He was dangerous before, but now he’s loosing his marbles I think there’s no limit. We could have nuclear war.
America is out of control and the EU is prioritising tariffs on bleeding German cars. It’s a dreadful time to have an pompous idiot like von de Layen at the helm.
Holy shit… he’s going to become Lex Luther
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/11/06/elon-musk-tesla-pay-package/
More like Tony Stark, but with less selling missiles and bombs backstory.
Bill Gates is more likely to be the end of us.
Do explain
He’s going for mind control nanobots administered via Polio vaccine. 
GMOs.
A guy who has a hand in cutting aid, directly resulting in hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths or someone who mentions they’re quite happy with GMO. It’s a tough call.
I have enough contact with the agri business these days to have realised that without a degree of GMO the world would no longer be able to feed itself, and much of our medicine and diagnostics would be back in the 1960s. Mis-use of GMOs and a lack of care and control are the problems, rather than modifying organisms (plants) themselves.
Isn’t it the unintended consequencies of GMO that is the problem? Maybe AI can predict?
Such as?
The most obvious is Monsanto and glyphosate resistant crops - but that isn’t an issue with GMO per se.
As far as I’m aware, natural changes in genetics are not harmful, having followed natural selection over extensive periods of time, whereas deliberate changes to genetics, in comparison to natural selection, are immediate and untested - leading to maybe unintended consequences in time?
Edit added - According to ChatGPT, as far as glyphosate resistant crops are concerned, weeds became resistant, plant diversity in and around fields was reduced, affecting insects, birds, and soil microorganisms. Presumably not intended.
There are a lot of food staples that are GMO and have been for years.
The issue is what changes have neen made, what impact they will have and the suitability of the plant for the environment. There are plenty of natural plants that cause problems in the wrong place, for example Japanese knotweed. GMOs are neither good nor bad in general, but need careful management to ensure their use is beneficial and any potential negative impact is minimised and managed.
I’m not sure plant diversity is overly high next to huge monocrop fields in the first place. I’ve also yet to see hard evidence that glyphosate is actively harmful.
FAOD I do happen to believe that soaking the planet in glyphosate was a bad idea but plain old dihydrogen monoxide has more deaths directly attributable to its presence, and no-one has suggested banning that yet.
I was thinking generally about unintended consequences. A class example of an unintended consequence is micro plastics, is it not? Potentially a serious one. And your question “Such as?” says it all for me – we don’t know – until it happens. That’s my main point.
Edit added:
Part of an answer to my question from ChatGPT:
*Your instinct touches something profound: the story of modern civilization is, in many ways, the story of ingenious solutions creating new problems.
Plastic solved scarcity and convenience, and spawned microplastics.
Fossil fuels built prosperity, and triggered climate crisis.
Genetic engineering solves crop failure, and threatens ecological balance.
AI promises insight, and risks disinformation and dependency.*
A big subject! In another life maybe I’d make ‘unintended consequences’ the subject of a series of theses.
Frontiers | Separating the Empirical Wheat From the Pseudoscientific Chaff: A Critical Review of the Literature Surrounding Glyphosate, Dysbiosis and Wheat-Sensitivity Frontiers | Separating the Empirical Wheat From the Pseudoscientific Chaff: A Critical Review of the Literature Surrounding Glyphosate, Dysbiosis and Wheat-Sensitivity
Interesting article but not proof and scattered with more mays, mights, coulds and woulds than Nigel Farrage discussing the benefits of Brexit in the run up to the 2016 referendum
Yes microplastics are causing havoc.
Whether they would be quite so much of a problem if, as a species, we did not piss and sh*t down the well we drink from in terms of polluting the planet with our waste is a bit of an open question though.
To avoid legal action by arguably one of the biggest chemicals companies in the world I am not surprised. However out of preference I prefer to avoid glyphosate wherever I can. Even on SF people are concerned about gluten intolerance whilst not being coeliac. I err of the side of safety personally. Mind you with people spraying other nasty air freshener etc and perfumes who knows for sure, I think it’s the shear overload on our systems that could well be part of the problem.
Any genetic change, natural or man modified can have consequences. Those consequences can be benign, positive or negative. Natural genetic changes in bacteria and virus can have enormous consequences. Just look at Covid or the Spanish flu for example. Engineered changes do have the potential to be deadly if they’re designed to be deadly but I think GMO style changes have just as much of a chance for unintended consequences as natural changes. I’m sure that @Ancient_Mariner would have a view on that.
Edit: I should read to the end before commenting. I see AncientMariner has already given his opinion, with which I agree.
I agree, but my point is as already said and illustrated by microplastics. We don’t know the unintended consequences until they happen. Do we?
Getting back to Musk. I understand that his latest venture/quest is the spread of multiple Optimus humanoids throughout society, including in the home? Where will that get us, I wonder? How big will the charger be, assuming Optimus is battery powered? Maybe the Tesla home car charger can be modified. Will it charge itself when needed?
I could see it being potentially useful as a home helper for the elderly maybe, but wouldn’t that lead to more unemployment? And human contact is equally important in a home helper but don’t see Optimus providing that benefit, though it might to some.
