Swifties, this one’s for you. It seems like Taylor Swift's Eras Tour has lasted eons. Yet somehow, there’s always something to talk about. Just thinking about how much she’s accomplished while on tour makes me want to buckle down, lock in, and channel my inner girlboss. But while I can’t even be bothered to cook dinner at home after a long day of work, Taylor is accomplishing milestones most musicians can only dream of. Let’s recap.
The Eras Tour began in March 2023 with its North American leg. It’s set to go until December 2024, with dates in Europe, Australia, Asia, and South America— spanning 152 shows across five continents.
As the queen of multitasking, Swift hasn’t stopped at just selling out stadiums. Since the Eras tour began, she’s released multiple albums — both new and old — and shaken up the tour setlist with each new release. Her list of new releases started on the first day of her tour with “All Of The Girls You Loved Before,” which was quickly followed up by “The Alcott,” a feature on The National’s album — reciprocity for their work on her pandemic era albums, Folklore and Evermore.
She also released Midnights: Late Night Edition (including the iconic collab with Ice Spice), as well as not one but two album re-releases — Speak Now Taylor's Version and 1989 Taylor's Version. As if that wasn’t enough, she announced her latest album, The Tortured Poet’s Department, in a GRAMMY’s acceptance speech. Talk about legendary. Since its release, she’s also been churning out deluxe versions and remixes to keep us on our toes. The Eras Tour was even made into a Blockbuster film that brought Beyonce to its premiere. Star power: confirmed.
But that’s just her work life. Her personal life is just as eventful. She ended her 7-year relationship with Joe Alwyn in April 2023. Then entered into a brief but controversial fling with 1975 frontman Matty Healy. Though it didn’t last long, the relationship was enough to inspire a whole album and catapult her into her current romance with Travis Kelce, aka Amerca’s first nepo boyfriend. Now they’re the American Royal couple — and she somehow had time to fly from tour to his Super Bowl performance.
We all have the same hours in the day as Taylor Swift, but how she uses them will always be a mystery to me. I work eight hours a day and can barely manage a social life. Meanwhile, Taylor has it all — though conservatives are turning on her for daring to be a woman in her 30s who’s not married with kids. If that’s not proof that women can’t do anything right, I don’t know what is.
Clearly, she’s working late because she’s a singer. No wonder Taylor Swift became a billionaire months into her tour in October 2023. Her net worth is currently around 1.3 billion dollars, making her the only female musician to become a billionaire from her music.
Other entertainment billionaires like Rihanna, Kylie Jenner, Kim Kardashian, Jay-Z, and Kanye West have joined the three-comma club thanks to ventures like clothing brands, beauty products, and other entrepreneurial pursuits. Rihanna has her FENTY Empire. Kim has her award-winning SKIMS. Ye had Yeezy. But Taylor has an unbeatable catalog of publishing.
But Taylor isn’t just different from other Billionaires because of how she earned her money. She’s the Taylor we know and love because of how she spends it. Her rollercoaster Eras Tour is how she’s made much of her fortune. And she’s using it to give back in monumental degrees. From individual donations to investing in local infrastructure, Taylor is changing lives on a macro and micro scale. And teaching us what to expect from all billionaires in the process.
The Eras Tour Bonuses — Talk About Workplace Benefits
First to make headlines were the Eras Tour crew bonuses. While some of us get rewarded with a pizza party or a $10 gift card to Starbucks, Taylor casually dropped $55 million in bonuses for her tour crew. The massive sum was paid out to everyone who makes the Eras Tour go around, from truck drivers to dancers and sound technicians.
In fairness, these bonuses are so well-deserved. Taylor’s shows are over three hours long. Imagine dancing for that long — because Swift certainly isn’t the one with the impressive moves — for hundreds of tour dates. Or remembering countless combinations of light cues to go with a setlist that changes daily. Yeah, they’re clocking in. And if my boss had millions to blow, I’d be expecting a comfortable bonus too. But $55 Million? That’s a testament to Swift’s generosity. It's like she's Oprah, but instead of cars, she's giving out life-changing amounts of cash. "You get a bonus! You get a bonus! Everybody gets a bonus!"
It’s similar to how Zendaya gave film equity to every member of the crew that worked on her controversial black-and-white drama, Malcolm & Marie. Filmed in a few days with a bare-bones crew during the peak of the pandemic, the film was Zendaya’s passion project with Sam Levinson, in which she starred alongside John David Washington. Though the film got mixed reviews, it captured the audience’s attention all the same. After all, it was Zendaya — and we’ll watch her in anything. So since the film sold to Netflix for a hefty sum, all the crew members got payouts from the deal on top of their salaries to reward their hard work.
Bonuses and equity payouts are common in many industries, but not entertainment. Even though it’s one of the most lucrative and recognizable American industries, most entertainers don’t make enough to survive. The SAG and WGA strikes last year were proof that there needs to be systemic change in the industry. LA County has even identified show businesses as risk factors for being unhoused — after all, how many stories do we hear of actors who were living in their cars before their big break? And for many, their big break never comes. For even more, they get hired on amazing gigs with giant performers … then go right back to the grind afterward. While individual actions from our favorite stars won’t fix everything, Zendaya and Taylor are providing models for how Hollywood should treat the people who make this town go round.
And in this economy, even a little bit could go a long way. Inflation and the cost of living are not a joke. Especially when, like with many creative careers, you often have to invest in lessons or equipment for your craft. With all this considered, the impact of Swirt’s donations can’t be overstated. Imagine getting a lump sum of cash for dancing to your favorite Taylor Swift tracks? Talk about a dream job.
The Economic Impact of Swift - Swiftonomics, if you will
Like Barbie and Beyonce last year, Swift is still on a tear to boost the economy of the cities she’s in just by traveling there — ad inspiring others to make the trek, too.
The Barbie movie proved that by marketing to women (instead of just making Marvel flops like Madame Web that aren’t really targeted to women at all), the entertainment industry can make giant profits. Barbie fever went beyond the theater. Thanks to a plethora of product collabs, the phenomenon rippled through retail.
