John Carmack's Tesla Review at End of Latest Armadillo Update

http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home/News?news_id=364

by JabavuAdams • 18 years ago

37 26 18 years ago

DaniFong4• 18 years ago

"I am fairly hostile to most of the environmental movement, finding it generally a modern tribal religion that justifies condemnation and control of others in the name of protecting the environment. I care nothing at all for the environment in isolation, only for how it positively impacts human life -- civilization is all about beating the environment into forms that suit us better. An "electric car" used to be a conspicuous sign of righteous sacrifice, but you won't get any self-flagellation points for driving a Tesla. Too much fun."

I suppose at its core, any value judgment treads into the religious. It's probably none too surprising that I disagree with this statement. But it's interesting seeing this judgment so completely distilled.

I'll ask HN. Do you care for the environment, only for the sentient beings (including animals) of which they are part, only the humans living inside it, or, largely, only for yourself?

jhawk28• 18 years ago

Based on reading the article, I think the point was that the Tesla was lots of fun, not "I'm saving the environment".

DaniFong4• 18 years ago

Of course, and I'm happy that he's having fun. My point is peripheral. But it's interesting to me that he so decisively states that he doesn't care at all for the environment except in consequence to human life. Is this a common view?

axiom• 18 years ago

Rumor has it that John Carmack is an Objectivist, which puts this statement into context.

DaniFong4• 18 years ago

Ah, thanks, that does shed some light.

_5y6p• 18 years ago

His wife, Anna Kang, definitely is (started Fountainhead Entertainment). That practically guarantees that Carmack is, because it's highly unlikely an Objectivist would marry a non-Objectivist.

What baffles me is, how on earth do id and Fountainhead games exemplify Objectivist ideals?

michaelneale• 18 years ago

What is an objectivist? (I read wikipedia but I am not sure what this refers to).

cgranade2• 18 years ago

I really do care for the environment in its own right, and I care for a host of reasons. There's the aesthetic argument against destroying anything beautiful and the argument that more sentient species may emerge if we don't stand in their way. There's also the argument that you cannot arbitrarily distinguish between protecting the environment to better humanity and protecting it in general.

Frankly, I find this third argument very compelling. The environment is a highly complicated system with many chaotic behaviors that make it unreasonable to point to some aspect of the environment as being uniquely critical to human life. Some things are more critical than others, sure, but I think it's unreasonable to completely ignore any aspect of the environment on that basis.

As per these arguments, I would also disagree with the quoted statement. Besides, the author makes a strawman out of environmentalism. It isn't about "self-flagellation," it's about engaging in a sustainable lifestyle.

Xichekolas• 18 years ago

Well there are environmentalists that practice a modern-day puritanism in that they deny themselves (and would deny others) comforts that they deem ostentatious because they feel that 'doing without' makes them stronger in some way. These people are generally not too helpful for the movement.

I personally am much more motivated by the idea of doing something more efficiently and with less (or zero) waste than I am by the notion of self-sacrifice. I think we should 'protect the environment' only because I find the less wasteful path more aesthetically appealing, and I have faith that man can be more efficient and less wasteful through his own ingenuity, without resorting to self-flagellation.

sh1mmer2• 18 years ago

I think his point was that he doesn't like the hairshirt-ism of the environmental movement. Essentially he is acusing them of being a bunch of party poopers for the sake of self-righteousness.

He is partly right, there have been a lot of holier-than-thou types. The problem also is it's a pretty selfish attitude to only care about the environment when it's convenient.

The right answer is of course somewhere in the middle. I feel that things like the Tesla will get us closer to the need not to compromise on fun for the sake of the planet. However until we reach that point we should also consider the impact we are having and look for ways we can reduce the burden we are.

halo• 18 years ago

Frankly, I think that's summarised exactly my view on the matter. Environmentalism should the means to an end, not an end in itself.

sutro• 18 years ago

It's a shame that all 11 of the HN comments up to this point are debating the merits of Carmack's throwaway environmentalism line at the end of his post. Are we not entrepreneurs? Are we not engineers? Are we not innovators? If so, then we have truly lost the plot here and slid into trivial political Redditism.

