# Self Driving Poll on MSN today



## Mb4birdie (Sep 23, 2016)

*Would you feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car?*

15%
Yes

75%
No

10%
I'm not sure

Total responses: 230,919 votes

Study: Most still fear self-driving vehicles 

LOL! 75% of the poll says they would not be comfortable driving in a self driving car.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news...s-still-fear-self-driving-vehicles/ar-AAnZLpH


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

A nice surprise that the public seems to have a reasonably good grasp of the state of self-driving technology and its lack of consistent reliability today. However, you would get a very different public response if you ask a different question like "Would you be comfortable in the future when self-driving cars are always safer then cars with human drivers?"


----------



## Phatboy (Feb 9, 2017)

I'm sure self driving cars could be safer.... if they were the only vehicles on the road. How many years will it take until humans are banned from driving? Until then, self driving cars will most likely be too risky.


----------



## Mb4birdie (Sep 23, 2016)

I've asked some of my customers if they would be comfortable in a self driving uber car and at least half say no, at least not yet. I also read reviews of people who have rode in an uber self driving car and the biggest comment I hear is they're very slow. I wonder if the cars will be voice activated? Like Siri on I phone. Then the customer could ask the driverless car to stop at a drive thru or I'm late can you hurry. Siri's response would be, "sorry the maximum speed on this road is 55 miles per hour but I feel a safe and prudent speed is 49" or "There's no way in hell I'm going to Taco Bell for you!" Self driving cars will eventually be here but it will be a long time unit Uber is completely automated.


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Phatboy said:


> I'm sure self driving cars could be safer.... if they were the only vehicles on the road. How many years will it take until humans are banned from driving? Until then, self driving cars will most likely be too risky.


the electorate will not allow themselves to be "banned" from driving. Too many people like their freedom and like personal car ownership as an extension of their personality.

These people greatly outnumber the amount of ******* out there who are afraid of driving. remember, only 32,000 people...out of 300 million...die in the US from traffic deaths. That's a very small amount...

Anyway, this shouldn't be news to anyone with a brain who keeps up with this (except maybe ramz). It's very easy to see how simplistic and underdeveloped the technology is that would be required for level 5 automation.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> the electorate will not allow themselves to be "banned" from driving. Too many people like their freedom and like personal car ownership as an extension of their personality...


That's almost exactly what they used to say about people's "right to smoke" cigarettes anywhere and anytime they wanted. Cigarettes were everywhere: restaurants, newspapers, billboards, movies, TV&Radio ads, at your desk on the job, etc. Smoking was "cool" and "sexy". All the biggest TV and movie stars did it.

Today, smoking cigarettes is unbelievably taxed (83% in New York) and all ads are banned from TV&Radio and print media. There's a mandatory government warning on every pack. Smokers are banned from restaurants, and all other public places. Smokers outside of their homes (like when at work) are restricted to tiny, outside areas, far from everybody else.

Let history be your guide


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

That's entirely different. Driving safely is not hazardous to your health or the people around you.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> That's entirely different. Driving safely is not hazardous to your health or the people around you.


Wrong! People driving will be hazardous to both your health and the people around you when ... at some future time
*Autonomous cars are safer than cars driven by people.*​Until then, I agree with you


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

Maven said:


> Wrong! People driving will be hazardous to both your health and the people around you when ... at some future time
> *Autonomous cars are safer than cars driven by people.*​Until then, I agree with you


No they're actually not. They haven't driven enough miles to statistically prove they're any safer.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> No they're actually not. They haven't driven enough miles to statistically prove they're any safer.


Correct again!  Autonomous cars are definitely NOT safer than cars driven by people today. I said that in my last post, which was apparently not clear to you.  So I will try again. At sometime in the future (I cannot say when),
*Autonomous cars will become safer than cars driven by people.*​


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> the electorate will not allow themselves to be "banned" from driving. Too many people like their freedom and like personal car ownership as an extension of their personality.


Ever try to ride a horse on an interstate?



heynow321 said:


> remember, only 32,000 people...out of 300 million...die in the US from traffic deaths. That's a very small amount...


