Before one can dispense cognitive largesse, one must possess a cognitive surplus; and yet the cognitive poverty of the power elite continues to astonish. You know what has a finite and fixed number of places? The top of a social hierarchy. A revolution that overturns the political order will inevitably fill many of those top spots with its own people. No amount of grovelling can get around that arithmetic.
There is zero evidence any of them have thought through the implications of their social engineering fantasies. They will remain on top because they are there now, any changes will simply remove impediments to implementing their agenda. The only thing the tech elites and the radicals they partner with share is a blindness to how fragile our society and their place in it are.
The link in this phrase link doesn't seem to be what you want:
"my 2020 essay about the Clock of the Long Now."
It points to a story about Tim Cook's tacky gift to Trump.
Maybe this was supposed to be where the link in your first sentence pointed (to your article in Wired), and this second link was supposed to be first? ("stunted type of political vision" is the phrase associated with the first link.)
[Added] I see now the phrase "give him gold trinkets", which links to the Tim Cook article, which is almost certainly what you wanted, so ignore the previous guess, I guess.
The thing is that when you do economic development correctly, it *is* climate-change policy. Bill Gates has spent decades in this space; he absolutely knows this. Everything that makes a developing economy more effective has climate co-benefits. The kinds of things that development institutions like the World Bank tell their client countries around how best to pursue urban expansion, for instance, include focusing on land use planning, strong public transport infrastructure, green spaces (for flood absorbance and recreation), etc. – because that's what contributes to economic productivity *as well as* livability, resilience, and climate adaptation and mitigation. "Human flourishing" and climate policy are the same thing. The only place on the globe they're separable is Silicon Valley. Because, yeah, if you want to build humongous AI datacenters that devour energy and water, there's really no way to spin that as climate-aligned advancement. But if you want to make the human species healthier and more productive, not only is climate-sensitive development the most effective way to do that, but you also need to find a way to prevent a billion people from becoming climate migrants by 2050.
(Yikes, sorry, that turned into a preachy rant – to the choir, no less.)
Its the rare human being who dedicates their life to climbing the greasy pole and once they've been at the top a while think "maybe this wasn't a good idea". Gates was happy to tackle climate change as part of his legacy (while there was money in it) but going up against the King is a bigger problem than global warming. The fact that all his tech peers have gone round the bend on Abundance, Effective Altruism, turning the States into corporate neo-feudal protectorates, and colonizing Mars must have had an effect as well. Dialing back on climate change is the reasonable moderate position.
‘He figured out long ago that there is money and fame in telling the rich and powerful, “everything will be just fine.”’ (on Llomborg)
“Never explain by malice, what can be explained by stupidity” — Hanlon’s Razor. Same holds for Gates and many other intelligent but dumb people. In fact, it holds for all of us. We should never underestimate the capability of humans to be convinced of dumb things, regardless of our analytical skills. It’s how our brains work.
Gates was a brilliant business strategist but a very poor technologist during his stint as tech bro. Read his own book “The Road Ahead” from the 1990s.
Hasn't it been established that most philanthropy is about getting respect from one's peers rather than actually doing good? These days, it is also about greenwashing the super wealthy, not just corporations.
To be fair to Gates, his mission was mostly to deal with mitigating the mosquito-borne disease problem in poor countries. I don't recall that he had that much interest in climate change, although it was a useful pitch to support his mini-nuclear reactors business idea. Funnily enough, one doesn't hear much, if anything, about Tesla's solar roofing business these days. I wonder why not?
I dunno -- I read Gates' note as an argument against climate doomerism, not a retreat from clean energy goals. Gates is still investing in fusion, simpler fission and other carbon-free energy sources.
He *is* arguing that economic growth is still important, but to argue against *that*, you have to be in the top 20% of a Western country.
"Bill Gates and his pals were never going to be anything but fair-weather-friends to the climate movement, because they lack the political vision to imagine that the problems of global climate change are also problems of the global social hierarchy that they sit comfortably atop."
Well, if Gates were killing off his investments in carbon-free energy, maybe you'd have an argument, but his writing that climate change doesn't represent an existential threat to the whole human race, and that there are other important considerations as well, is, well, simply true.
Anyway, beyond his investments in technology, nothing Gates does will affect climate change. The real question is how China and India can manage their transition to developed countries while keeping carbon emissions low. And beyond helping invent new clean tech, that's beyond Bill's, or your, reach.
Maybe read Jessica Green’s new book ‘Existential Politics’ to add the ‘tons’ vs ‘assets’ into the mix, rather than trying to second guess Bill Gates’ approach.
Before one can dispense cognitive largesse, one must possess a cognitive surplus; and yet the cognitive poverty of the power elite continues to astonish. You know what has a finite and fixed number of places? The top of a social hierarchy. A revolution that overturns the political order will inevitably fill many of those top spots with its own people. No amount of grovelling can get around that arithmetic.
There is zero evidence any of them have thought through the implications of their social engineering fantasies. They will remain on top because they are there now, any changes will simply remove impediments to implementing their agenda. The only thing the tech elites and the radicals they partner with share is a blindness to how fragile our society and their place in it are.
