Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday July 26 2017, @05:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-sorry-Dave,-I-can't-do-that dept.

[...] some experts believe as much as 95% of passenger miles could be electric, autonomous by 2030, thanks to some basic economics. Because electric vehicles cost a whole lot less to drive and maintain—but more to buy—and because autonomous vehicles greatly reduce the cost of commercial driving, a combination of the two technologies will make autonomous Transportation as a Service exponentially more cost competitive than either owning a car, or hiring a car and driver. It's also exponentially more profitable for car companies, who have long feared the loss of maintenance and service profits associated with a transition to electric cars.

This question will come up more frequently as self-driving technology advances. Will perfection of that technology make a difference, though, in the face of social behaviors that have been deeply ingrained over the past century?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:46AM (6 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 26 2017, @11:46AM (#544599) Journal

    All I see is a bunch of vacuous marketing hype, trying to convince me that people who are being driven into poverty by the ongoing recession are somehow "choosing" such options

    But of course!
    However... letting aside how it's worded, one has to admit that nowadays the "deeply ingrained social behaviours" are not that "slow to change" and the traditions of "the last century" mean nothing when one can't afford them (in contrast with the fool's hope the submitter set in the end of his submission)

    and WTF is an "experience economy", sounds like something a marketer came up with.

    I'll try to put it in brief: is the last rush in sucking dry whoever they can, worded so that the ethical implications are not evident.
    The millennials are fucked twice over by the generations of their grandparents and parents, their only chance now is to keep moving day after day, until they'll simply need to refuse the current game. What they'll do then? Beat me if I know, but I'm curious enough to wish I'll see them.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Wednesday July 26 2017, @01:55PM (2 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @01:55PM (#544634)

    But of course!
    However... letting aside how it's worded, one has to admit that nowadays the "deeply ingrained social behaviours" are not that "slow to change" and the traditions of "the last century" mean nothing when one can't afford them (in contrast with the fool's hope the submitter set in the end of his submission)

    Some behaviours are not due to social conditioning. I believe the submitter was referring to us driving ourselves. I don't think self driving cars will ever be particularly popular with the masses. The reason for this is not due to social behaviour, but due evolutionary behaviour, specifically a deep need for self preservation.

    Animals have always controlled where they moved to. Back when we walked, then when we used horses/camels/other animals to move us, to bikes, and to cars, they have all been just progressions of the animal controlling where it goes. Even when we used horses, you could let the horse do the trip safe with the knowledge that the horse has no more a desire to die than you do, and will try its best to get to its destination safely. Even then we would just give them directions using the reins, so there was still some human control.

    Self driving cars, and machines that drive, are a different beast, they have no concept of self preservation. If they are told to kill all occupants they will do so without hesitation. Ignoring the risk that governments/powerful people could remove others who are a thorn in their side easily with such vehicles, there is already talk about "ethics" of who the car should decide to kill if an accident is unavoidable. It may be socially unacceptable to mention it, but the vast majority of people, if in a situation where they are about to have an accident, will try to preserve themselves and their occupants above all others. How well do you think a self driving car would be accepted if people were told they/their family would be sacrificed in an accident to save someone else?

    It would also be the first time that no human that is being moved is at the controls at all, and if they became the only method of moving people around, governments could very easily seal off complete sections of the world, because the cars would refuse to drive you there. At the moment I can drive myself anywhere I want, even if the government doesn't want me there. That is a very important part of freedom, the freedom to break rules if needs be.

    This is a deeper resistance than plain social behaviour. I have had many chats with my peers, and not a single one wants to even get into a self driving car. Many are quite big on controlling where they go, although for many of them costs means they do it by bike rather than car. I am not sure who exactly is clamouring for self driving cars (except governments, and intrusive spying companies, but they stand to gain immensely from it) because I sure don't see it from the masses.

    I'll try to put it in brief: is the last rush in sucking dry whoever they can, worded so that the ethical implications are not evident.