...with 3,000,000 injured, 2,000,000 permanently. You always forget that part. _Technology_ has made it less likely for a person to die in an accident but the problem is still a serious one. Soon, _technology_ will also make it far less likely you will even be in an accident.



heynow321 said:


> Anyway, this shouldn't be news to anyone with a brain who keeps up with this (except maybe ramz). It's very easy to see how simplistic and underdeveloped the technology is that would be required for level 5 automation.


After decades of research and development, it's almost here. They don't need level 5. Level 4 or even 3.5 will work for the majority of rides.



Phatboy said:


> I'm sure self driving cars could be safer.... if they were the only vehicles on the road. How many years will it take until humans are banned from driving? Until then, self driving cars will most likely be too risky.


They'll probably be safer a _lot_ safer either way. They'll just be more safe and efficient when Humans are off the road.



Maven said:


> Autonomous cars are definitely NOT safer than cars driven by people today


Well, in fairness, they may already be. We just don't know.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> No they're actually not. They haven't driven enough miles to statistically prove they're any safer.


If you ignore simulated miles this is true. I expect simulator miles will be considered just as valid in this evolution being as they come from real world data and the cars don't know the difference so the results are just as valid.



Mb4birdie said:


> *Would you feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car?*
> 
> 15%
> Yes
> ...


Voluntary online polls are notoriously inaccurate. This online poll found 70% were willing to ride in an SDC. The truth is probably somewhere in between which would be more than enough for them to launch and win over people.

Even if accurate, this is a perception and marketing issue. Safety, convenience, free time, and cost savings will change a lot of minds quickly.

_The Kelley survey also determined that about 60 percent of people admitted they knew little or nothing about driverless cars and didn't think they would live to see a day when all cars on the road were fully autonomous.

"Consumers are, generally speaking, unfamiliar with and uncomfortable with the concept of an autonomous vehicle driving them around," said Karl Brauer, a senior analyst with Kelley. "When we find out that only 41 percent of the people are even familiar with the term 'autonomous vehicle' or 'autonomous car', I think that says a lot."_


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Ever try to ride a horse on an interstate?
> 
> ...with 3,000,000 injured, 2,000,000 permanently. You always forget that part. _Technology_ has made it less likely for a person to die in an accident but the problem is still a serious one. Soon, _technology_ will also make it far less likely you will even be in an accident.
> 
> .


We're talking about freedom of mobility here. You can't ride a horse, but you can certainly take your car whenever and where ever (laws permitting) you want.

ok, 3 million divided by 318 million .9% of the population. The top 3 killers of americans, in order, are heart disease, cancer, and chronic lower respiratory disease.

Once again, for the benefit of others with a brain, nobody will allow their freedom of mobility to be restricted. Especially when the "safety" angle people like you try to push isn't an issue compared to other issues. Especially considering if anybody really wanted to reduce traffic accidents, they should make it much harder to get and keep a license, increase the punishment for impaired driving and reckless driving, and stricter enforcement of seatbelt laws. All very cheap.



RamzFanz said:


> If you ignore simulated miles this is true. I expect simulator miles will be considered just as valid in this evolution being as they come from real world data and the cars don't know the difference so the results are just as valid.


LOL! yeah simulator miles are a total substitute for real world conditions! If that were the case, why even waste time money and resources on real world testing? Just do it all on a simulator! You're really gasping ramz....really grasping.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

*A glimpse into one possible future.*

Grandpa, tell us again about how people used to drive cars all the time.

Oh yes, let me tell you youngsters, I remember when people were so afraid of DCs (driverless cars) that could not believe that they would ever be safer on the roads then people. DCs kept running stop signs and traffic lights. DCs crashed into things, even hit people! It was on the news almost every day. However, one day, many years later, DCs became safer than people driving. At first, only rich corporations could afford DCs, but soon the prices came down and regular people bought DCs. The technology continued to advanced faster than most people like me believed possible. Peoples' attitudes changed too and the politicians paid attention. No one could imagine that a day would come when laws would be passed that people could no longer drive themselves on public roads and highways. The penalties for getting caught are now worse than a DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) used to be. Of course, now DUIs and DWIs are non-existant. The few who still demand their god-given right-to-drive are restricted to private closed tracks where they pay huge fees to be able to drive themselves for 30-minutes at a time. Only the very rich can afford it.

Is that why the kids at my school say you're going to jail, grandpa?

