I'm referencing this article here:
Paragraph 5, article says, "To hear Musk tell it, he is trying to save planet Earth. Literally."
From a 2017 Interview Ted Talk Elon Musk gives (found here: https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the_future_we_re_building_and_boring/transcript)
Time: 39:45, Elon says, "I think the value of beauty and inspiration is very much underrated, no question. But I want to be clear. I'm not trying to be anyone's savior. That is not the -- I'm just trying to think about the future and not be sad."
So, do we believe CNBC or do we believe Elon here on Elon's motivations for what he does?
I'm not sure there is a correct answer to that question, but the lesson here is simple: don't believe the narratives you get from mainstream news sources immediately. But then, what is not a mainstream news source? and how does one tell if a narrative is worth believing in or not then?
When I was still in school, the prevailing knowledge was that genius is born, not made; this idea has changed over the course of my life, with people being bombarded with advertisements like this now:
I get that it's a TV show, but TV is meant to appeal to the desires of the masses, as well as video games, which the language in these mediums are very much about being a hero, becoming God, or otherwise, having some collorary to obtaining genius, saving society, etc.
The key thing to understand is that our American society wants two things: peace and economic productivity, and these two things always happen at the expense of the individual for the individual. In other words, a society, while at the same time that it takes advantage of individuals in wage slavery land, also, of course, protects that same person from having to survive in the wilderness. Catch-22, disguised as balance. A narrative is only worth believing in if the words and actions match up, so look for the Catch-22 in the narrative, the disconnect from words and actions. If we follow this stratagem, then we believe neither Elon nor CNBC —there's a better narrative.