I don't think this article tells us very much about what Bezos really thinks, let alone shows that he is "delusional." Digging up what someone wrote in high school isn't as revealing as the author...
I don't think this article tells us very much about what Bezos really thinks, let alone shows that he is "delusional." Digging up what someone wrote in high school isn't as revealing as the author thinks.
I think you're right about the space colonization dream thing that this author uses. But Bezo's utter disregard for workers, his ruthless brand of socially and environmentally destructive...
I think you're right about the space colonization dream thing that this author uses. But Bezo's utter disregard for workers, his ruthless brand of socially and environmentally destructive capitalism, and his view that democratic institutions should be bowled over by economic might are absolutely dangerous. (Just to be clear, since we're on the Internet, I'm not saying you're in favor of these aspects of the Bezos juggernaut.)
Is there any indication that Bezos in particular has an "utter disregard for workers"? While Amazon warehouse conditions are... not good... they're bad in all warehouses. Now, that doesn't excuse...
Is there any indication that Bezos in particular has an "utter disregard for workers"? While Amazon warehouse conditions are... not good... they're bad in all warehouses. Now, that doesn't excuse anything, I just don't think it's an indication that Bezos is particularly sociopathic with regard to workers.
And Amazon SWEs are compensated well, even if there are PIP and banana memes.
So the argument here is that a lot of corporations are as bad as Bezos' so because Amazon does evil things that are relatively normal then... what? We shouldn't make a big deal out of it? An...
So the argument here is that a lot of corporations are as bad as Bezos' so because Amazon does evil things that are relatively normal then... what? We shouldn't make a big deal out of it?
An alternative take might be that profit as de facto justification for any ethical violation has gotten so damaging to both society and the environment that any attempt to call it, and it's worst offenders, out is probably a good thing.
Well, rather, I think as chief executive, you're fairly insulated from specific decisions like that. Instead, it's a manifestation of having profit seeking company. It's not Bezos himself making...
Well, rather, I think as chief executive, you're fairly insulated from specific decisions like that. Instead, it's a manifestation of having profit seeking company. It's not Bezos himself making people pee in a bottle, it's the manager who's trying to impress his manager, who's trying to impress his manager... Repeat a few times... Who's trying to impress Bezos.
And profit seeking is quite normalized in American culture. Now, I'm not saying that that's a good thing, I'm just saying on a human level you can quite easily indirectly cause a lot of human suffering and feel no responsibility as a "normal" person. Every villain is the hero of their own story and all that.
Maybe. But then, it's also been national headlines and not exactly news anymore. He could stop it at any time. And just because he might be insulated from them doesn't mean he shouldn't be...
I think as chief executive, you're fairly insulated from specific decisions like that.
Maybe. But then, it's also been national headlines and not exactly news anymore. He could stop it at any time.
And just because he might be insulated from them doesn't mean he shouldn't be responsible for the behavior of his underlings.
I think that this is indeed the case. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known phenomenon, and it emerges most readily in very large organisations like Amazon. Perhaps Amazon's emergent...
It's not Bezos himself making people pee in a bottle, it's the manager who's trying to impress his manager, who's trying to impress his manager... Repeat a few times... Who's trying to impress Bezos.
I think that this is indeed the case. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known phenomenon, and it emerges most readily in very large organisations like Amazon.
Perhaps Amazon's emergent amorality as consequence of it being super large and touching every consumer facet of our lives, material and digital, is reason enough for it be divided into smaller, more moral units.
It might not be the case, but it is coming across as if you're defending Bezos, the person with by far the most power at Amazon, as somehow excused because he's only indirectly producing harm by...
It might not be the case, but it is coming across as if you're defending Bezos, the person with by far the most power at Amazon, as somehow excused because he's only indirectly producing harm by managing an amoral capitalist corporation.
Your last paragraph is also perhaps and explanation but it's not a justification.