Yes, I could not afford to pay for time to drive on one those private tracks. Just once more, I needed to feel the freedom, the power, and the thrill of being the master of hundreds of horsepower. DCs now travel so fast on the roads without any people driving, slowing down the DCs, that human reflexes are no longer quick enough to keep up. I hit a guardrail on the highway and spun out of control. The people in the car right behind me were seriously injured. If not for their DC's quick response, those people might have been killed. In the old days 10 or even 30 other cars on the highway might have crashed into us. Fortunately, the DC's programing prevented that from happening. Still the district attorney called it "attempted vehicular manslaughter" and a jury agreed. Next week the judge decides my sentence.

I hope that judge isn't too mean, Grandpa.

Me too, but my lawyer, who cost even more that a whole day driving on a private track, says prepare for the worst. It will break my heart, but I may not see my beloved grandchildren for a long time. I know better now, no matter how much we may wish otherwise, change is inevitable.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

heynow321 said:


> We're talking about freedom of mobility here. You can't ride a horse, but you can certainly take your car whenever and where ever (laws permitting) you want.


You used to be able to ride a horse anywhere, how did that change?



heynow321 said:


> Once again, for the benefit of others with a brain, nobody will allow their freedom of mobility to be restricted.


See horse example above.



heynow321 said:


> Especially when the "safety" angle people like you try to push isn't an issue compared to other issues. Especially considering if anybody really wanted to reduce traffic accidents, they should make it much harder to get and keep a license, increase the punishment for impaired driving and reckless driving, and stricter enforcement of seatbelt laws. All very cheap.


That's not the way the world works. We don't stop making one thing safer because another is more dangerous. It's a silly proposition to claim we shouldn't worry about 3,000,000,000 injured a year and 32,000 killed. Of course, if we started looking at it worldwide since this is a worldwide effort, we're actually talking about 1,200,000 killed annually and, assuming the numbers extrapolate, 112,500,000 injured, 75,000,000 permanently.



heynow321 said:


> LOL! yeah simulator miles are a total substitute for real world conditions! If that were the case, why even waste time money and resources on real world testing? Just do it all on a simulator! You're really gasping ramz....really grasping.


Because the real world testing delivers the real world data for the simulators. It _is_ real world conditions to the car. Last I heard, they were doing 3,000,000 miles a day in simulators using real world data. So let's look at this the other way, why would they do that if it wasn't valid?



Maven said:


> *A glimpse into one possible future.*
> 
> Grandpa, tell us again about how people used to drive cars all the time.
> 
> ...


Rush imagined this decades ago:






My uncle has a country place, that no-one knows about
He says it used to be a farm, before the Motor Law
Sundays I elude the 'Eyes', and hop the Turbine Freight
To far outside the Wire, where my white-haired uncle waits

Jump to the ground
As the Turbo slows to cross the borderline
Run like the wind
As excitement shivers up and down my spine
Down in his barn
My uncle preserved for me an old machine -
For fifty-odd years
To keep it as new has been his dearest dream

I strip away the old debris, that hides a shining car
A brilliant red Barchetta, from a better, vanished time
Fire up the willing engine, responding with a roar!
Tires spitting gravel, I commit my weekly crime&#8230;

Wind in my hair -
Shifting and drifting -
Mechanical music
Adrenalin surge -

Well-weathered leather
Hot metal and oil
The scented country air
Sunlight on chrome
The blur of the landscape
Every nerve aware

Suddenly ahead of me, across the mountainside
A gleaming alloy air-car shoots towards me, two lanes wide
I spin around with shrieking tires, to run the deadly race
Go screaming through the valley as another joins the chase

Drive like the wind
Straining the limits of machine and man
Laughing out loud
With fear and hope, I've got a desperate plan
At the one-lane bridge
I leave the giants stranded
At the riverside
Race back to the farm
To dream with my uncle
At the fireside&#8230;


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

15% . .


Mb4birdie said:


> *Would you feel comfortable riding in a self-driving car?*
> 
> 15%
> Yes
> ...


15% . . . more people trust media, G.M.O.'s, and Government !
15% . . . . ." Whoomp ! There it Is "!!!



Maven said:


> A nice surprise that the public seems to have a reasonably good grasp of the state of self-driving technology and its lack of consistent reliability today. However, you would get a very different public response if you ask a different question like "Would you be comfortable in the future when self-driving cars are always safer then cars with human drivers?"