    Very much so, the credit bubble that was kicked off when the USD was taken off the gold standard in the 70s is reaching its peak (after the hedonistic 80s, man I wish I was around back then. Looked like an entire decade of hedonism). This quasi-serfdom that awaits most people in the western world is the future. Hence countries are turning into police states, because it is the only way to keep the lid on revolt. Politicians know it is going to get far worse for the masses, so the more they can track, restrict and control them, the better. The systems put in place now are not to handle today's problems, but tomorrows.

    I can imagine if moving yourself around becomes fully under government control, organising protests would be a hell of a lot harder. It is already getting harder as they can shut down communication, track peoples phones, and generally disrupt protests before they even get there (all you need to do is identify and isolate the leaders, and the protest just turns into a mob that is easy to control).

    The millennials are fucked twice over by the generations of their grandparents and parents, their only chance now is to keep moving day after day, until they'll simply need to refuse the current game.

    Why? I mean, my parents and grandparents tried their hardest to give me the best start in life they could. It wasn't much, but they tried. I never felt that they fucked me over. The only ones who have done that are the governments. The endless money printing and debt sprees, mostly to buy votes, enrich themselves, and go murder people half way round the world that were no direct threat to us (until we destroyed their country, then they were pissed at us, and became a threat as they wanted revenge, go figure), and then they have the gall tax me to pay for it all.

    I calculated my tax burden a few years ago when I was curious. This includes direct taxes (like income tax) and indirect taxes (like VAT, sales tax, "eco" tax, fuel duty, road tax, tv tax, etc...) and it came up to something like 70% of my total income goes to taxes of some sort. Note this doesn't even include inflation, which is basically a stealth tax as well.

    When near to 3/4 of my entire income is paying the government in some form, how exactly am I supposed to prosper, buy assets/property and start a family?
    One thing that may be the legacy of the millennial generation is a massive drop in births. I cannot even imagine starting a family, with all the costs I bear. Likewise most women my age cannot imagine being able to afford children, schooling, etc... Many have given up on kids all together, and decided to just live a life of floating around from place to place, enjoying themselves, etc... no permanence, putting no roots down anywhere.

    Of course, lack of births means lack of taxpayers to fund the government, and lack of serfs to go into debt to perpetuate the credit cycle. The governments solution, rather than give us the opportunity to have kids and propagate the next generation, is to import as many people from abroad as possible, which causes our wages to decline even further, but at least gives more people to offer loans to.

    What they'll do then? Beat me if I know, but I'm curious enough to wish I'll see them.

    Well, from what I see, it will be exactly the same as with every other generation. Millennials are not one unified blob. Like every generation, you got the SJW/Liberal types, the "normal" types that work hard for a living, and the rich, who will inherit wealth from the previous generations.

    All the articles I read about millenials seem more to use the opportunity to push their agenda (whether it is some eco "carbon free" future, some technophiliac "Robots will do everything for us", or "nownership", "cash free generation", doesn't matter really), so they don't really have much bearing on reality. We come in all shapes and sizes, beliefs, etc... like every other generation. Socially you can split us into the standard three groups:

    1) Liberal/Social Justice Warrior type. This is by far the noisiest of the three groups, and hence the one that "speaks" for the entire millennial generation. They tend to not have jobs, or their jobs are actually being SWJs of some sort, either middle class parents or on some sort of welfare/assistance, so they got all the time in the world to protest, have media engagements, write articles etc.... and generally push their agenda. This section has an interest in changing the system, mostly towards more Marxist type ideologies.

    2) The "normals". Middle class and poor people, who basically rolled up their sleeves and made the best of the situation. Work is hard to find, from crap temping jobs that pay minimum wage, to the lucky few that can actually get a decent stable job and income. For many, the stagnant incomes in a recession with inflationary price increases means they can't afford to buy things, yet don't want to appear "poor", hence the surge in renting rather than buying, leasing very expensive cars, etc.... This is where the bulk of "generation rent" lives. A few of us have managed to scrape together to buy a small flat or house somewhere. This section is split into those who now have a vested interest in the system carrying on, vs those who have an interest in changing the system in the hope of the new one being better for them. They tend to be quiet, as they are too busy surviving to protest much, but will tend to vote when the time comes, hence why polls don't necessarily correlate with voting results.