Similarly, Beyonce’s Renaissance Tour tour generated an estimated $4.5 billion for the American economy. According to NPR, that’s almost as much as the entire 2008 Olympics earned for Beijing. People were taking money out of their 401ks to pay for Beyonce tickets and the glittery, silver-hues outfits to rock at her shows. Cities even started calling her effect the “Beyonce Bump.”
Swift has the same effect. She’s not just proving her generosity on a micro-scale for the people close to her, she’s having actual, tangible effects on the economy. It's like she's leaving a trail of dollar bills in her wake, and cities are scrambling to catch them like it's a country-pop, capitalist version of musical chairs.
The US Travel Association called it the Taylor Swift Impact after she generated over $5 Billion in just the first 5 months of the Eras Tour. But how does this work? It’s not like Taylor is printing more money at those shows, but it almost is. Her tour dates are pretty much economic steroid shots for local businesses. Hotels are booked solid, restaurants are packed, and let's not even get started on the surge in friendship bracelet supplies.
“Swifties averaged $1,300 of spending in local economies on travel, hotel stays, food, as well as merchandise and costumes,” say the US Travel Association. “That amount of spending is on par with the Super Bowl, but this time it happened on 53 different nights in 20 different locations over the course of five months.” That’s not to say one word about her effect on the actual Super Bowl and the entire NFL season thanks to her ball-throwing boyfriend.
It's like she's created her own micro-economy, and everyone's invited to the party. And unlike some economic theories that rely on wealth trickling down (spoiler alert: it doesn't), Taylor's wealth is more like a t-shirt cannon or the confetti at her shows — showering everyone around.
Donations that truly do good
Taylor isn’t just stepping into cities and calling it a night. She’s also not just throwing pennies at problems - she's making significant contributions that are changing lives. And more importantly, she's using her platform to encourage her fans to do the same.
She kicked off her tour with quiet donations to food banks in Glendale, Ariz., and Las Vegas ahead of the Eras Tour. Once the tour was in full swing, she continued this practice. In Seattle, she donated to Food Lifeline, a local hunger relief organization. In Santa Clara, she showed some love to Second Harvest of Silicon Valley. And let's not forget about her $100,000 donation to the Hawkins County School Nutrition Program in Tennessee.
She’s been making similar donations overseas. Taylor Swift donated enough money to cover the food bills for an entire year across 11 food banks and & community pantries in Liverpool. Swift also covered 10,800 meals for Cardiff Foodbank and many more banks across the UK and EU. Her impact is so profound that her numbers are doing more to combat issues like hunger than the government.
Can billionaires actually be good?
One thing about me, I’m always ready and willing — knife and fork in hand — to eat the rich. Because fundamentally, can any billionaire really be good? In our late-stage capitalist horror story, the answer is usually no. Look how many of them are supporting the Trump campaign just to get some tax breaks.
But here's the thing - Taylor Swift might just be the exception that proves the rule. She's not perfect, sure. She still flies private jets and probably has a carbon footprint bigger than Bigfoot. But unlike most of the others in her tax bracket, she's not flaunting her wealth like it's a personality trait.
Take a look around. We've got billionaires trying to colonize Mars instead of, I don't know, helping people on Earth. In this context, Taylor's approach is more like Mackenzie Scott’s — Bezos’s ex-wife. She's not trying to escape to another planet - she's trying to make this one better.
And look, I'm not saying we should stop critiquing billionaires or the system that creates them. But she's just setting the bar for what we should expect from all billionaires. She's showing us that our collective power as fans can translate into real-world change. That our love for catchy choruses and bridge drops can somehow, improbably, lead to food banks getting funded and crew members getting life-changing bonuses.
So sorry to my neighbors who hear me belting “Cruel Summer” and “right where you left me” at the top of my lungs (and range). Just know it’s for the greater good.
Elon Musk's Twitter Takeover & Downfall - A Timeline
Home of celebrities and neo-nazis, Twitter has it all. With nearly 400 million users globally — half of them active — the social networking and micro-blogging platform remains the central spot for 280-character musings.
Known for its fandoms, spam bots, garbage discourse, and the tantalizing opportunity to respond directly to even the most famous of people, it’s now going to be known for Elon Musk’s desecration of it.
The multi-billionaire — ex-husband of Grimes — and purchaser of the title of “founder of Tesla” boasts 100 million+ Twitter followers, 20k+ tweets, and the title of CEO as of 2022.
Despite the goal of redefining Twitter as an innovation of grand proportions and as a “free speech” haven, Musk’s tyrannical management style may cause the platform to grind to a screeching halt any moment. Instead of a slow sinking ship, Musk crashed into the iceberg and then set off rocket launchers at the escaping boats.
Here’s a timeline of Musk’s acquisition and subsequent murder of Twitter:
Most recent news at the top — scroll down and read up for a full chronological timeline (this will be updated frequently)
Then-CEO Jack Dorsey replied, “Same.” A user suggested the multi-millionaire should buy Twitter and Musk replied, “How much is it?” So technically, this dumpster fire has been 5 years in the making.
For the Love of God, Stop Letting Elon Musk Near Public Transit!
Never let a weird train-hating billionaire design your city's mass transit.
Elon Musk gets a lot of credit for his contributions to technology.
It's on the basis of his supposed genius as a tech-mogul/inventor that people take him seriously when he talks about wild ideas like a Neuralink chip that "could solve paralysis, blindness, hearing," or the so-called Hyperloop, supersonic train system.
For those unfamiliar, the Hyperloop is a proposed underground vacuum-tube system that would theoretically shuttle passengers at supersonic speeds, connecting distant cities in mere minutes. If that sounds a little too good to be true, well...there are still some details to be worked out. Like, decades of details.
But the important thing is that Elon Musk is taking steps in that futuristic direction. Or at least, that's how he makes it seem.
Loops in Theory
Specifically, for a smaller-scale, intraurban transit Loop Musk has proposed ditching the vacuum tube, the supersonic speeds, and — most importantly — the train. Rather, these systems would use massive elevators to move vehicles underground, into narrow, single-lane tunnels where they could be moved along at high speeds, either by boarding electric "sleds" or through the use of self-driving software.