It's not intended to be one. The question above isn't whether or Bezos is a "good" person, it's whether he's sociopathic, or rather, has abnormally poor empathy. Which I don't think there is...
explanation but it's not a justification.
It's not intended to be one. The question above isn't whether or Bezos is a "good" person, it's whether he's sociopathic, or rather, has abnormally poor empathy. Which I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say either way.
Was it suggested that Bezos is markedly worse than other oligarchic capitalists? Can't Bezos be just equally awful and the focus because he's the most wealthy and powerful?
Was it suggested that Bezos is markedly worse than other oligarchic capitalists? Can't Bezos be just equally awful and the focus because he's the most wealthy and powerful?
I don't know enough about Jeff Bezos to say that I have a good idea of how he thinks, but for what its worth, this article seems to run parallel to (or is based on) PBS's Frontline Documentary...
I don't know enough about Jeff Bezos to say that I have a good idea of how he thinks, but for what its worth, this article seems to run parallel to (or is based on) PBS's Frontline Documentary about Amazon and Bezos. That Frontline documentary is pretty wild and it paints a similar picture of Bezos as a guy whose ultimate goal is to build space colonies.
...Hang on, I have to take a minute to get over how fucking insane that last sentence was...
The documentary is really worth checking out (available here). I watched it a few weeks ago and couldn't stop thinking about the pyramids. You probably can't build the pyramids in 2500 BCE without slaves, the same way you probably can't build a space colony in the 21st century without exploiting some workers along the way. I'm pretty sure that's on a post-it note somewhere in Bezos's house.
Bezos owns Blue Origin, which seems like pretty clear evidence that he's enough of a fan of space exploration to put some money into it. This is a common enthusiasm among science nerds, though...
Bezos owns Blue Origin, which seems like pretty clear evidence that he's enough of a fan of space exploration to put some money into it. This is a common enthusiasm among science nerds, though most don't have the means to do much more about it than read science fiction and play Kerbal Space Program. It doesn't seem clear to me that he's going to sink a significant percentage of his net worth into it or whether it can be considered his primary goal in life, rather than an expensive hobby.
Compare with Musk who really did sink a large percentage of his wealth into starting SpaceX, though he went on to make it profitable with the help of government contracts.
I will also point out that space exploration is also funded by the US government so it doesn't seem like the bizarre fringe thing it's being painted as. Do you also want to defund NASA? Might it be better if some rocket development isn't funded by taxpayers?
Also, no slavery involved. There are plenty of enthusiastic engineers who like getting paid to work on rockets. There is competition for that kind of work.
Ok, there are a couple of things that I want to clear up. If you follow that link in my original comment, you'll see in the documentary that the people in Bezos's inner circle are the ones saying...
Ok, there are a couple of things that I want to clear up. If you follow that link in my original comment, you'll see in the documentary that the people in Bezos's inner circle are the ones saying that he is in it for space colonization. It's not speculation or strangers trying to connect the dots. The difference between him and Musk might be one of patience or pragmatism, but I don't know enough to speculate on those kinds of details. What is clear though is throughout his time at Amazon, Bezos has had a clear long-term strategy that he prioritizes, even if it costs him in the short-term. There weren't many people that foresaw Amazon's dominance, but that was his goal from day one. Just because we don't see him investing a lot into Blue Origin right now, doesn't mean he won't do so in the future. We might end up viewing Space X and Blue Origin the same way we look at Yahoo and Google.
As for my other comments, first, I don't think space exploration is insane or a meaningless endeavor - in fact, my feelings are quite the opposite. What is insane, however, is the sentence "Jeff Bezos's goal is to use Amazon to build space colonies," simply for how conspiratorial it sounds. Second, I'm not talking specifically about the people designing and building rockets being exploited, I was referencing the Amazon workers. If Blue Origin grows into something that realizes Bezos's dreams of space colonization, it would be a world wonder that would not have been possible without the exploitation of workers and the monopolistic business strategy that Amazon is infamous for. The question I keep asking myself is if it's worth it. It definitely makes me feel better than if there were no goal of space exploration.
Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you for the recommendation but I haven't watched the documentary yet. I think it sounds weird to think of exploiting warehouse workers as somehow funding space...
Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you for the recommendation but I haven't watched the documentary yet.
I think it sounds weird to think of exploiting warehouse workers as somehow funding space colonies because it's an odd argument that starts to fall apart once you start thinking about it more.
Essentially all the money that Amazon makes from retail originally comes from customers buying stuff. Might it be more accurate to say that Amazon's customers are indirectly funding space exploration? They (we) also pay (not enough) to warehouse workers, which helps them feed their families. Though of course we have no direct control over that.
Also, it's not quite right to think of customers as funding space exploration because giving someone money doesn't commit them to anything in particular. It creates options. Bezos isn't required to commit to anything and he can change his mind. So, it would be more accurate to say that customers indirectly gave Bezos the power to spend a lot of money any way he wants. But, we did get our stuff delivered.
We also shouldn't confuse Bezos with his company. If you look at where most of Bezo's personal wealth actually comes from, it's by selling stock. So, it's mostly coming from shareholders who think Amazon is valuable and want to buy some Amazon.
Also, money can be made in many different ways and it's probably not necessary to do it by treating warehouse workers badly. It would be weird to think that an unnecessary tradeoff is "worth it" when it could be fixed.
Decent way of putting it actually. I think both the pyramids and space colonies are pretty awesome, but wouldn't support their being built on the backs of the oppressed. The pyramids are done, but...
You probably can't build the pyramids in 2500 BCE without slaves, the same way you probably can't build a space colony in the 21st century without exploiting some workers along the way.
Decent way of putting it actually. I think both the pyramids and space colonies are pretty awesome, but wouldn't support their being built on the backs of the oppressed.
The pyramids are done, but I'd like to wait on the space colonies until we can built them democratically and in good conscience.
There is a consensus among Egyptologists that the Great Pyramids were not built by slaves. Rather, it was farmers who built the pyramids during flooding, when they could not work in their lands.
Interesting to consider, thanks. Doesn't invalidate the comparison though, as I don't see how building monuments to a king is for the benefit of the farmers.
Interesting to consider, thanks. Doesn't invalidate the comparison though, as I don't see how building monuments to a king is for the benefit of the farmers.
I would not be against this. I love plants and animals, and it pains me to see the price they (and we) pay for each trinket we buy off Amazon, since the price of that plastic object is (oil...
He is very open about this. He gives talks about it. He’s been obsessed with it since high school, when a local newspaper reported he wanted to “ get all people off the Earth and see it turned into a huge national park.”
I would not be against this. I love plants and animals, and it pains me to see the price they (and we) pay for each trinket we buy off Amazon, since the price of that plastic object is (oil extraction + transportation + refining + transportation + processing + molding + transporting + packaging (repeat the whole thing) + packaging (once more) + transportation + packaging waste + the item is in the landfill in 30 days/months)
“The earth is finite, and if the world economy and population is to keep expanding, space is the only way to go.” In a lecture, Bezos says that “we have ever-increasing demand for energy,” and “will run out of energy on earth.” He asks: “What happens when unlimited demand meets finite resources? Rationing.” But, he says, “if we move out into the solar system, for all practical purposes, we have unlimited resources.”
Unfortunately ... Bezos is extremely powerful, and having someone that powerful and that delusional is alarming. His internal logic is that amassing endless power and wealth is objectively good, because it serves the Customer and the ultimate mission of fleeing the earth for space. So Amazon should do everything possible to avoid paying taxes, because taxes saved can go toward the all-important Mission. It should extort whatever it can get out of cities. It should try to take over the U.S. government. After all, if the public doesn’t share Bezos’ belief that we must urgently build the infrastructure to flee the earth, their will must be overridden.
