4 ms·

I'm not sure I want autonomous vehicles to work. It would, inevitably, lead to more cars in cities. Probably faster cars. Both are the opposite of what we need

I'm not sure I want autonomous vehicles to work. It would, inevitably, lead to more cars in cities. Probably faster cars. Both are the opposite of what we need; it isn't just about safety.

FredPret 2y ago
Who decides "what we need"? I say "we" do - ie, if people want to buy autonomous cars, then that's what's going to happen. Incidentally if there's a large number of autonomous cars available in a fluid and efficient market, that would probably mean fewer people need cars in total.
- SequoiaHope 2y ago
  > I say "we" do - ie, if people want to buy autonomous cars, then that's what's going to happen. Baked in to this is the assumption that the operation of markets are democratic, but they are not. A very small number of people decide where investments go, what tech to design, and what to buy. The alternative - public transit focused infrastructure, is not available to buy in small quantities. Huge investments have to be made before anyone can “vote with their wallet” on public transit. And similarly, billions have to go in to AV development before anyone can buy in to it. And those with more money always have more “vote” in a “vote with your wallet” scenario. Fifty percent of the people in the US have so little money as to make their votes nearly meaningless in such a scenario. That’s not “us” making a decision that is very much certain people making that decision.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    > A very small number of people decide where investments go, what tech to design, and what to buy. Baked into this is a certain kind of economic unrealism that you frequently see online. Rich people aren't endless fountains of capital. They fund things that work, ie, things that sell, ie, things the public likes. Rich people who have some other investment strategy than this go broke. > Fifty percent of the people in the US have so little money as to make their votes nearly meaningless in such a scenario. I think if you look up the median wealth and income of the US, and the purchasing power of the US middle class in aggregate, you'll be very surprised by how much sway these people have. Its true that the upper-middle class and the rich are even better customers, but many fortunes have been made catering to the whims of the median American. The US consumer rules the world. And all this is just academic. Countless poor and middle class families buy cars every day because it's a way better option than living in an urban zone and taking a bus.
    - SequoiaHope 2y ago
      > Rich people aren't endless fountains of capital. They fund things that work, ie, things that sell, ie, things the public likes. Rich people who have some other investment strategy than this go broke. Rich people fund a certain kind of thing, but that is a subset of the class of all things which could be built. Free universal healthcare is very popular in the US, but rich people aren't building it. They have perverse incentives to build a healthcare system which becomes a good long term investment while using government protection to exclude all competition. There are things that can be build by collectives of regular people, like libraries, which are conceptually overlapping but also distinct concepts from "things rich people build to sell to regular people." Not all good things are products which are sold to us. > The US consumer rules the world. Yes to the detriment and suffering of a sizable portion of the world's population. > And all this is just academic. Countless poor and middle class families buy cars every day because it's a way better option than living in an urban zone and taking a bus. Yes, in a world where we vote with our dollars, a car and a bus are going to be the only options for poor and middle class families. But in Japan, China, Spain, France, and countless other places countless poor and middle class families ride bullet trains. How come we didn't vote with our dollars in to bullet trains in the USA?
      - FredPret 2y ago
        It's true that there are very good things that aren't products. It's also true that public goods come at the expense of private goods. I've lived in several places with "free" healthcare, including Canada right now, and while it can be a great system, it can also come at the expense of a huge tax bill that eats into other spending and slows down the whole system. > > The US consumer rules the world. > Yes to the detriment and suffering of a sizable portion of the world's population. Why is it then that real income & wealth (and with that, life outcomes) have shot up in all the "sweat-shop" countries that stock the shelves of Walmart? > Yes, in a world where we vote with our dollars, a car and a bus are going to be the only options for poor and middle class families. But in Japan, China, Spain, France, and countless other places countless poor and middle class families ride bullet trains. How come we didn't vote with our dollars in to bullet trains in the USA? Have you been to these kinds of places? I've lived in several, and spent significant time in many. Poor and middle class people aren't taking bullet trains to work anywhere in the world. Those things are hella expensive to build and run and ride. Even rich, dense London with its world class mass transit has a hard time delivering an acceptable experience compared to an F150 and a stretch of wide tarmac. For most poor American families, living in a big house in a small town and owning one or more cars is the optimal solution, not some utopian pipe dream involving high-rises and buses.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
I do if it kills fewer and makes streets safer for pedestrians.
udkl 2y ago
Here is a hour long video exploring the topic that I watched today and found interesting https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=RSiymNzmpWD7cOeW https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=RSiymNzmpWD7cOeW
rangestransform 2y ago
People getting to their destination safer, faster, insulated from weather and crackheads, not listening to showtimes, not breathing in subway tunnel air [1], is good for the individual People consuming less energy to get to their destination [2] is good for society [1] https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-disproportionately-impacts-new-york-citys-minority-and-low-income https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-dispro... [2] https://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
astrange 2y ago
That's what congestion pricing is for.