While there could still be "pods" to ferry larger groups of people, Musk's focus has been largely on solutions for existing private vehicles. And particularly for vehicles manufactured by Tesla.
He has frequently talked about how he intends to "solve traffic" by moving it underground, with dedicated lanes that — according to Musk — could be added to in layers of tunnels, expanding downward to meet demand. Needless to say, this model presents its own engineering, let alone urban planning challenges.
Among these challenges is the well-documented phenomenon of induced demand, which occurs when a heavily-trafficked area adds or expands roads to decrease congestion. When this effort is successful, it makes driving — as opposed to mass transit — a more appealing option for getting around.
This leads to more cars on the road, which leads to more congestion, which leads to more expansion, until entire sections of city are converted into hellscapes of clogged, criss-crossing, eight-lane overpasses that spew pollutants or — when clogged with electric cars — use up energy generated at power plants that spew pollutants.
At first blush, it doesn't seem like just moving this process underground does much to alleviate the problem. But don't worry, Elon Musk's brilliant solution to induced demand is...just to deny that it's a thing.
Still, municipal governments seem to be all too willing to take that bait and meet Elon halfway…or maybe three quarters of the way… Okay, he's doing at least 10% of what he promised.
Loops in Practice
At least two cities are now entrusting his Boring Company with providing a version of that incredible transit technology — with likely a number of other secret deals in the works. But in the only instance where something has been built, it's a Loop minus everything that makes it cool or useful.
Is it though, Elon?
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority paid Elon Musk millions of dollars for a futuristic, high-speed, high-occupancy autonomous shuttle system that was supposed to transport 4400 passengers per hour. But when the system debuted in May, what they got instead was...basically none of that.
The Las Vegas Convention Center (LVCC) Loop involves a fleet of underground Tesla cabs that need drivers, and max out at 35 miles per hour. Those Teslas move through claustrophobic tunnels around a 1.7 mile loop, with three stops serving different sections of the convention center.
On top of that, while tests have supposedly confirmed that the system can handle its required 4400 passenger-per-hour capacity, some basic arithmetic seems to indicate that it will struggle to transport even half that many. If that's true, the system would leave most convention-goers to either wait in long lines for a ride, or make the trek on foot just as they did in the distant, benighted past of 2019.
The tunnels also feature no apparent ventilation or drainage, no route for pedestrians to safely exit in the event of a breakdown — assuming the doors can even open wide enough for them to climb out — and no fire suppression system. Thankfully, Tesla cars aren't known for catching on fire. Oh, wait...
Elon Musk's Las Vegas Loop could have been greatwww.youtube.com
And still, this stripped-down loop was delivered four months late, at about $8 million over the original budget. But hey, the tunnels have cool color-changing LEDs, so…that's something. Elon must have really broken the bank on those.
Fool Us Once…
Part of the promise of the Boring company is that it's supposed to make tunnel construction so cheap that the money for this kind of project can be shifted to its other components. But that doesn't seem to have happened in the case of the LVCC Loop.
Instead of 150-mph autonomous shuttles, moving 12 passengers at a time, a fleet of existing Tesla vehicles are being used at low speeds and carrying a maximum of four passengers each.
The Convention Center could have used the same tunnels to move a lot more people with a conventional tram system, or a smaller fleet of electric vans, or some moving walkways, or...about a dozen other options.
Hell, even golf carts would be a better option, since you could buy twice as many for half the cost with less waste. But perhaps none of these alternatives would have been quite as much of a balm to Elon's ego.
The City of Golf Cartswww.youtube.com
Is it too harsh to suggest that he could actually be that fragile and full of himself? Well, considering his ex-wife's claim that, at their wedding reception, he told her "I am the alpha in this relationship," maybe not.
And for all the fanfare surrounding the LVCC Loop, the self-serving decision to use Teslas could end up costing Musk and The Boring Company millions in fines for falling short of expected passenger capacity.
So, given the massive failure to deliver what was promised, why are there plans to expand this system, with additional stops serving the Las Vegas strip? And why has the city of Fort Lauderdale, Florida just announced plans to accept The Boring Company's proposal for a transit system connecting their downtown to Las Olas Beach?
Is Fort Lauderdale just banking on the buzz and fawning press attention we saw in Las Vegas? Will more of the Kardashian-Jenner clan be summoned for over-enthusiastic test drives of the Las Olas loop?
Presumably there is a limit on how much tourism can be drawn in by the prospect of a low-speed ride in a slightly-less-creepy version of the Willy Wonka tunnel. Is that really enough to warrant these projects, or are these municipal governments just dumb enough to keep buying into the hype?
Kylie Jenner showing off The Boring Company tunnel in Las Vegas \n\n @elonmuskpic.twitter.com/wwN0yc9zIx— SAINT (@SAINT) 1618370965
The proposed Loop would ferry passengers to and from the Las Olas Beach, around 3 miles away from Fort Lauderdale's downtown, with yet another fleet of Tesla taxis. It's a substantially larger project than the LVCC Loop — which took around three years to complete — yet Musk is promising to have it done in six months, for about half the cost of Las Vegas system. How?
Part of the answer is likely the development of the Prufrock, The Boring Company's new, faster boring machine, which genuinely seems like some impressive tech, and is reportedly able to dig around a mile of tunnel in just one week. Add that to the fact that the company has completed one Loop project already, and it may seem like smooth sailing ahead.
But does this optimistic assessment take into account the limestone under Fort Lauderdale — which poses different challenges than the sandstone under Vegas? Does it include considerations for the vital protection of southern Florida's shallow and vulnerable aquifer?
A Better Option
While official approval for the project is pending, with an option for competing proposals from other companies, the city only allowed 45 days for proposals to be submitted. It's a timeline that makes it unlikely any serious contenders will have a chance to make a bid.
Which is really unfortunate, because just about any company could theoretically swoop in and offer the same exact problematic tunnels, but with a small train/tram system in place of taxis. That simple modification would blow Musk out of the water in terms of passenger miles, energy efficiency, and operational costs.
