Embracing Musk’s Abnormality
Recent interest in the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, is indicative of misguided efforts to “normalize” him. Many persons want to believe that they could be (like) him. They cannot:
“I could have started PayPal.” “I could have started Tesla.” “I could have started SpaceX.” I could have started StarLink.” “I could better run X — formerly known as Twitter.”
Well, you obviously DIDN’T, and you almost certainly COULD NOT have done so … ever. Elon Musk, however, did ALL of those things in a relatively short number of years. He is not “normal.” He is decidedly “abnormal.” Very few of us will ever do or accomplish anything, which will have even a fraction of the impact upon society and humanity that any one of Musk’s Companies has had. His companies have actually changed the course of history for peoples and nations (and of humanity generally). Are all of these changes “good”? Almost certainly not.
Human development and societal evolution do not occur en masse. History and development do not proceed in a straight line, which extends forever forward and upward. There are frolics and detours, fits and starts, as well as trials and errors. The whole of humanity does not make dramatic leaps forward. Instead, rare individuals make incremental positive changes (or deviations from the “norm”). The hope is that their successes can be duplicated and will be emulated by “later adopters.” Similarly, failures by others should serve as cautionary tales so as to avoid the costs of repetition.
Does Elon’s successes (and his resulting riches) make him a “better” human being? No, just different. He has faults and shortcomings, as do we all. His power and successes also do not make him more “moral.” He sins, even if his sins differ from our own. It has been said, “We should not judge others merely because they sin differently from ourselves.”
Most of us are familiar with Lord Acton’s truncated quote, but the fuller quote is even more telling:
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.
Elon Musk has a purpose. “Great (wo)men,” even imperfect and immoral ones, serve a purpose. They move our species from stagnation. They motivate society to overcome the inertia of the status quo. They are in their own ways “artists,” often tortured, even if rarely starving. Just as art comes through challenge, pain, and heartache, innovators are motivated most often by the baser traits of our bestial species (e.g. selfishness, greed, envy, narcissism, etc.).
We, as individuals and as a society, should not strive to be Elon Musk (or Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.). A few true innovators can be beneficial. Yes, they may be rewarded with inordinate riches, which fuel jealousy, envy, and covetousness. Nevertheless, a world full of would-be “innovators” and “influencers” is an ineffective and unproductive world. It results in a dystopian reality, which is defined by (even greater) chaos and which is destined for certain disaster.
People like Musk take great (often “irrational”) risks because they can. They can absorb the losses. The hope is that their contributions to society outweigh the costs imposed upon it. If they are restricted from taking risks, there is less reward both for themselves and for society generally. However, if everyone is determined to “break the rules” and to act outside of the “norm,” then there is no effective means to remedy the certain harms or sufficient resources to remediate inevitable losses.
Similarly, we should not expect Elon Musk and those of his ilk to act “like us.” If they were, in fact, like us, they would not be exceptional. It is through their “abnormality” that they excel (usually in one specific area or another). We might view them as “idiot savants.” We may envy their abilities — their “superpowers” — but those abilities come with pronounced disabilities (and pressures) as well. It is a package deal. You take the good with the bad, or you settle for the status quo. We either embrace the ordinary and mundane or risk change. Should we eschew change and cower in fear, we are certain to have even more adverse changes forced upon us by those, who seek to profit from change.