I think we should have ROBOTS head corporations FIRST !

THINK OF ALL THE INFLATED SALARIES IT WILL SAVE !



Phatboy said:


> I'm sure self driving cars could be safer.... if they were the only vehicles on the road. How many years will it take until humans are banned from driving? Until then, self driving cars will most likely be too risky.


Read Agenda 21 outlines regarding Personal Vehicle Elimination.
First,mandating the required installation of cost prohibitive self driving telemetry equipment,will put car ownership out of the reach of the majority.
THIS IS THE STATED GOAL !



heynow321 said:


> the electorate will not allow themselves to be "banned" from driving. Too many people like their freedom and like personal car ownership as an extension of their personality.
> 
> These people greatly outnumber the amount of ******* out there who are afraid of driving. remember, only 32,000 people...out of 300 million...die in the US from traffic deaths. That's a very small amount...
> 
> Anyway, this shouldn't be news to anyone with a brain who keeps up with this (except maybe ramz). It's very easy to see how simplistic and underdeveloped the technology is that would be required for level 5 automation.


Ever WATCH the Government do crowd control ?
YOU are at one end of a football field.
The GOVERNMENT wants you at the OTHER END.

They line up with barricades,push you back 5 yards,set barricades down and WAIT. Until you settle down. Then they DO IT AGAIN.

SAME WAY THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN ERODING YOUR FREEDOM.

A LITTLE AT A TIME !


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> 15% . .
> 15% . . . more people trust media, G.M.O.'s, and Government !
> 15% . . . . ." Whoomp ! There it Is "!!!


Why keep reposting numbers we're already seen that are meaningless because everybody already agrees. Don't you understand the REAL question?


tohunt4me said:


> I think we should have ROBOTS head corporations FIRST ! THINK OF ALL THE INFLATED SALARIES IT WILL SAVE !


Why cite irrelevant and factious statements to distract from the REAL question? Are you afraid to answer it?


tohunt4me said:


> Read Agenda 21 outlines regarding Personal Vehicle Elimination. First,mandating the required installation of cost prohibitive self driving telemetry equipment,will put car ownership out of the reach of the majority. THIS IS THE STATED GOAL !


Why not restate a few previously refuted conspiracy theories that only prove you are unable to answer the REAL question:

*What will happen when Autonomous cars eventually become safer than cars driven by people?
*
Hint: Deny .. Distract .. Deny .. won't cut it.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> You used to be able to ride a horse anywhere, how did that change?
> 
> See horse example above.
> 
> ...


Rush reveals much if you only listen.
The Garden Path
The Wreckers
2112
Free Will



Maven said:


> Why keep reposting numbers we're already seen that are meaningless because everybody already agrees. Don't you understand the REAL question?
> Why cite irrelevant and factious statements to distract from the REAL question? Are you afraid to answer it?
> Why not restate a few previously refuted conspiracy theories that only prove you are unable to answer the REAL question:
> 
> *What will happen when Autonomous cars eventually become safer than cars driven by people?*


Grovel and bow down to your transhumanist Lords .
They shall crush your bones passionlessly,as you deserve.

Such a vaccum for a soul along with a programmed mind. Stateist Tool.

A clapping trained seal .



RamzFanz said:


> Ever try to ride a horse on an interstate?
> 
> ...with 3,000,000 injured, 2,000,000 permanently. You always forget that part. _Technology_ has made it less likely for a person to die in an accident but the problem is still a serious one. Soon, _technology_ will also make it far less likely you will even be in an accident.
> 
> ...


" THOSE WHO SACRIFICE FREEDOM FOR SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER".

Think how safe the World will be ONCE PEOPLE ARE ELIMINATED !

I WILL CHOOSE FREE WILL.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Rush reveals much if you only listen. The Garden Path. The Wreckers. 2112. Free Will. Grovel and bow down to your transhumanist Lords. They shall crush your bones passionlessly,as you deserve. Such a vaccum for a soul along with a programmed mind. Stateist Tool. A clapping trained seal .


Another feeble attempt at distraction and deflection, a few random words jumbled together with a few pseudo-religious phrases. Why should anyone take this seriously? Can you even remember the REAL question? Hint: it's in my last post.