After all, putting trains in underground tunnels has been standard practice for well over a century, and it works pretty beautifully. Considering the fact that more than 200 people can be transported in a single New York City subway car, wouldn't some variation on that be the obvious solution?
While The Boring Company's 12-foot tunnels can't quite accommodate traditional subway trains — which generally require around 17 feet or more — they could still allow for vehicles that can carry far more passengers, far more efficiently than a bunch of Teslas ever could. So why don't Elon Musk and the Boring company just do that?
With a little of Tesla's engineering talent, and a fraction of their tens-of-billions in liquid capital, it seems like adding a simple, high-capacity chassis and interior on top of existing Tesla hardware would be an easy option. Particularly if that vehicle only needs to operate at low speeds, in a controlled tunnel environment.
You could even just copy off of someone else, Elon. We promise we won't tell!Moto
The challenges involved with transporting 8 or 10 or 12+ passengers instead of 4 would be pretty negligible. And could save everyone some money — passengers are currently expected to pay between $5-$7 for a short, private ride. So what's stopping them?
Is it because this simple, practical solution isn't "cool" enough for Musk's crypto-bro, Rick and Morty, Cybertruck persona? Is this a 21st century remake of General Motors' conspiracy to accelerate the decline of America's streetcars? Or does Elon Musk just hate public transit?
Taking the Public out of Transit
While it's worth keeping in mind that the CEO of the world's most valuable car company has a lot to gain from keeping cars at the center of American life, it also seems to be true that he just really dislikes public transit — in particular the part about being around other people.
This isn't just idle speculation. Musk shared his thoughts on the issue in 2017 at a Tesla event for the Neural Information Processing Conference, and his distaste was clear:
"I think public transport is painful. It sucks. Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people, that doesn't leave where you want it to leave, doesn't start where you want it to start, doesn't end where you want it to end … there's like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer, OK, great. And so that's why people like individualized transport."
It's a great argument for cars, as long as you don't consider literally any other factor. Because of course most people would choose privacy and comfort over cramped shared conditions, all things being equal, but all things are not equal.
In particular environmental harm, operational costs, capacity limits, and the price per ride are distinctly different for individualized transport vs. mass transit. It's the difference between normal shipping and overnight shipping — and there's a reason we don't overnight everything that needs to be shipped.
Musk might as well say, "People like hot tubs. That's why we're building a public transit system around a fleet of hot tub limos."
Pictured: The Future of Mass Transit
Obviously that's absurd. But the reasons it doesn't make sense to heat and haul around 1500 pounds of hot water apply just as well to the prospect of a fleet of 62 cars that could be replaced with 10 trams/mini-buses. The waste involved simply in moving that many thousands of pounds of metal around a loop all day — not to mention the required mining and manufacturing process — is staggering.
And it would be laughable to suggest that a man who's made much of his unconscionably large fortune selling "green tech" doesn't understand the irreducible environmental cost of choosing individual vehicles over shared transport.
But since Elon has this personal vendetta against public transit — and is banking his wealth on a future in which everyone has an electric car — he may simply prefer to ignore it.
But...He's a Genius
Then again, this analysis must be missing something. Elon Musk wouldn't be spending so much time on these projects if they were stupid. He's a genius, right?
He's the inventor who made all-electric cars really work, broke crash-safety records, and figured out how to make giant rockets do that kickass vertical landing. Right?
There's no way he's just a weird dude whose uncomfortable around people, and assumes everyone is like him. There's no way The Boring Company started as a childish daydream about a private tunnel to take Musk directly from his home to his work. Right?!
Sorry to disappoint you, but no. Elon Musk is not the master-of-all-trades, real-life Tony Stark genius we've been led to believe he is.
He is, admittedly, very smart in some way. By all accounts he showed talent as a programmer from a young age. He's undeniably a canny investor and businessman, and he has a certain flawed brilliance when it comes to marketing himself and his companies — 420 jokes aside.
But none of that makes him a genius. No one who — in mid-March of 2020 — said that Covid in the US was weeks away from being "close to zero new cases" could possibly be a genius.
Even without every other dumb thing Elon Musk has said and done, that tweet alone handily disproves the case for true general intelligence. There is no genius that applies across disciplines — no smart person whose opinions should be taken seriously across the board.
So why can elon Musk open his mouth on literally any topic and have fanboys, investors, and local governments falling over each other to give him their money? Because our culture has a sick, vestigial tendency to confuse wealth for merit, and Elon Musk's niche of intelligence has been well suited to make him incomprehensibly wealthy — he could buy literally every home in Wyoming, Vermont, and Alaska at market value.
He's so inconceivably rich, in fact, that a $900 million venture digging tunnels to put his cars in — he already put one in space, so he's clearly running out of places to stick them — is the equivalent of an average American spending $600 on their hobby...
A Petty, Vindictive Nerd
Not a genius. Not a savior. A billionaire nerd (which is only marginally better than a regular billionaire) who doesn't deserve even a fraction of the credit he's given as an "inventor."
He didn't "invent" any of the cars at Tesla, and only became a "co-founder" of the company on paper after investing $6.5 million in the previously Incorporated Tesla Inc., which actual founders Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning had already conceived of as "a car manufacturer that is also a technology company."
Elon Musk invested in a promising company in an emerging industry. He promoted the hell out of it (while also heavily promoting himself), took advantage of every government subsidy and tax credit he possibly could, and was able to hire some of the best engineering talent in the world for relatively cheap — because a lot of people want to work on the future of green technology. All this while endangering manufacturing workers and extorting local governments to save a buck.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Whistleblowerwww.youtube.com
Likewise with SpaceX, while he did at least found the company — and had an innovative approach to cutting costs — he owes much of his success there to the simple fact that a lot of smart, talented people were interested in space travel. He did not design those (admittedly awesome, if a bit explodey) rockets.
None of his success is evidence that he is some sort of next-level genius who is seeing the matrix and building the future. He is ultimately a petty, stubborn, self-aggrandizing man who hoards wealth, avoids taxes, viciously attacks his critics, (allegedly) swats employees, and dismisses reality when it isn't to his liking.