Here's a guy who skips college, teaches himself to program, and pioneers the modern video game industry. Though his id partner John Romero rests on his laurels once they become rich and famous, Carmack pushes forward obsessively, almost single-handedly advancing the boundaries of 3D technology with each new game engine release while competing against much larger engineering teams from much larger companies. Then he decides to teach himself rocket science. From this post we learn that he gave up his discretionary spending and became frugal and money conscious again to chase space dreams that bled lots of money and probably wouldn't amount to anything. Now several years later he has a legitimate space company that's doing work for NASA and is poised for real scientific breakthroughs in 2009. Meanwhile, he's still working at id on the next breakthrough 3D game. All the while, never taking investment money, and always giving back his knowledge by sharing highly detailed technical posts like this one (and his old .plan updates) and by eventually open-sourcing all of his work.

This guy is the ultimate hacker. He epitomizes everything that this site is supposed to be about. And you guys are quibbling about the environment? FAIL!

DaniFong4• 18 years ago

Carmack is a hacking demigod, but to me the 'throwaway line' about environmentalism was the most interesting thing in the whole post. It struck me that someone I did idolize had a completely different value system. Obviously that which drives him forward is entirely different than what drives me. And being in touch with what drives us forward is I think something that many of us come here for.

anamax• 18 years ago

> This guy is the ultimate hacker. He epitomizes everything that this site is supposed to be about. And you guys are quibbling about the environment?

I don't read the comments that way. I read them as "We thought that Carmack was an ideal but now we find that he's a heretic - what do we do?"

ken• 18 years ago

I don't see any shame in discussing the environment. The post in question is not about hacking or even technology, but the "religious experience" of driving.

Perhaps because I'm not a gamer, I don't see the point in enumerating Carmack's accomplishments. I'm happy for him, but I'm here to talk about hacking, not hero worship. I vote for stories and comments here by what they say, not who's saying them.

And no, I am not an engineer, nor have I ever claimed to be one, and I don't see how a meta-question to hackers about their philosophy is "trivial political Redditism".

sh1mmer2• 18 years ago

I think it's a shame that rather than just commenting about the parts of the story that interest you, you besmirch others having a debate.

The discussion on the environment may have been somewhat tangential to the article, but the comments had been thought about and the debate was not the kind of derisive bickering on Reddit. If that topic interests the readers of this site, how is it irrelevant?

I do admire Carmack's achievements, drive, versatility and most of all his drive. That doesn't mean that I'm not at liberty to disagree with part of his philosophy. At the end of the day this article was posted as a review of the Tesla by someone who we like, who has had a number of supercars. That has nothing to do with any of his achievements which makes your comment as sideways as that of the topic of the environment.

davi• 18 years ago

Most interesting to me:

"We are also trying a new fabrication technology for making chambers – rapid prototyping investment casting from http://www.proivc.com/ . This is more expensive than the spun-pipe based chambers we have been using, but it frees us from the limits of standard pipe sizes, and makes changing nozzle dimensions easier. The surface finish is rougher than we had hoped, and there was some slight ovaling in the chamber, but it is still promising. We haven’t fired them yet."

jodrellblank• 18 years ago

I had ever such a low opinion of electric cars in years gone by. At the weekend I was in a discussion about old cars - my parents had cars that couldn't do 60mph and had to stop on the way up hills to let the coolant stop boiling and the engine cool down. No big company will ever release a car that basic now or in the (non-dystopian) future - if someone designed one, it simply wouldn't be approved. Standards and expectations have gone up.

Recently I saw Top Gear review the Tesla, and I twigged what Carmack said about the drivetrain. The Tesla has one gear. No multi-gear-box, no (or less) gearbox oil, no shifter or paddle shift, no oily engine and spark plugs and cylinders and valves and fuel pumps and air intakes... it's a motor with one moving part.

Suddenly, I feel the same way about this - quieter, smoother, simpler, more maintainable - it will be the standard type of car one day.

John Carmack's Tesla Review at End of Latest Armadillo Update

Related Stories