I know that you are better than this from reading your posts in other threads. I wish we could see that here. Why do do insist on consistently being a troll when it comes to SDCs?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

I DETEST meatpuppet cheerleaders for the transhumanist Globalists plans for their own demise.
The Earth belongs to Humans.
Not a machine.
Those " made of Clay" are to be served by " those made of fire".

Not the other way around.
Not meant to be played backwards .
Damnation to such a perversion of the Natural Order of Life !



Maven said:


> Another feeble attempt at distraction and deflection, a few random words jumbled together with a few pseudo-religious phrases. Why should anyone take this seriously? Can you even remember the REAL question? Hint: it's in my last post.
> 
> I know that you are better than this from reading your posts in other threads. I wish we could see that here. Why do do insist on consistently being a troll when it comes to SDCs?


All of these things were foretold.
ALL OF THEM !

I for one refuse to sell the Human Race !


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> I DETEST meatpuppet cheerleaders for the transhumanist Globalists plans for their own demise...


If this trollish drivel is all you plan to offer on the topic of SDCs rather that the intelligent analysis you're capable of producing then I and others will simply ignore you.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Riding a ho


RamzFanz said:


> You used to be able to ride a horse anywhere, how did that change?
> 
> See horse example above.
> 
> ...


Riding a Horse. is still legal.
Without taxation. Without insurance. Without license.
Buggies must have reflectors at night.



Maven said:


> Another feeble attempt at distraction and deflection, a few random words jumbled together with a few pseudo-religious phrases. Why should anyone take this seriously? Can you even remember the REAL question? Hint: it's in my last post.
> 
> I know that you are better than this from reading your posts in other threads. I wish we could see that here. Why do do insist on consistently being a troll when it comes to SDCs?


You Gleefully paint yourself into a corner. It is an Abomination.
Rushing to your end.

One day your ROBOTS will simply quit feeding you.
Your grandchildren won't have grandchildren to ask them " "What was it like when man was free ?"

A war in Heaven was fought by Angels over serving man and jealousy of Free will.
1/3 was cast out.
I see which 1/3 you cheer for.
Those who seek the retribution,by the demise of mankind.

April 2045.
You have 28 years to change it.

Even less time until the " Curse of Numbers" Globalists UN.- I.D.4 D
" Those without the mark shall not purchase or sell,or be admitted".

ReadUnited Nations Agenda 21.
Orwell never imagined . . .
View your future now.
Government wishes to be your God.
G-7 ,World Government( the Beast of 7 Heads) will ensure no safe place on earth for you free of their control.

The clock is ticking.
" Clockwork Angels".


----------



## K-pax (Oct 29, 2016)

Phatboy said:


> I'm sure self driving cars could be safer.... if they were the only vehicles on the road. How many years will it take until humans are banned from driving? Until then, self driving cars will most likely be too risky.


That is not going to happen any time soon, not in this country anyway. You can't even get ppl to quit drinking and driving with the huge penalties, astronomical danger and tons of human driven options available. Imagine a politician trying to ban anyone from driving a car at all. The response would be all out apocalyptic. It would take decades of extreme change in American culture to accomplish something like that. SDCs would have to co-exist with driver based cars for quite some time.



Maven said:


> If this trollish drivel is all you plan to offer on the topic of SDCs rather that the intelligent analysis you're capable of producing then I and others will simply ignore you.


Well, it's a dramatic doomsayer version of saying something that is actually not a bad argument. Autonomous anything tends to have an elitist bent to it, as that is the sort of person who fits into that world unscathed. whether it's a 'vast conspiracy' or just the inevitable effect of this path (without any caution), the end result is to impoverish a large portion of the population, by bringing about a world where the 1% no longer need a population of 'bothersome' underlings to sustain their status. In history, this has been the greatest check against unfettered power. They have to have consent from populations to accomplish what they want to. Removing that check, via automating anything associated with 'underlings' will allow a billionaire to basically sustain a rediculous amount of power without having to worry about the well being of people lower on the totem pole. I'm not so sure a world where the ruling class has no need for the ruled is a good thing.

economically, automation also does more to siphon power and money out of the anarchic marketplace and concentrate it further into a top down tightly controlled borg of sorts. This is what business does without any checks on it, which is why we have anti-trust laws (which are no longer enforced, really). At the very least, things like this will create a situation where captains of industry are enthroned as Feudal Kings, where the population is 1000% dependent, and self-sufficiency is a vague concept. Worse than that, it allows the most megalomaniacal sociopaths of the world exist with even less regard for their fellow humans.