The link in this phrase link doesn't seem to be what you want:
"my 2020 essay about the Clock of the Long Now."
It points to a story about Tim Cook's tacky gift to Trump.
Maybe this was supposed to be where the link in your first sentence pointed (to your article in Wired), and this second link was supposed to be first? ("stunted type of political vision" is the phrase associated with the first link.)
[Added] I see now the phrase "give him gold trinkets", which links to the Tim Cook article, which is almost certainly what you wanted, so ignore the previous guess, I guess.
Goddammit, Dave...
Look, I think we all *suspected* that cut-and-paste technology was a little too advanced for me. But now we have empirical proof.
(Fixed, thanks.)
The thing is that when you do economic development correctly, it *is* climate-change policy. Bill Gates has spent decades in this space; he absolutely knows this. Everything that makes a developing economy more effective has climate co-benefits. The kinds of things that development institutions like the World Bank tell their client countries around how best to pursue urban expansion, for instance, include focusing on land use planning, strong public transport infrastructure, green spaces (for flood absorbance and recreation), etc. – because that's what contributes to economic productivity *as well as* livability, resilience, and climate adaptation and mitigation. "Human flourishing" and climate policy are the same thing. The only place on the globe they're separable is Silicon Valley. Because, yeah, if you want to build humongous AI datacenters that devour energy and water, there's really no way to spin that as climate-aligned advancement. But if you want to make the human species healthier and more productive, not only is climate-sensitive development the most effective way to do that, but you also need to find a way to prevent a billion people from becoming climate migrants by 2050.
(Yikes, sorry, that turned into a preachy rant – to the choir, no less.)
Please read the Bill Gates section herein: https://marthature.substack.com/p/return-of-the-darwin-awards
I spent years hammering Lomborg back in the day. It was a disappointing surprise to see Gates resurrecting his arguments
https://johnquiggin.com/2004/12/15/copenhagen-conned-again/
Its the rare human being who dedicates their life to climbing the greasy pole and once they've been at the top a while think "maybe this wasn't a good idea". Gates was happy to tackle climate change as part of his legacy (while there was money in it) but going up against the King is a bigger problem than global warming. The fact that all his tech peers have gone round the bend on Abundance, Effective Altruism, turning the States into corporate neo-feudal protectorates, and colonizing Mars must have had an effect as well. Dialing back on climate change is the reasonable moderate position.
FYI - the link to your Clock of the Long Now essay leads to the USA Today article about Tim Cook and Trump instead.
Ugh, I'm the worst. Fixed, thanks.
Sorry for my repetition. I guess we were typing our comments at the same time.
The only good billionaire is a former billionaire... And that's a stretch.
‘He figured out long ago that there is money and fame in telling the rich and powerful, “everything will be just fine.”’ (on Llomborg)
“Never explain by malice, what can be explained by stupidity” — Hanlon’s Razor. Same holds for Gates and many other intelligent but dumb people. In fact, it holds for all of us. We should never underestimate the capability of humans to be convinced of dumb things, regardless of our analytical skills. It’s how our brains work.
Gates was a brilliant business strategist but a very poor technologist during his stint as tech bro. Read his own book “The Road Ahead” from the 1990s.
For a minute there I really thought old Bill was different than the bezoses, musks and cooks of the world... Well, shame on me.
Isn't his name spelled: Bjorn Lomborg?
Hasn't it been established that most philanthropy is about getting respect from one's peers rather than actually doing good? These days, it is also about greenwashing the super wealthy, not just corporations.
To be fair to Gates, his mission was mostly to deal with mitigating the mosquito-borne disease problem in poor countries. I don't recall that he had that much interest in climate change, although it was a useful pitch to support his mini-nuclear reactors business idea. Funnily enough, one doesn't hear much, if anything, about Tesla's solar roofing business these days. I wonder why not?
(Hangs head in shame, realizing that, yes, I misspelled his last name throughout the piece.)
I dunno -- I read Gates' note as an argument against climate doomerism, not a retreat from clean energy goals. Gates is still investing in fusion, simpler fission and other carbon-free energy sources.
He *is* arguing that economic growth is still important, but to argue against *that*, you have to be in the top 20% of a Western country.
"Bill Gates and his pals were never going to be anything but fair-weather-friends to the climate movement, because they lack the political vision to imagine that the problems of global climate change are also problems of the global social hierarchy that they sit comfortably atop."
Well, if Gates were killing off his investments in carbon-free energy, maybe you'd have an argument, but his writing that climate change doesn't represent an existential threat to the whole human race, and that there are other important considerations as well, is, well, simply true.
Anyway, beyond his investments in technology, nothing Gates does will affect climate change. The real question is how China and India can manage their transition to developed countries while keeping carbon emissions low. And beyond helping invent new clean tech, that's beyond Bill's, or your, reach.
Maybe read Jessica Green’s new book ‘Existential Politics’ to add the ‘tons’ vs ‘assets’ into the mix, rather than trying to second guess Bill Gates’ approach.
Say hello to Llomborg for me!