3 ms·

It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government or companies, though. They especially do not represent the co

It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government or companies, though. They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car on the other hand is complete freedom. I would have expected to hear that driverless cars are the future since it's not contingent on an non-existent infrastructure, rather on the roads that already exist.

kome 9y ago
> It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government (...) They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car, on the other hand, is complete freedom. Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money. Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc... Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore? The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...
- zaroth 9y ago
  The utility of a car is hard to overstate. Our entire modern economy rests upon it. Self-driving only magnifies the awesome utility of cars even further, and will drive even more automation throughout the system. Self-driving pickup of my groceries? Check. Self-driving pickup of my dry cleaning? Check. Self-drive me overnight to next vacation? Double check. The future is bright, and it's chock-fucking-full of (self-driving) cars.

kome 9y ago

> It definitely seems problematic to put your entire foundation of travel in the hands of government (...) They especially do not represent the concerns of all people. A car, on the other hand, is complete freedom. Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money. Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc... Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore? The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...

zaroth 9y ago
The utility of a car is hard to overstate. Our entire modern economy rests upon it. Self-driving only magnifies the awesome utility of cars even further, and will drive even more automation throughout the system. Self-driving pickup of my groceries? Check. Self-driving pickup of my dry cleaning? Check. Self-drive me overnight to next vacation? Double check. The future is bright, and it's chock-fucking-full of (self-driving) cars.