Those traits have occasionally served him well in achieving goals that others would find too daunting. Would he have been able to turn a tiny electric car company into a major global brand if he had listened to the naysayers? Would he be able to attract so much engineering talent to so many cutting-edge projects if he didn't zealously promote — and occasionally exaggerate — his vision for each technology?
But when we're talking about a man who manufactures cars and hates public transit, now being entrusted to develop a system for moving lots of people as efficiently as possible...maybe that petty, stubborn resistance to reality is not the best attribute.
It seems to have him pettily fixated entirely on what he wants to change about his own congested, "soul-destroying" commute — at the expense of the masses of non-billionaire people who also exist. And it seems increasingly likely that, as a result, multiple cities will be left with legacies of expensive, limited-use infrastructure that only looks futuristic for a few years, and only serves a fraction of the people it should — before being abandoned.
For a preview of what that looks like, just look at all the abandoned monorail projects around the world — and in Vegas itself. Once upon a time they seemed like a great, futuristic option — much more exciting than traditional trains, streetcars, or buses. Now they're expensive scrap taking up space in places where space is already at a premium.
A Missed Opportunity
After World War II, while European nations developed their train systems, the United States invested in a hyper-individualist vision of the future dreamed up by car companies: every worker and every family in their own motorized privacy bubble on four wheels.
How The Auto Industry Carjacked The American Dream | Climate Townwww.youtube.com
Every city built around those moving private spaces, and any point on the map connected to every other via an incredible network of interstate highways that required orders of magnitude more space and material than equivalent railroads, and massively disrupted natural habitats and migration patterns for hundreds of vital species.
Still, the fact that such an ambitious dream was made a reality is nothing short of miraculous. The planning, engineering, and construction of such an immense system of roads was an almost unfathomable undertaking, and has been referred to as "the greatest public works project in American history."
In the aftermath, the rate of vehicle ownership shot up, and sprawling suburbs full of white people sprouted like weeds around every American city. The nation had been remade in the car's image.
But if we had known then what we know now about the threat of fossil fuels and runaway climate change, would we still have done it? Might we have reconsidered the value of the boring, familiar, yet-to-be-bested train?
In retrospect it's obvious that we missed an opportunity to connect the nation with a system of high-speed railways. An oversight we've spent recent years struggling to correct — without much progress.
And, in retrospect, cities built around foot traffic and public transit are much cleaner and more pleasant than cities built for cars. Which is why so many local governments have started taking steps to limit or cut off vehicle access to city centers.
While we still have a long way to go to correct our errors in these cases, we must know better by now… Right?
Sadly, as G.I. Joe taught us, knowing is only half the battle. And the other half — the half that involves changing our destructive, short-sighted habits — is a great deal harder. For some of us anyway…
Los Angeles nixed Musks "Dugout Loop" to Dodgers stadium for reasons that should be obvious. And officials from Virginia, who were given a tour of one of The Boring Company's tunnels back in 2019, were likewise left appropriately underwhelmed.
Elon Musk's Dugout Loop - The DISASTER That Almost Happenedwww.youtube.com
But not everywhere is so lucky. It seems that all it took to make Vegas and Fort Lauderdale's representatives fall back in love with the car-centric model was to make the cars marginally better for the environment, and throw them into a light-up tunnel.
And now those cities seem poised to repeat the same mistakes — to once again allow a car manufacturer to shape and sabotage public transit for his own ends.
The Silver Lining
For everything that's bad, depressing, and foreboding about the construction of The Boring Company's Loops, there is a faint shimmering cause for hope: There's nothing about them that requires the use of Teslas. They're just tunnels.
Their simplicity exposes the flimsy fantasy of Musk's hyper-futuristic transit vision— no sleds, no elevators, no air-tight seal to allow for near-vacuum. It's another fiction like the miniature child-rescuing submarine, Starlink's "cheap" "high-speed" Internet, Tesla's "true" autopilot, Boring's affordable housing bricks, or SpaceX's heavily asterisked timeline for Mars — Elon Musk always over-promises and always under-delivers.
But in this case the simplicity may actually be their best feature. Assuming the tunnels don't succumb to some glaring structural flaw that Elon Musk cajoled his engineers into overlooking — which may be too optimistic, as the ride already looks a bit bumpy — Las Vegas and Fort Lauderdale could walk away from Musk with some cheapish tunnels (and possibly some gently used Teslas for resale).
Then just replace the cars with trams or carts or moving walkways, or any of the other, more efficient options mentioned above, and voila! A functional transit system.
While purpose-built public transit infrastructure would obviously be better, at least the tunnels wouldn't go to waste. They could even be mixed-use tunnels, with normal people hopping on cheaper trams while wealthy sociophobes like Musk opt for rides in private vehicles.
This mix was previously proposed by Musk, but he seems to be in denial of the fact that his Loops become obscene and incoherent without it. And so, the current LVCC Loop and proposed Las Olas Loop have abandoned that sensible solution in favor of overpriced, dedicated taxi lanes with long wait times. Cool...
The Upshot
In a year when the only news story more frequent than the billionaire vanity-project space race — Richard Branson last week, Jeff Bezos this — is the occurrence of terrifying, "once in a century" extreme weather, what are we meant to take away from this? What lesson is there in the fact that a vital shift toward public transit is allowed to be so badly mismanaged by a man who is more interested in sending a car to space than he is in actually being the green icon he pretends to be?
Is there anything we can learn here — beyond the obvious fact that our culture is terminally diseased, and needs to be massively reformed and restructured to avert the actual climate apocalypse? Yes.
While it remains to be seen whether the planned expansion in Las Vegas and the Las Olas Loop in Fort Lauderdale will become realities — or if city officials will come to their senses and stop indulging Elon's weird car-tunnel hobby — we can still walk away with these important insights.
- Smart in a few ways can still be incredibly dumb in many others.
- If something sounds too good to be true it probably is.
- Never let a weird train-hating billionaire design your city's mass transit.
Debate Night: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bernie Sanders, and the Earth Vs. Space Question
On March 22nd, Senator Bernie Sanders and Elon Musk entered a debate over the fate of the world.