Even smart folks like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrass Tyson and so on have started raising concerns that transhumanism could go wrong. Yes, it's a good sign that these folks are damping down a little to say "hey, shouldn't we think about this a bit before diving in?"


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

K-pax said:


> That is not going to happen any time soon, not in this country anyway. You can't even get ppl to quit drinking and driving with the huge penalties, astronomical danger and tons of human driven options available. Imagine a politician trying to ban anyone from driving a car at all. The response would be all out apocalyptic. It would take decades of extreme change in American culture to accomplish something like that. SDCs would have to co-exist with driver based cars for quite some time.


Finally, someone who disagrees with me with well reasoned arguments.  Let me cite 2 loose parallels. The reversal in public attitudes and laws concerning smoking took decades. Without successful delaying tactics by the immensely powerful tobacco lobby, it would have happened much faster. A similar reversal on homosexuality and gay marriage did happened much faster. There was a huge anti-gay lobby, but it comparatively lacked the financing of the tobacco lobby. When it comes to reversal of public attitudes and laws concerning automation, the big money will favor accelerating not delaying automation.

Transhumanism is just another (more negative) label for automation, only used by "fringe" groups today. Transhumanism also sounds like an "elitist" word, easily confused with other concepts like

Trans, confused with cross-dressing or sex-change
humanism, confused with X-men, meta-humans, etc.



K-pax said:


> Well, it's a dramatic doomsayer version of saying something that is actually not a bad argument. Autonomous anything tends to have an elitist bent to it, as that is the sort of person who fits into that world unscathed. whether it's a 'vast conspiracy' or just the inevitable effect of this path (without any caution), the end result is to impoverish a large portion of the population, by bringing about a world where the 1% no longer need a population of 'bothersome' underlings to sustain their status. In history, this has been the greatest check against unfettered power. They have to have consent from populations to accomplish what they want to. Removing that check, via automating anything associated with 'underlings' will allow a billionaire to basically sustain a ridiculous amount of power without having to worry about the well being of people lower on the totem pole. I'm not so sure a world where the ruling class has no need for the ruled is a good thing. Economically, automation also does more to siphon power and money out of the anarchic marketplace and concentrate it further into a top down tightly controlled borg of sorts. This is what business does without any checks on it, which is why we have anti-trust laws (which are no longer enforced, really). At the very least, things like this will create a situation where captains of industry are enthroned as Feudal Kings, where the population is 1000% dependent, and self-sufficiency is a vague concept. Worse than that, it allows the most megalomaniacal sociopaths of the world exist with even less regard for their fellow humans. Even smart folks like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrass Tyson and so on have started raising concerns that transhumanism could go wrong. Yes, it's a good sign that these folks are damping down a little to say "hey, shouldn't we think about this a bit before diving in?"


I agree.  There will be upheavals in society as a result of automation. The "smart folks" you mention want to manage this because they realize it cannot be stopped.

Self-driving cars are only one tiny piece of the coming revolution in automation. Automation, not the self-driving car is the far more significant issue. In fact, it may be even worse then you imagine. By 2060, automation may cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket above 40%-50%. The percentage of full-time workers will plummet as more and more common jobs become largely automated. Imagine 500 full-time factory workers replaced by 3 part-timers due to automation. And the gulf between the tiny percentage of super rich and the vast majority of poor may widen to a degree undreamed of today.

The SciFi solution would be to "re-purpose" the "excess, unproductive population" to colonize off-earth. Don't be surprised if the 1960s enthusiasm for the space program re-emerges in the 2nd half of the 21st century. IMHO, that would be far better than the classic "Feudal Solution", start several wars to distract and eliminate the excess population.


----------



## K-pax (Oct 29, 2016)

Maven said:


> Finally, someone who disagrees with me with well reasoned arguments.  Let me cite 2 loose parallels. The reversal in public attitudes and laws concerning smoking took decades. Without successful delaying tactics by the immensely powerful tobacco lobby, it would have happened much faster. A similar reversal on homosexuality and gay marriage did happened much faster. There was a huge anti-gay lobby, but it comparatively lacked the financing of the tobacco lobby. When it comes to reversal of public attitudes and laws concerning automation, the big money will favor accelerating not delaying automation.