I'm not sure I want autonomous vehicles to work. It would, inevitably, lead to more cars in cities. Probably faster cars. Both are the opposite of what we need; it isn't just about safety.

FredPret 2y ago

Who decides "what we need"? I say "we" do - ie, if people want to buy autonomous cars, then that's what's going to happen. Incidentally if there's a large number of autonomous cars available in a fluid and efficient market, that would probably mean fewer people need cars in total.

SequoiaHope 2y ago
> I say "we" do - ie, if people want to buy autonomous cars, then that's what's going to happen. Baked in to this is the assumption that the operation of markets are democratic, but they are not. A very small number of people decide where investments go, what tech to design, and what to buy. The alternative - public transit focused infrastructure, is not available to buy in small quantities. Huge investments have to be made before anyone can “vote with their wallet” on public transit. And similarly, billions have to go in to AV development before anyone can buy in to it. And those with more money always have more “vote” in a “vote with your wallet” scenario. Fifty percent of the people in the US have so little money as to make their votes nearly meaningless in such a scenario. That’s not “us” making a decision that is very much certain people making that decision.
- FredPret 2y ago
  > A very small number of people decide where investments go, what tech to design, and what to buy. Baked into this is a certain kind of economic unrealism that you frequently see online. Rich people aren't endless fountains of capital. They fund things that work, ie, things that sell, ie, things the public likes. Rich people who have some other investment strategy than this go broke. > Fifty percent of the people in the US have so little money as to make their votes nearly meaningless in such a scenario. I think if you look up the median wealth and income of the US, and the purchasing power of the US middle class in aggregate, you'll be very surprised by how much sway these people have. Its true that the upper-middle class and the rich are even better customers, but many fortunes have been made catering to the whims of the median American. The US consumer rules the world. And all this is just academic. Countless poor and middle class families buy cars every day because it's a way better option than living in an urban zone and taking a bus.
  - SequoiaHope 2y ago
    > Rich people aren't endless fountains of capital. They fund things that work, ie, things that sell, ie, things the public likes. Rich people who have some other investment strategy than this go broke. Rich people fund a certain kind of thing, but that is a subset of the class of all things which could be built. Free universal healthcare is very popular in the US, but rich people aren't building it. They have perverse incentives to build a healthcare system which becomes a good long term investment while using government protection to exclude all competition. There are things that can be build by collectives of regular people, like libraries, which are conceptually overlapping but also distinct concepts from "things rich people build to sell to regular people." Not all good things are products which are sold to us. > The US consumer rules the world. Yes to the detriment and suffering of a sizable portion of the world's population. > And all this is just academic. Countless poor and middle class families buy cars every day because it's a way better option than living in an urban zone and taking a bus. Yes, in a world where we vote with our dollars, a car and a bus are going to be the only options for poor and middle class families. But in Japan, China, Spain, France, and countless other places countless poor and middle class families ride bullet trains. How come we didn't vote with our dollars in to bullet trains in the USA?
    - FredPret 2y ago
      It's true that there are very good things that aren't products. It's also true that public goods come at the expense of private goods. I've lived in several places with "free" healthcare, including Canada right now, and while it can be a great system, it can also come at the expense of a huge tax bill that eats into other spending and slows down the whole system. > > The US consumer rules the world. > Yes to the detriment and suffering of a sizable portion of the world's population. Why is it then that real income & wealth (and with that, life outcomes) have shot up in all the "sweat-shop" countries that stock the shelves of Walmart? > Yes, in a world where we vote with our dollars, a car and a bus are going to be the only options for poor and middle class families. But in Japan, China, Spain, France, and countless other places countless poor and middle class families ride bullet trains. How come we didn't vote with our dollars in to bullet trains in the USA? Have you been to these kinds of places? I've lived in several, and spent significant time in many. Poor and middle class people aren't taking bullet trains to work anywhere in the world. Those things are hella expensive to build and run and ride. Even rich, dense London with its world class mass transit has a hard time delivering an acceptable experience compared to an F150 and a stretch of wide tarmac. For most poor American families, living in a big house in a small town and owning one or more cars is the optimal solution, not some utopian pipe dream involving high-rises and buses.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mensetmanusman 2y ago

I do if it kills fewer and makes streets safer for pedestrians.

udkl 2y ago

Here is a hour long video exploring the topic that I watched today and found interesting https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=RSiymNzmpWD7cOeW https://youtu.be/040ejWnFkj0?si=RSiymNzmpWD7cOeW

rangestransform 2y ago

People getting to their destination safer, faster, insulated from weather and crackheads, not listening to showtimes, not breathing in subway tunnel air [1], is good for the individual People consuming less energy to get to their destination [2] is good for society [1] https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-disproportionately-impacts-new-york-citys-minority-and-low-income https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-dispro... [2] https://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html https://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html

astrange 2y ago

That's what congestion pricing is for.