It began when Sanders published a very in-character tweet. "We are in a moment in American history where two guys — Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — own more wealth than the bottom 40% of people in this country," he wrote. "That level of greed and inequality is not only immoral. It is unsustainable."
Elon Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who briefly surpassed Jeff Bezos in early 2021 to become the wealthiest man in the world, had a ready-made response. In a Tweet, he wrote, "I am accumulating resources to help make life multi-planetary & extend the light of consciousness to the stars."
Sanders's reply remained laser-focused on his lifelong mission to fight income inequality on Earth. He wrote, "Space travel is an exciting idea, but right now we need to focus on Earth and create a progressive tax system so that children don't go hungry, people are not homeless and all Americans have healthcare. The level of inequality in America is obscene and a threat to our democracy."
Musk's starry-eyed statement has since faded into the ether of Twitter, but the context of this debate raises larger questions about futuristic technologies, the present-day interests and needs of humans on Earth, and the ongoing battle between them.
Billionaires dream of flying machines
As the Earth speeds towards irreversible climate disaster, many people's minds have naturally turned toward the stars. The distant, spinning nebulae and gleaming planets above us have long been idealized as potential escape routes for the unhappily earthbound.
But as the climate crisis grows more dire on Earth and space travel ramps up, thanks to ambitious patrons, some (like Elon Musk) have proposed that space may be our best shot at collective survival.
Famously, Musk founded SpaceX because he believed that NASA was not working hard enough to bring humans to Mars, and he feared that humanity's approaching its last chance to escape Earth before our planet becomes an uninhabitable hellscape.
His fellow Bernie Sanders nemesis Jeff Bezos has expressed similarly apocalyptic concerns. Bezos, who founded a rocket and aerospace travel company called Blue Origin in 2000, recently stepped down from his position as CEO of Amazon, claiming he planned on investing more time in his work with Blue Origin and his efforts to fight climate change.
Like Musk, Bezos aims to colonize space by investing ambitiously in new technologies that could help people reach the stars. And also like Musk, he fears for the future of civilization — and sees space as the place where these problems might be solved.
"Hundreds of years into the future, we will move all the polluting industries to space and other planets, where we have infinite resources for all practical purposes and Earth will only be (used for) light industries and residential," Bezos stated in a conversation with Amazon India chief Amit Agarwal in New Delhi.
This plan, which Bezos calls the New Inversion, is a long-term vision that would effectively move all pollution to the cosmos. "I would think, kind of [a] time frame of hundreds of years," Bezos added, reiterating that "we have to preserve this planet and we can do that using the resources of space."
The "space escape" as an escape route for the super-rich
Bezos, Musk, and their future-focused peers may claim that their plans to reach the stars are efforts to ensure a future for humanity, but their reputations and vast fortunes have raised many questions about who this interplanetary future would serve.
At the moment, the future of space travel appears to be reserved for the super-rich — the sort of people who are already least affected by earthly calamities like climate change, despite unleashing the vast majority of the world's carbon emissions. For example, private spaceflight companies such as Axiom reportedly charge up to $55 million to send travelers into specially designed rooms located in the International Space Station.
It is likely that even if space travel begins to evolve in step with Moore's law (the theory that computers' processing power tends to double every two years), whatever world we build in the cosmos will remain reserved for the 1% for quite a long time. In this light, the futures preached by techno-prophets like Bezos and Musk start to look like thin cloaks for a kind of moon-eyed eugenics that would leave billions of people in the literal dust.
"The space barons are shrewdly — one might say cynically — tapping into our respect for astronauts and our idealism about what space represents," Ceridwen Dovey writes in The New Yorker. "They seem to be counting on us to be awestruck by whatever it is they do in space, and to overlook the fact that their motives are not exactly pure, nor are their methods of getting us there egalitarian."
Humans are drawn to mystery and beauty, and space is such a tantalizing frontier that it's difficult to completely write off billionaires' ambitious plans to penetrate it, even though we know their earthly work typically involves hoarding vast amounts of wealth while underpaying and mistreating masses of workers.
The ongoing battle between technological innovation and human-centered reform
Similar contradictions plague a multitude of existing plans to address climate change on Earth, and they are particularly endemic to plans broadcasted by corporate entities who have nothing to gain and everything to lose from substantial climate action.
For example, Jeff Bezos recently pledged $10 billion of his $188 billion net worth to the Bezos Earth Fund, yet his overall approach to climate and philanthropy has continuously come under fire.
First, there's the fact that despite all his talk of concern about climate change, Bezos's company continues to belch out carbon emissions, releasing around 51.17 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2019 – up 15% from the previous year despite various green pledges. The company has also been slammed with reports about its poor treatment of workers, and prior to the Capitol riots, Bezos also reportedly donated thousands of dollars to conservative politicians such as progressive disruptor-in-chief Mitch McConnell.
Then there's the fact that Bezos failed to donate more than roughly 0.1% of his net worth prior to his 2020 donations — and the latter comprised less than 8% of his vast net worth, a sum that, along with Musk's wealth, is equivalent to the collective wealth of the United States's poorest 40% of people.
The $10 billion Bezos donated via the Earth Fund was also met with criticism, particularly from groups invested in climate justice. The vast majority of Bezos's donations went to established environmental organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund and World Wildlife Fund, most of which already possess endowments in the millions. Critics said that many of these contributions will never reach communities already subject to the worst effects of climate-caused floods, wildfires, pollution, and destruction, and many of their ultimate goals involve conserving an existing status quo rather than addressing interconnected crises like racism and economic inequality.
In a statement released in December, a group of community-focused NGOs called the Climate Justice Alliance released a statement in protest of Bezos's donations. It found that "less than a quarter of the first-round grants will go to intermediary funds that support thousands of grassroots communities cultivating solutions on the frontlines of the climate emergency. The inequities couldn't be more striking."
This could also be said of the work of many of the "Big Green" environmental groups, particularly those historically focused on conservation rather than human-focused social change. Conservation movements have historically been bound up with white supremacy, and a look at the bigger picture reveals that white supremacy created and perpetuates the conditions for climate change, itself is an inherently racist crisis.