I don't think this article tells us very much about what Bezos really thinks, let alone shows that he is "delusional." Digging up what someone wrote in high school isn't as revealing as the author thinks.
I think you're right about the space colonization dream thing that this author uses. But Bezo's utter disregard for workers, his ruthless brand of socially and environmentally destructive capitalism, and his view that democratic institutions should be bowled over by economic might are absolutely dangerous. (Just to be clear, since we're on the Internet, I'm not saying you're in favor of these aspects of the Bezos juggernaut.)
Edit: added parenthetical.
Is there any indication that Bezos in particular has an "utter disregard for workers"? While Amazon warehouse conditions are... not good... they're bad in all warehouses. Now, that doesn't excuse anything, I just don't think it's an indication that Bezos is particularly sociopathic with regard to workers.
And Amazon SWEs are compensated well, even if there are PIP and banana memes.
So the argument here is that a lot of corporations are as bad as Bezos' so because Amazon does evil things that are relatively normal then... what? We shouldn't make a big deal out of it?
An alternative take might be that profit as de facto justification for any ethical violation has gotten so damaging to both society and the environment that any attempt to call it, and it's worst offenders, out is probably a good thing.
I explicitly am not arguing that.
I don't think sociopathy is diluted by the existence of other sociopaths.
Well, rather, I think as chief executive, you're fairly insulated from specific decisions like that. Instead, it's a manifestation of having profit seeking company. It's not Bezos himself making people pee in a bottle, it's the manager who's trying to impress his manager, who's trying to impress his manager... Repeat a few times... Who's trying to impress Bezos.
And profit seeking is quite normalized in American culture. Now, I'm not saying that that's a good thing, I'm just saying on a human level you can quite easily indirectly cause a lot of human suffering and feel no responsibility as a "normal" person. Every villain is the hero of their own story and all that.
Maybe. But then, it's also been national headlines and not exactly news anymore. He could stop it at any time.
And just because he might be insulated from them doesn't mean he shouldn't be responsible for the behavior of his underlings.
I think that this is indeed the case. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known phenomenon, and it emerges most readily in very large organisations like Amazon.
Perhaps Amazon's emergent amorality as consequence of it being super large and touching every consumer facet of our lives, material and digital, is reason enough for it be divided into smaller, more moral units.
It might not be the case, but it is coming across as if you're defending Bezos, the person with by far the most power at Amazon, as somehow excused because he's only indirectly producing harm by managing an amoral capitalist corporation.
Your last paragraph is also perhaps and explanation but it's not a justification.
It's not intended to be one. The question above isn't whether or Bezos is a "good" person, it's whether he's sociopathic, or rather, has abnormally poor empathy. Which I don't think there is sufficient evidence to say either way.
Was it suggested that Bezos is markedly worse than other oligarchic capitalists? Can't Bezos be just equally awful and the focus because he's the most wealthy and powerful?
How do you know that's his view on democracy?
His actions speak quite clearly don't they?
Which actions you are referring to?
I don't know enough about Jeff Bezos to say that I have a good idea of how he thinks, but for what its worth, this article seems to run parallel to (or is based on) PBS's Frontline Documentary about Amazon and Bezos. That Frontline documentary is pretty wild and it paints a similar picture of Bezos as a guy whose ultimate goal is to build space colonies.
...Hang on, I have to take a minute to get over how fucking insane that last sentence was...
The documentary is really worth checking out (available here). I watched it a few weeks ago and couldn't stop thinking about the pyramids. You probably can't build the pyramids in 2500 BCE without slaves, the same way you probably can't build a space colony in the 21st century without exploiting some workers along the way. I'm pretty sure that's on a post-it note somewhere in Bezos's house.
Bezos owns Blue Origin, which seems like pretty clear evidence that he's enough of a fan of space exploration to put some money into it. This is a common enthusiasm among science nerds, though most don't have the means to do much more about it than read science fiction and play Kerbal Space Program. It doesn't seem clear to me that he's going to sink a significant percentage of his net worth into it or whether it can be considered his primary goal in life, rather than an expensive hobby.