Well sure, lobbies and money in general can affect the time frame for acceptance of something but I'd say that oversimplifies something much more complex. It could be argued that the massive money by the tobacco lobby actually hastened public attitudes in many ways. The big smoking gun that seemed to turn people is actually that tobbacco companies were the ones behind conflicting studies. It was very easy to follow the paper trail and discover the motive. Similarly, there is a very clear profit motive for the pro-SDC lobby. The public can possibly sense that this is a scheme by big business to further put the public into corporate serfdom, which is a growing attitude amongst the anarchic internet generation of consumers. Captains of industry are not responding to an organic demand by consumers... they are concocting a power grab to reduce ownership of property in favor of offering a service. a way to transfer ownership of property to the few, to be 'rented out' to the many for a re-occuring fee, purely on their terms. A great siphoning of wealth and property to the 1%... corporate feudalism.

Part of the appeal of rideshare, is that it is decentralized... normal people making money by doing what big corporations were known to do. This is why scandals of rs conpanies mistreating drivers exist. Consumers like helping independent people stick it to economic monoliths. Said monoliths, in their desire to put the genie back in the bottle... disempowering individuals in favor of more archaic top-down concentrated economics... LOVE the idea of SDCs.

In the case of gay marriage, increased secularization of American culture and access to unfettered information may have contributed to acceptance at least as much as lobbying efforts. Government is very slow to react to social attitudes and that is mostly who lobbyists target... government.



Maven said:


> Transhumanism is just another (more negative) label for automation, only used by "fringe" groups today. Transhumanism also sounds like an "elitist" word, easily confused with other concepts like
> 
> Trans, confused with cross-dressing or sex-change
> humanism, confused with X-men, meta-humans, etc.


I'm going to disagree with you on that one. This is an accepted term by more than just critics. Ray Kurzweil, a popularizer of transhumanism uses the word... to describe machines with a 'spiritual capacity'... i.e. to make machines that are effectively human rather than just emulations of human traits. The idea of transhumanism is similar to transgender only in that the word trans means 'beyond'. In the case of transgender, the etymology suggests an existence 'beyond gender'. In the case of transhumanism, it merely means 'beyond human'. Similar in prefix only. AI and transhumanism are related but not the same thing, exactly. AI is artificial (fake) intelligence. Transhumanism is genuine (sentient) intelligence, by the means of a synthetic medium. Actual sentient life sustained by something 'beyond' what we understand to be human.



Maven said:


> I agree.  There will be upheavals in society as a result of automation. The "smart folks" you mention want to manage this because they realize it cannot be stopped.
> 
> Self-driving cars are only one tiny piece of the coming revolution in automation. Automation, not the self-driving car is the far more significant issue. In fact, it may be even worse then you imagine. By 2060, automation may cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket above 40%-50%. The percentage of full-time workers will plummet as more and more common jobs become largely automated. Imagine 500 full-time factory workers replaced by 3 part-timers due to automation. And the gulf between the tiny percentage of super rich and the vast majority of poor may widen to a degree undreamed of today.
> 
> The SciFi solution would be to "re-purpose" the "excess, unproductive population" to colonize off-earth. Don't be surprised if the 1960s enthusiasm for the space program re-emerges in the 2nd half of the 21st century. IMHO, that would be far better than the classic "Feudal Solution", start several wars to distract and eliminate the excess population.


In a way, i agree with you. The big problem is the priorities that technology or even automation are applied to. It us an extension of human flaws of selfishness, ruthlessness, envy, and so forth. Technology is neutral, made in our image. It reflects our priorities and socio-politicital & economic structures. Whatever our species IS, tech will amplify it. That's why it's a disaster waiting to happen, not that the tech is 'evil' in and of itself. A LOT would have to change BEFORE such a revolution to have a more positive outcome. The utopianism of many of the enthousiasts of this revolution could very well end up just the same as the utopianism of ANY revolution: A dystopia that amplifies the worst flaws of the human condition.


