

                  Looking into this she seems to come from an upper-middle-class background but nothing elite. I will say before looking it up for some reason I had the impression that she came from a very humble working-class immigrant background.

            • By GauntletWizard 2025-04-244:342 reply

              Here's the New York Posts' investigation: https://nypost.com/2019/02/23/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-is-no...

              The actual land records that prove this are impossible to link, for reasons that are charitably described as "Monstrous incompetence of government officials".

              • By mikeyouse 2025-04-2412:08

                None of which mentions brownstones or growing up wealthy.. the land records are accurate but she’s renting the spaces so her landlords name is on ACRIS.

              • By myvoiceismypass 2025-04-2414:20

                Nothing in this article talks about her family owning multiple brownstones. At all. Nothing about land records.

                This article talks about her dad's Bronx condo that she lived in, or claimed to live in. No offense to the people of the Bronx, but that is not a "rich" part of NYC. Units for sale in the building mentioned are rather cheap for NYC, in fact.

        • By ivape 2025-04-2323:403 reply

          I understand that but she is pretty much in the mold of Hilary at this point (career politician). It's bartender to straight Congressional aid or something like that and I believe straight to national politics. So, by 27 she is already in the stratosphere (earlier even, in terms of being in the circuit) and no longer down to earth. Talk about going to mars. She's supposed to represent the Bronx, and I can assure you she knows nothing about walking in the Bronx. You need to get robbed in the Bronx a few times before representing it lol.

          I don't know, for both the politicians and CEOs, I sort of wonder like when do you get to say "okay I got enough out of regular life to now manage regular life for others"?. Thirty? Fourty? Fifty? So Elon is 55, but we see that simply being fifty is not enough. I'm open to having the wrong line of thinking here.

          • By Uehreka 2025-04-240:032 reply

            I’m not sure where you get this impression of AOC. From her Wikipedia article:

            > After college, Ocasio-Cortez moved back to the Bronx and took a job as a bartender and waitress to help her mother—a house cleaner and school bus driver—fight foreclosure of their home.

            That sounds pretty “real Bronx” to me.

            As for her campaign:

            > Ocasio-Cortez began her campaign in April 2017 while waiting tables and tending bar at Flats Fix, a taqueria in New York City's Union Square. "For 80 percent of this campaign, I operated out of a paper grocery bag hidden behind that bar,"

            I don’t think there’s an age when you are “ripe” to become a politician. I think that in order to be good at it, you have to maintain contact with ordinary people and listen to their concerns. Elon sucks at it not because he’s 55 but because he thinks he knows all the answers and doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

            • By hattmall 2025-04-242:301 reply

              You are skipping the part where she moved out of the Bronx at 5 and grew up in Westchester for the entirety of her schooling, graduated cum laude from BU and worked in DC. She only moved to the Bronx to leverage her Puerto Rican heritage after having her political ambitions shaped. When "after college" did she even move to the Bronx? Her registration in 2016 was still Westchester.

              I like her, but to pretend that she's just some up-start from the Bronx to go against the grain is absolutely false. She was selected, groomed, and installed because she fit a profile and she is a very manufactured candidate.

            • By ivape 2025-04-240:131 reply

              Yeah I get it, Jensen Huang worked at Dennys too (I sound nippy, but I'm not trying to be). I just don't think these people stayed in those environments long enough, but her upbringing definitely sounds "for real". If you are out into national politics before 30 you are out of any normalcy imho. Some people are bartenders for a lot longer if you catch my drift.

              • By Uehreka 2025-04-240:252 reply

                I don’t really catch your drift. Part of the reason I’m digging in on this is because you picked a perfect counterexample as your example. AOC came from a working class background, was elected on the basis of grassroots organizing against a guy with a huge war chest, and is widely known for staying involved in her community (to a degree many politicians don’t) so she can best represent their interests. As a result of her local activism and accessibility her constituents love her and as a result she has been able to beat back candidates from both parties running on massive budgets and even has crossover support from Trump voters in her district.

                • By netsharc 2025-04-241:00

                  ivape thinks AOC is out of touch, funny how his written assumptions and lack of actual familiarity with her shows that he's the one out of touch. I follow AOC on Instagram (all the haters can now jump to dismiss me as a biased fanboy), and she does things in her area like charity runs, attend local events and organize townhalls...

                  And she grills "witnesses" of congressional hearings the way a politician who is actually doing her work grills them. Compared to "career politicians" who are probably too busy golfing with rich "campaign donors" to read the briefing and understand the issues they need to deal with..

          • By lukifer 2025-04-240:12

            It’s a problem with representation generally. The political theorist Benjamin Studebaker uses an analogy of getting into a hot air balloon: there are ways you can be of service to those below, giving them an overhead view, maybe warning them of danger, etc. But the further up you go, the less you have skin the game, and the less the little ant-people can truly be real to you.

            Rather than trying to force a round peg into a square hole, I’d say this a case for refactoring bicameralism: one house of professionalized legal specialists and technocrats, another house chosen by rotating lottery for short stints of public service by random citizens (sortition).

          • By DoctorOW 2025-04-240:011 reply

            > I can assure you she knows nothing about walking in the Bronx.

            Huh? You think a bartender in the Bronx wouldn't walk while living there?