    3) The rich. Millennials who stand to (or already have) inherited wealth from parents and grandparents. I know a few of them. They have multiple properties they rent to their fellow millennials and make a killing on the income. They don't have to work, some live a life of fancy cars, parties, drugs, social events and travel, others take risks in business in the hope they can make it big (but always have a base income to fall back on if the worst happens). They have the strongest interest in perpetuating the system, and tend to be the quietest of the bunch, not desiring to rock the boat that gives them such a good life.

    So I suspect society will remain as it has so far, for now at least. The big pressure will be on the second group. As the credit bubble expands it is ok, but it can't go on forever. Once there is another credit crunch, those who live off renting/leasing/credit will find themselves suddenly poor, and as a big part of who they were was based on pretending they were not poor, they will be hit hard. Some would fall into drugs/depression, others will get more politically active, then the odd protest will become a larger threat to the system.
    Hence the majority of the police state is being put in place to keep them under control, removing freedoms under the guise of safety/convenience/automation/geeky coolness.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 26 2017, @03:36PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @03:36PM (#544679)

      It would also be the first time that no human that is being moved is at the controls at all, and if they became the only method of moving people around, governments could very easily seal off complete sections of the world, because the cars would refuse to drive you there. At the moment I can drive myself anywhere I want, even if the government doesn't want me there. That is a very important part of freedom, the freedom to break rules if needs be.

      I just keep thinking about that scene in Minority Report where Tom Cruise's car starts redirecting him to the police station to turn him in for a crime he's being framed for and he has to figure out how to get out of the car safely.

      When someone can hijack my car like that, I am no longer free.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 27 2017, @12:52PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @12:52PM (#545139) Journal

      I don't think self driving cars will ever be particularly popular with the masses.

      Popular as in "embraced as the next good thing after sliced bread"? No.
      Popular as in "you can't afford something else"? This might be.

      The millennials are fucked twice over by the generations of their grandparents and parents, their only chance now is to keep moving day after day, until they'll simply need to refuse the current game.

      Why? I mean, my parents and grandparents tried their hardest to give me the best start in life they could.

      Is called "living on the expense of the future" - aka mainly on borrowed money, credit.
      I don't doubt their intention, but the way they chose to achieve it is what drove the prices of the living higher than their grand/kids can afford.
      Yes, outsourcing and banking deregulation played a role - one may argue they were tricked onto this road.

      So I suspect society will remain as it has so far, for now at least. The big pressure will be on the second group. As the credit bubble expands it is ok, but it can't go on forever. Once there is another credit crunch, those who live off renting/leasing/credit will find themselves suddenly poor, and as a big part of who they were was based on pretending they were not poor, they will be hit hard.

      Yeap, I see that you already knew the answer to the prev question.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:14PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:14PM (#545150) Journal

    However... letting aside how it's worded, one has to admit that nowadays the "deeply ingrained social behaviours" are not that "slow to change" and the traditions of "the last century" mean nothing when one can't afford them (in contrast with the fool's hope the submitter set in the end of his submission)

    The point is that if this isn't a desired state, then you're going to see the people responsible for the trend abandoning it as fast as they can once they get into some money.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:20PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 27 2017, @01:20PM (#545153) Journal

      then you're going to see the people responsible for the trend abandoning it as fast as they can once IF they get into some money.

      FTFY - at least brought it to a form in which we may both agree.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 28 2017, @01:38AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 28 2017, @01:38AM (#545560) Journal
        The thing is young people now may start poorer than young people in previous, living generations, but they still tend to get wealthier with age.