3 ms·

I guess this is how people justify killing for peace. Tesla stock holders must be celebrating that their cars get to run a few people over in the name of "progr

I guess this is how people justify killing for peace. Tesla stock holders must be celebrating that their cars get to run a few people over in the name of "progress". (Well ok, they get to celebrate because their failed pet project gets to have another go - potato/potato)

everdev 7y ago
If you find something that's pure good, let me know. There's always a price to pay with any activity. The question is just if the positive outweighs the negative. If you can't see both sides the you're probably polarized and biased to one approach. I think everyone wants better transportation and fewer deaths. But 0 deaths with an emerging driving technology sounds really hard. There are just so many edge cases and physics is pretty unforgiving on our bodies past 40mph.
Diederich 7y ago
> I guess this is how people justify killing for peace. Extreme but (hopefully) relevant counter-example: was the killing of tens of thousands of people (soldiers and civilians) by American citizens in Europe during World War II justified? This is a very complex question, and any reasonable answer will be even more complex and nuanced, so I'm not really asking anyone to directly answer it in this venue. To be clear, I'm not talking about Tesla here, only the first sentence in your response, in isolation. I think there are some circumstances where some deaths as payment for far fewer deaths that are morally and ethically sound and defensible. If we can agree to that, then we can move on and analyze what Tesla is trying to do.
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  Are we in a war with Machines now? Did Tesla state that it needs more Lebensraum, which, regrettably, requires purging the globe of everyone else? I'm not trying to invoke Godwin here: just that war happens be somewhat hard to compare - "people die, ergo same thing" seems a rather forced comparison. Perhaps the only fitting parallel seems "history will be written by the victors."
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    Also note how well all the other USian Wars On A Concept turned out...
- brosinante 7y ago
  Of course there are, and you're absolutely correct in your example - fighting against war is a noble cause. But this is not a war in any way - there's already options in place to save lives - better policing, stricter speed limits, safer vehicles/roads/crossings. Allowing new technology on the road without the proper safeguards, (and the in my opinion abhorent justification that a few unlucky people might just get run over for the greater good) is not one of these options. The "dangerous self driving cars on the road" option is only helping the pockets of Tesla's investors, not the public.
- modestmasse 7y ago
  Only on HN would somebody argue that Teslas killing people is just like the Allied powers fighting the Axis (who were engaged in genocide). You don't get to choose when we move on. You have a broken brain. Your opinions are worse than useless.

everdev 7y ago

If you find something that's pure good, let me know. There's always a price to pay with any activity. The question is just if the positive outweighs the negative. If you can't see both sides the you're probably polarized and biased to one approach. I think everyone wants better transportation and fewer deaths. But 0 deaths with an emerging driving technology sounds really hard. There are just so many edge cases and physics is pretty unforgiving on our bodies past 40mph.

Diederich 7y ago

> I guess this is how people justify killing for peace. Extreme but (hopefully) relevant counter-example: was the killing of tens of thousands of people (soldiers and civilians) by American citizens in Europe during World War II justified? This is a very complex question, and any reasonable answer will be even more complex and nuanced, so I'm not really asking anyone to directly answer it in this venue. To be clear, I'm not talking about Tesla here, only the first sentence in your response, in isolation. I think there are some circumstances where some deaths as payment for far fewer deaths that are morally and ethically sound and defensible. If we can agree to that, then we can move on and analyze what Tesla is trying to do.

Piskvorrr 7y ago
Are we in a war with Machines now? Did Tesla state that it needs more Lebensraum, which, regrettably, requires purging the globe of everyone else? I'm not trying to invoke Godwin here: just that war happens be somewhat hard to compare - "people die, ergo same thing" seems a rather forced comparison. Perhaps the only fitting parallel seems "history will be written by the victors."
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  Also note how well all the other USian Wars On A Concept turned out...
brosinante 7y ago
Of course there are, and you're absolutely correct in your example - fighting against war is a noble cause. But this is not a war in any way - there's already options in place to save lives - better policing, stricter speed limits, safer vehicles/roads/crossings. Allowing new technology on the road without the proper safeguards, (and the in my opinion abhorent justification that a few unlucky people might just get run over for the greater good) is not one of these options. The "dangerous self driving cars on the road" option is only helping the pockets of Tesla's investors, not the public.
modestmasse 7y ago
Only on HN would somebody argue that Teslas killing people is just like the Allied powers fighting the Axis (who were engaged in genocide). You don't get to choose when we move on. You have a broken brain. Your opinions are worse than useless.