> I wonder why this needs approval anyways. Why does having universal trackers on people need authorization? I wonder... Also, what does it mean for those who

> I wonder why this needs approval anyways. Why does having universal trackers on people need authorization? I wonder... Also, what does it mean for those who don't wear trackers? If you are invisible to those automated cars, is it "normal" that they run over you? > Will animals like it or get confused? Depends on the actual frequency, but it's quite likely that it will negatively impact other animals, as most signals do. > The environment can adapt with more sensors. Why? This is a wrong answer to a wrong problem. The initial question is about climate change. You cannot seriously argue that putting more electronics in cars and equipping people with beacons will solve any environmental challenge: it will, as always, create more pollution. All the while enabling deeper surveillance for the State apparatus. > I find it odd that is so focused on pedestrians or bicyclists There's a few reasons for that: - "smart" cars are dumb (AI is a lie, it's just really fast math) so they're bound to fail to recognize humans, and cause stupid deaths ; a universal beacon would "help" in this regard - pushing for more useless electronics everywhere will boost the chip industry, which is the opposite of what we should be doing for the environment but aligns very well with "green capitalism" psyops - modern cars are basically transportable surveillance devices: the psychopaths in power would love to extend this situation to pedestrians and cyclists so that they can make sure we stay trapped in this dystopian nightmare forever until the collapse of industrial capitalist civilization So yes there's reasons. They're just not reasons focused on improving life for people, unless by improving life you mean "increase pollution", "surveil everyone", and "make industrial bastards even richer".