Other billionaires and corporations' efforts have been subject to similar critiques. For example, Elon Musk recently launched a competition offering $50 million to whomever could invent the best carbon capture techniques. Carbon capture technology has long been an alluring yet elusive potential solution to climate change, and it has also been the recipient of generous funding.
Despite all this investment, no miracle technology with the ability to stop climate change has ever emerged, and waiting for one feels more and more like waiting for a doomsday savior who will never arrive.
False promises further threaten any chance of climate action
An April 2020 study from Lancaster University argues against promises that glorify miraculous technologies, because "overreliance on promises of new technology to solve climate change is enabling delay."
Hinging the solution of climate change on miraculous technological breakthroughs like ice-restoration, nuclear fusion power, massive carbon-eating machines, and extraterrestrial offshoring can "feed systemic 'moral corruption', in which current elites are enabled to pursue self-serving pathways, while passing off risk onto vulnerable people in the future and in the global South," say researchers Duncan McLaren and Nils Markusson, who encourage "cultural, social and political transformation" over placing hopes in instant solutions.
It seems that any genuine "cultural, social and political transformation" will not come directly from billionaires and massive corporations, who naturally often benefit most from current cultural, social, and political structures and hierarchies. Recent corporate efforts to combat climate change have been hollow and hypocritical; and many corporations are being accused of greenwashing as they release statements and pledges that appear to be commitments to fighting climate change but that are efforts to deflect opposition.
A January 2021 report from the Sierra Club entitled "The Dirty Truth About Utility Climate Pledges" graded utility companies on their plans to cut emissions and transition to clean energy solutions and issued many failing grades to companies that have released "carbon neutral" pledges and similar statements. "
The infuriating truth is that many utilities are not only protecting their coal plants from retirement, but are also actively planning to build out climate destabilizing gas plants," said Mary Anne Hitt, who is the Director of Campaigns at the Sierra Club. "The consequences of allowing utilities to continue to delay the transition to clean energy will be particularly disastrous for low-income communities and communities of color."
Learning from the people and the planet
So where will change come from, if not rockets to stars or carbon pledges or the latest addictive inventions of Silicon Valley coders? Perhaps the answer is not above us but rather below our feet. Perhaps we have everything we need already here on Earth.
"We already have a safe and natural technology for carbon capture and storage (CCS)," writes Francis Seymour in a report for the Center for Global Development. It's called 'tropical forests.'"
We already have everything we need to transition to clean energy, and we already have enough food to feed the world's population. What is needed is a redistribution of wealth and resources — something billionaires, conservative politicians, and oil companies have fought against since climate change was exposed as a dangerous reality in the '80s.
Slowly but surely, the idea of wealth redistribution as an investment in fighting climate change is seeping into reality in the form of modern politics. Joe Biden's infrastructure plan will be paid for, in part, by taxing the super-rich. Still, there's a long way to go.
As things grow more dire, environmentalists increasingly view a cross-racial, cross-class movement as the only feasible solution to climate change. This framework, long supported by environmental justice movements and knitted into intersectional plans like the Green New Deal, sees the solutions to climate change as bound up with ending capitalism, racial injustice, and other interconnected global plagues.
The new vanguard of the climate movement also acknowledges how important Indigenous knowledge of land stewardship and conservation, frontline communities' understanding of environmental racism and the stakes of the climate crisis, and ongoing working class and BIPOC struggles for justice are to any just transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy.
Clearly, billionaires' expensive efforts to colonize space would be low on the priority list of any intersectional response to climate change.
Is there any place for space in the climate fight?
All this being said, it's unlikely that humans will ever totally abandon our desire to explore distant galaxies. Our desire to know the cosmos is as innate as our childhood desires to explore the deep green mysteries of the nearby woods. Fortunately, we don't have to write space exploration out completely in the fight for Earth.
Actually, Jeff Bezos wasn't wrong when he said space could be key to helping us fight climate change. NASA, the UN, and other organizations have consistently reported that some solutions to the climate crisis might be found through space-based technology capable of deepening our understanding of the climate crisis and providing key evidence of its effects.
For example, satellites can detect changing temperature levels, rising sea levels, and other factors that could be vital in the current global effort to halt warming at 1.5°C. On a more theoretical level, thinking about how alien civilizations may have responded to climate change could help us address our situation.
It seems that for now, space travel's greatest contribution is its ability to help humans look back at Earth — either to measure its changes or to feel awed by what Carl Sagan called our "pale blue dot," as many astronauts have been when they viewed Earth from space and experienced the famous "Overview Effect." (Upon seeing the Earth from space, astronauts report a newfound sense of compassion for and responsibility to the planet and for the interconnected webs of life that live upon it).
Plus, the sheer ambition of the space race provides an excellent blueprint for the kind of effort it will take to firmly address the climate crisis. All in all, there is room for space travel within a just transition to an ethical future.
But for now, it seems that the "light of consciousness," as Elon Musk put it, would be best directed towards Earth's living, breathing beings rather than towards a few billionaires and their efforts to further puncture the edges of our already damaged, airless, eternally silent atmosphere.
Elon Musk Settled with the SEC, But He's Still the Worst
Enough with the Elon Musk hero worship.
A World Economic Forum survey found that Millennials consider Elon Musk to be the third-most admirable public figure in the world, finally confirming, once and for all, that Millenials are the worst.
If you haven't read Rolling Stone's bleak profile of Musk yet, don't bother. The experience is kind of like watching a mashup of all the sad parts of Spike Jonze's her; entertaining, but you're left feeling like you need a shower. The piece presents readers with an emotionally stunted, socially bizarre man, who finds solace only in the possibilities of technology. I am not implying that I think Elon Musk would fuck a Tesla; but I'm not not.
The latest mess up in a string of blunders that the New York Times recently called Elon Musk's " No Good, Very Bad Year" is the result of one fateful tweet.