----------



## Maven (Feb 9, 2017)

K-pax said:


> Well sure, lobbies and money in general can affect the time frame for acceptance of something but I'd say that oversimplifies something much more complex. It could be argued that the massive money by the tobacco lobby actually hastened public attitudes in many ways. The big smoking gun that seemed to turn people is actually that tobacco companies were the ones behind conflicting studies. It was very easy to follow the paper trail and discover the motive. Similarly, there is a very clear profit motive for the pro-SDC lobby. The public can possibly sense that this is a scheme by big business to further put the public into corporate serfdom, which is a growing attitude amongst the anarchic internet generation of consumers. Captains of industry are not responding to an organic demand by consumers... they are concocting a power grab to reduce ownership of property in favor of offering a service. a way to transfer ownership of property to the few, to be 'rented out' to the many for a re-occuring fee, purely on their terms. A great siphoning of wealth and property to the 1%... corporate feudalism.


Public support is fortunately still important in a democracy.  However, big money knows how easy it is to sway public support: lobbyists buy off legislators, finance impressive research studies supporting their position, plant news stories (and op-eds) with friendly reporters and news outlets, and use massive lawsuits against anybody who challenges them. Big Tobacco effectively and successful did all these things for decades. The fact that there was a clear paper trail and their "hand" was so obvious was used to their advantage, to intimidate potential opponents.

The "great siphoning of wealth and property to the 1%... corporate feudalism" is alive and well in America. In fact, it is stronger than ever.  Have any doubt? Remember "Citizens United v. FEC", "SpeechNow v. FEC" and "McCutcheon v. FEC". The Federal Election Commission itself has been rendered ineffective for decades by a 50-50 partisan political split. Until these landmark Supreme Court decisions are overturned that will not change. That is unlikely anytime soon considering who will be appointing the next few Supreme Court Justices.


K-pax said:


> Part of the appeal of rideshare, is that it is decentralized... normal people making money by doing what big corporations were known to do. This is why scandals of rs conpanies mistreating drivers exist. Consumers like helping independent people stick it to economic monoliths. Said monoliths, in their desire to put the genie back in the bottle... disempowering individuals in favor of more archaic top-down concentrated economics... LOVE the idea of SDCs.


I agree in part, "normal people" like rideshare drivers are making money. However, most of the "control" is still centralized and will continue to be centralized until rideshare drivers can set their own rates and have a voice in decisions affecting then (hint: unionize).


K-pax said:


> In the case of gay marriage, increased secularization of American culture and access to unfettered information may have contributed to acceptance at least as much as lobbying efforts. Government is very slow to react to social attitudes and that is mostly who lobbyists target... government.


Agree.


K-pax said:


> I'm going to disagree with you on that one. This is an accepted term by more than just critics. Ray Kurzweil, a popularizer of transhumanism uses the word... to describe machines with a 'spiritual capacity'... i.e. to make machines that are effectively human rather than just emulations of human traits. The idea of transhumanism is similar to transgender only in that the word trans means 'beyond'. In the case of transgender, the etymology suggests an existence 'beyond gender'. In the case of transhumanism, it merely means 'beyond human'. Similar in prefix only. AI and transhumanism are related but not the same thing, exactly. AI is artificial (fake) intelligence. Transhumanism is genuine (sentient) intelligence, by the means of a synthetic medium. Actual sentient life sustained by something 'beyond' what we understand to be human.


Transhumanism should be discussed in a separate thread in the "Other" forum or perhaps this forum. There seems to be a lot of interest. 


K-pax said:


> In a way, i agree with you. The big problem is the priorities that technology or even automation are applied to. It us an extension of human flaws of selfishness, ruthlessness, envy, and so forth. Technology is neutral, made in our image. It reflects our priorities and socio-politicital & economic structures. Whatever our species IS, tech will amplify it. That's why it's a disaster waiting to happen, not that the tech is 'evil' in and of itself. A LOT would have to change BEFORE such a revolution to have a more positive outcome. The utopianism of many of the enthousiasts of this revolution could very well end up just the same as the utopianism of ANY revolution: A dystopia that amplifies the worst flaws of the human condition.


There are always .. always unintended and unforeseen consequences with any new technology. Regardless of the good intentions of the creators, we can only be sure that someone will try to use the new technology to express "the worst flaws of the human condition" and of course porn. The "revolution" will come, usually more rapidly then expected. Law traditionally lags behind technology. Advanced planning to manage the societal disruption is necessary to accelerate the beneficial effects and regulate the detrimental ones.


----------

