3 ms·

People who are scared or angry do not dwell on justification. Political and corporate brands know this very well — we are not at all rational beings and any ap

People who are scared or angry do not dwell on justification. Political and corporate brands know this very well — we are not at all rational beings and any approach based on only “making a logical case for...” is insufficient. We believe we’re rational (the premises of the enlightenment) but are not. Also, please consider how many people are employed in transportation and see themselves broke and homeless before you compare self driving cars to washing machines. Housewives were never paid to exclusively and only wash clothes. Completely different scenario. These are people who, like luddites, see the end of their lives as they know it. From a comment below, on Luddites: > The group was protesting the use of machinery in a "fraudulent and deceitful manner" to get around standard labour practices.

Jach 8y ago
> Also, please consider how many people are employed in transportation and see themselves broke and homeless ... > These are people who, like luddites, see the end of their lives as they know it. I agree it's a different scenario but how much of a fraction is that? I doubt it's very large. Literally millions of new employees in this field have been created thanks to companies like Uber, I doubt most were in the transportation business beforehand and had jobs doing something else, and once driverless cars are more common most won't be in transportation afterwards either. Most people can find new jobs, and most people in the industry already are probably there as a consequence of "I need a new job" rather than being born and bred for this one thing they can do that a machine will now take over.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  I don't think Uber means what you mean by the word employee, just like the case recently all over reddit where TomTom stopped "lifetime" updates to a two year old GPS unit.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  how much of a fraction is that? I doubt it's very large "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only exists in Star Trek, and Silicon Valley. In the rest of the world, every life has value.
  - Jach 8y ago
    Considering I don't subscribe to such a simplistic philosophy that can't be the driving point of my questioning at all, your response makes no sense. Furthermore such a philosophy does not originate in Star Trek, SV is more individualistic and self-centered than most of the world (and I don't even live there anyway nor have any desire to), and life having value does not imply that all lives are the same value or that you can't perform addition on the values.
  - SEJeff 8y ago
    Needs are relative. I suspect society as a whole will be better off when no one loses a child to drunk drivers, asleep drivers, or elderly drivers who have impossibly slow reflexes due to age related factors. Self driving cars make those things a reality.
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    Except, of course, for the lives of people killed by the status quo technology. Fuck them, right?
SEJeff 8y ago
And when Henry Ford made vehicles to the middle class, did all who sold horses and horse carriages forever go jobless? Nope. They did what most people did and retrained and got new jobs. More technology often creates higher paying (skilled) jobs, which people can be retrained to do.

Jach 8y ago

> Also, please consider how many people are employed in transportation and see themselves broke and homeless ... > These are people who, like luddites, see the end of their lives as they know it. I agree it's a different scenario but how much of a fraction is that? I doubt it's very large. Literally millions of new employees in this field have been created thanks to companies like Uber, I doubt most were in the transportation business beforehand and had jobs doing something else, and once driverless cars are more common most won't be in transportation afterwards either. Most people can find new jobs, and most people in the industry already are probably there as a consequence of "I need a new job" rather than being born and bred for this one thing they can do that a machine will now take over.

selimthegrim 8y ago
I don't think Uber means what you mean by the word employee, just like the case recently all over reddit where TomTom stopped "lifetime" updates to a two year old GPS unit.
reaperducer 8y ago
how much of a fraction is that? I doubt it's very large "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only exists in Star Trek, and Silicon Valley. In the rest of the world, every life has value.
- Jach 8y ago
  Considering I don't subscribe to such a simplistic philosophy that can't be the driving point of my questioning at all, your response makes no sense. Furthermore such a philosophy does not originate in Star Trek, SV is more individualistic and self-centered than most of the world (and I don't even live there anyway nor have any desire to), and life having value does not imply that all lives are the same value or that you can't perform addition on the values.
- SEJeff 8y ago
  Needs are relative. I suspect society as a whole will be better off when no one loses a child to drunk drivers, asleep drivers, or elderly drivers who have impossibly slow reflexes due to age related factors. Self driving cars make those things a reality.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  Except, of course, for the lives of people killed by the status quo technology. Fuck them, right?

SEJeff 8y ago

And when Henry Ford made vehicles to the middle class, did all who sold horses and horse carriages forever go jobless? Nope. They did what most people did and retrained and got new jobs. More technology often creates higher paying (skilled) jobs, which people can be retrained to do.