Compare with Musk who really did sink a large percentage of his wealth into starting SpaceX, though he went on to make it profitable with the help of government contracts.
I will also point out that space exploration is also funded by the US government so it doesn't seem like the bizarre fringe thing it's being painted as. Do you also want to defund NASA? Might it be better if some rocket development isn't funded by taxpayers?
Also, no slavery involved. There are plenty of enthusiastic engineers who like getting paid to work on rockets. There is competition for that kind of work.
Ok, there are a couple of things that I want to clear up. If you follow that link in my original comment, you'll see in the documentary that the people in Bezos's inner circle are the ones saying that he is in it for space colonization. It's not speculation or strangers trying to connect the dots. The difference between him and Musk might be one of patience or pragmatism, but I don't know enough to speculate on those kinds of details. What is clear though is throughout his time at Amazon, Bezos has had a clear long-term strategy that he prioritizes, even if it costs him in the short-term. There weren't many people that foresaw Amazon's dominance, but that was his goal from day one. Just because we don't see him investing a lot into Blue Origin right now, doesn't mean he won't do so in the future. We might end up viewing Space X and Blue Origin the same way we look at Yahoo and Google.
As for my other comments, first, I don't think space exploration is insane or a meaningless endeavor - in fact, my feelings are quite the opposite. What is insane, however, is the sentence "Jeff Bezos's goal is to use Amazon to build space colonies," simply for how conspiratorial it sounds. Second, I'm not talking specifically about the people designing and building rockets being exploited, I was referencing the Amazon workers. If Blue Origin grows into something that realizes Bezos's dreams of space colonization, it would be a world wonder that would not have been possible without the exploitation of workers and the monopolistic business strategy that Amazon is infamous for. The question I keep asking myself is if it's worth it. It definitely makes me feel better than if there were no goal of space exploration.
Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you for the recommendation but I haven't watched the documentary yet.
I think it sounds weird to think of exploiting warehouse workers as somehow funding space colonies because it's an odd argument that starts to fall apart once you start thinking about it more.
Essentially all the money that Amazon makes from retail originally comes from customers buying stuff. Might it be more accurate to say that Amazon's customers are indirectly funding space exploration? They (we) also pay (not enough) to warehouse workers, which helps them feed their families. Though of course we have no direct control over that.
Also, it's not quite right to think of customers as funding space exploration because giving someone money doesn't commit them to anything in particular. It creates options. Bezos isn't required to commit to anything and he can change his mind. So, it would be more accurate to say that customers indirectly gave Bezos the power to spend a lot of money any way he wants. But, we did get our stuff delivered.
We also shouldn't confuse Bezos with his company. If you look at where most of Bezo's personal wealth actually comes from, it's by selling stock. So, it's mostly coming from shareholders who think Amazon is valuable and want to buy some Amazon.
Also, money can be made in many different ways and it's probably not necessary to do it by treating warehouse workers badly. It would be weird to think that an unnecessary tradeoff is "worth it" when it could be fixed.
I'm not sure which correlation you mean or which argument you object to.
Decent way of putting it actually. I think both the pyramids and space colonies are pretty awesome, but wouldn't support their being built on the backs of the oppressed.
The pyramids are done, but I'd like to wait on the space colonies until we can built them democratically and in good conscience.
Interesting to consider, thanks. Doesn't invalidate the comparison though, as I don't see how building monuments to a king is for the benefit of the farmers.
I would not be against this. I love plants and animals, and it pains me to see the price they (and we) pay for each trinket we buy off Amazon, since the price of that plastic object is (oil extraction + transportation + refining + transportation + processing + molding + transporting + packaging (repeat the whole thing) + packaging (once more) + transportation + packaging waste + the item is in the landfill in 30 days/months)
I don't disagree with much of this.