The Security and Exchange Commission sued Musk for making
"false and misleading" statements to investors. It turned out Musk had not actually secured the funding mentioned in the Tweet. The SEC elaborated, "In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source." People on Pinterest probably didn't realize when they re-pinned Musk's inspirational quote, "Brand is just a perception, and perception will match reality over time," what Musk meant by that was: "Just lie."
While the flamethrower-making, weed-smoking entrepreneur is popular among a generation of people desperate for a role model as uncomfortable with human contact as they are, Musk's online bluff didn't go over well with investors. The SEC claims that the Tweet and subsequent tweets from Musk over the next several hours caused "significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock." After Musk's tweet, Tesla's stock shot up nearly 9% but then dropped more than 11% in after-hours trading Thursday.
As a result of the complaint, the Iron Man-wanna-be agreed Saturday to step down as chairman of Tesla and pay a $20 million fine to settle the charges. According to CNN, once the settlement is approved in courts, "Musk will be allowed to stay as CEO but must leave his role as chairman of the board within 45 days. He cannot seek reelection for three years, according to court filings."
Whether the now infamous August 7th Tweet was a poorly executed PR move, Musk had a secret source of funding for privatizing the company, or the technicians at Tesla just forgot to update his software and caused him to glitch, Musk has denied any wrongdoing on his part. He responded to the complaint in a statement saying, "This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed, I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way." We can only assume the transparency he refers to is that which he exhibited in a May 2018 conference call, when he called an analyst's inquiry about Tesla's finances a "boring bonehead question" and refused to answer.
Urban Dictionary Trolling Musk's August 7th Tweet
To add further interest to the disintegration of America's favorite Robot with feelings, rapper Azealia Banks is now claiming that Musk was on acid at the time of the Tweet. She stated, in the best series of quotes to ever grace the internet, "I waited around all weekend while grimes coddled her boyfriend for being too stupid to know not to go on twitter on acid," Banks wrote, concluding that, "it was probably some weird threesome sex shit to begin with."
This writer would be shirking her journalistic responsibility to the truth if she didn't include that Banks said of Musk, "He's not cute at all in person." Musk has denied that he was on drugs at the time of the Tweet and would probably want to add that he is actually very handsome - and he's definitely cool enough to take acid if he felt like it.
Perhaps Musk's recently self-diagnosed " severe emotional pain" is to blame for his string of strange behaviors. After reading any of Musk's recent interviews in which he seems to be actively spiraling - even once asking the interviewer, "Is there anybody you think I should date?"- it can be easy to feel bad for him. But, when the pity starts to creep in, just remember: he recently bought his fifth multi-million dollar home within a one mile radius of his four other multi-million dollar homes; he goes on Trump-style "fake news" Twitter rants anytime anything negative is written about him or his companies; his girlfriend creepily wore a collar shaped like the Tesla logo to the Met ball; and he unjustly called one of the divers that rescued the trapped Thai soccer team a pedophile. So save your sympathy for, well, literally anyone else.
Brooke Ivey Johnson is a Brooklyn-based writer, playwright, and human woman. To read more of her work visit her blog or follow her twitter @BrookeIJohnson.
The Dangers of Automation: Are Self-Driving Cars Here To Stay?
And is this a good thing?
40,000 people died on the road in 2017, and human error was a factor in about 90% of these collisions. Currently, the technology just isn't there, but considering the amount of money being pumped into the idea, it's only a matter of time before self-driving vehicles take over the road. As we inch closer to the technocratic dream of super highways filled with robot cars, it's important to remember that disruptive technology–that necessarily obsolesces certain industries–has a very real impact on society.
Last year, Elon Musk unveiled his fully electric semi truck. It can travel 500 miles before needing a charge, and features a very advanced autopilot system. Tesla claims the truck can drive itself on highways, and while it's far from completely automated, it's pretty clear what Musk hopes the next version will have. This is bad news for a large portion of the American workforce.
An electric semi truck
Currently, there are 3.5 million truck drivers in the United States. Including non-drivers, the trucking industry employs one in fifteen American workers. On top of this, there are around 375,000 taxi drivers and chauffeurs, and close to 700,000 bus drivers. It's not just jobs that will be affected by automated vehicles though. Ancillary jobs, such as auto repair, will also fall by the wayside as new safety features begin reducing the amount of traffic accidents. While there are numerous benefits to automated vehicles, such as more efficient parking and emergency services, the transition from human drivers to autopilot is going to be incredibly bumpy. The assertion made by Joel Lee (editor in chief of Make Use Of) that "the long-term gains that we'll see as a society far outweigh the short-term growing pains and inconveniences," is one that echoes the sentiments of technocrats like Elon Musk and Dara Khosrowshahi. That said, someone would have to be deliriously out of touch to call the loss of over five million jobs (about 4% of our total workforce) an "inconvenience."
The future
The average age of an American truck driver is 55-years-old. The median income is around $42,000 a year. It's not a job that'll make someone rich, but it's enough to pay the bills and has been a safe career path for those without a college education. For many of these drivers, re-education isn't an option. Middle-aged people with families and mortgages can't afford to uproot their lives and go back to school. Self-driving cars may be a net good for society, but the technology comes with some risks.
That said, the propensity to eliminate jobs isn't a feature that's unique to self-driving vehicles. There are some who believe that within 30 years, most of our jobs will be automated, resulting in unemployment rates as high as 50%. Less optimistic estimates have stated that up to 73 million jobs will be eliminated by 2030. Essentially what we're staring down the barrel of, is a Player Piano-type situation, in which the demand for work severely outweighs the supply. Unfortunately, the technological advancements that will eventually lead to our occupational undoing are going to continue. As professor Moshe Vardi put it, "the genie is out of the bottle." There seems to be only two options going forward. Either American society moves to address the issue of mass unemployment, setting up programs like Universal Basic Income and supporting those who can't work, or it doesn't, and we end up in class system that's so rigidly defined, the people at the bottom might as well be slaves.
Matt Clibanoff is a writer and editor based in New York City who covers music, politics, sports and pop culture. His editorial work can be found in Inked Magazine, Pop Dust, The Liberty Project, and All Things Go. His fiction has been published in Forth Magazine. -- Find Matt at his website and on Twitter: @mattclibanoff