            • By queenkjuul 2025-04-271:33

              Clearly in this fantasy the middle class of the Bronx all have chauffeurs

    • By chadcmulligan 2025-04-2322:302 reply

      Its not just tech bros though, anyone who's made lots of money from business is treated like they're the smartest person in the room by many people. The person who made millions from making a sugary drink and marketed it as something healthy is not necessarily pretty smart and more than likely isn't someone you want in charge of anything.

      • By eppsilon 2025-04-2418:29

        > The person who made millions from making a sugary drink and marketed it as something healthy is not necessarily pretty smart and more than likely isn't someone you want in charge of anything.

        Quite literally in the case of former Apple CEO John Sculley.

      • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-2323:102 reply

        "not necessarily pretty smart" is a very nice way of putting it.

        I don't know where the threshold ought to be, but beyond a certain size a pile of money can only indicate bad things about its owner. Either they're too unimaginative to turn that potential into action, or their designs are so against the will of the people that it's going to take gargantuan amounts of coercion to get them done. Either way, a billionaire is an individual of dubious merit.

        • By derektank 2025-04-2323:431 reply

          Most rich people aren't sitting on piles of cash; their capital is (usually) invested in a corporation which is busy turning potential into action, as you put it. I think there's an argument to be made that amassing and hoarding great wealth, particularly near the end of one's life with the intent to pass it directly onto one's heirs, is morally questionable if you believe in any kind of universalist ethic. But I think criticizing someone as uncreative simply because they're not selling off all their equity to go pursue some other venture is way off

          • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-242:512 reply

            That sounds very good but it's difficult to square with the behavior of those corporations. Can it really be that the change all of these well meaning rich people want to see in the world is... products that spy on an manipulates their users, products that can't be repaired, and products that putting future generations at risk by damaging the environment?

            Either these investments are not paying off, or they are and the investors have a very dark vision for us. Neither reflects very well on the investor.

            • By ido 2025-04-249:281 reply

              I would guess it's not so much that they "want to see this change" as much as "they want to make as much money as possible and don't care about these consequences"

              • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-2415:58

                Yeah, I agree. But of what use is that money, if not to ensure that you can shape the consequences according to your vision? If you have to make things worse to make money, and you need money to make things better, then a sane person would course-correct.

                Beyond a certain point, supposing that your investments continue to yield monetary returns at the cost of making others tolerate worse outcomes, it's just an indicator that you're a junkie.

            • By robertlagrant 2025-04-249:091 reply

              > products that spy on an manipulates their users, products that can't be repaired, and products that putting future generations at risk by damaging the environment?

              You seem to have a very narrow view of the range of products that exist. Are you basically just talking about smartphones?

              • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-2416:04

                When I wrote that I was thinking about the coersive trend of SaaS products in general, the labyrinthine firmware used by my HVAC system, and land investments that result in rainforests being burned to make room for more cows.

        • By nl 2025-04-2323:591 reply

          > Either way, a billionaire is an individual of dubious merit.

          This sounds like the "poverty is a moral failing" argument in reverse. See eg https://unherd.com/2017/08/remembering-time-poverty-often-bl...

          • By __MatrixMan__ 2025-04-2514:24

            I think there's a pretty significant difference between criticizing somebody's lack of resources and criticizing somebody's allocation of resources. Both might be the result of choices they made, but the connection for the latter is much more obvious.

    • By jacamera 2025-04-2323:253 reply

      I blame the experts. It's their responsibility to explain things to the public and engage in forums that the public is paying attention to (e.g. podcasts). They don't have to bloviate about everything under the sub, but they do have to be able to break down and communicate their ideas to the non-expert public. Failure to do so creates a vacuum that is filled by the Marc Andreesens and Peter Thiels of the world.

      • By janalsncm 2025-04-240:59

        If you go on Marc’s Twitter he spends most of his time subtweeting with emojis and one word responses. And he has millions of followers (for what reason?).

        A scientist, aside from their day job, is now also supposed to spend time debunking whatever half baked topic of the day is?

        The only world where that works is one in which MA’s reputation is built on not saying dumb stuff all the time, like a scientist’s reputation is. If his follower count dropped for example. But it’s not, and that’s not how it works. People like him will move on to the next thing tomorrow.

      • By eli_gottlieb 2025-04-242:50

        I've gone on a science communication podcast to talk about my work: https://braininspired.co/podcast/202/

        This does not seem to have stopped anyone bullshitting to the media about AI.

      • By s1artibartfast 2025-04-240:55

        Absolutely not. That turns the experts into politicians and pundits. Experts should stay in their lane and provide accurate and trustworthy information.

        Yes, it should be accessible and digestible, but should not be pushed.

    • By grogers 2025-04-2322:593 reply

      VCs won't be expert level in every area, but they are in a unique position to have a deep knowledge about a lot of different things. It's necessary to be able to invest effectively.

      • By jorams 2025-04-245:54

        Even if they were, they have absolutely no incentive to tell you their expert analysis. A16Z spent the cryptocurrency mania years pumping and dumping shitcoins. They weren't telling the world these scams were revolutionary because they had any inherent value, but because saying that made them the most money. They are just people with money trying to turn it into more money.

      • By sensanaty 2025-04-2323:47

        Most VCs I know are just people with too much money throwing it at anything and everything they can hoping to get that 1 unicorn that multiplies their investment by 100.

        I'm sure there's plenty of very intelligent ones, but there's also plenty of morons who started life off with an advantage and have managed to keep it up

      • By foobiekr 2025-04-2323:07

        They really aren’t. And I know a lot of them personally.

HackerNews