4 ms·

They have a net positive effect for every owner, except that they seem to facilitate and encourage ways of living that require automobile ownership as a conditi

by throwway120385 6mo ago

They have a net positive effect for every owner, except that they seem to facilitate and encourage ways of living that require automobile ownership as a condition of adulthood in most places. So I'm not entirely sure they're a vast net positive in every value system. In yours, yes, but not in mine.

mwigdahl 6mo ago
Ironically, AI facilitates self-driving cars, which promise to _reduce_ the need for private automobile ownership.
- nradov 6mo ago
  There is very little connection between ownership and who does the driving. I still want to own my own cars even if a computer does most of the driving. That way it's always available, and more importantly I can keep my own stuff in it.
  - mwigdahl 6mo ago
    And you should be able to. But people who don't want that or don't have the means to afford it can have the benefits of automobile transport without the capital expense.
    - nradov 6mo ago
      Consumers can already rent or lease automobiles. This is an operating expense, not a capital expense.
  - Gigachad 6mo ago
    Rental cars are expensive because they are covering the risk and increased wear and tear of rental drivers. As well as the downtime of when the car is rented to you but you aren’t driving it. Self driving cars would make this massively cheaper and remove most of the reasons to own a car. It would make about as much sense as owning a train for most people.
    - gosub100 6mo ago
      Yep just like how massively cheaper housing is to rent, right?
      - Gigachad 6mo ago
        I use cars more like I use a hotel. Inconsistently on demand when PT doesn’t cover the route I need. If I bought and sold a house every time I needed somewhere to stay on holiday, renting would be massively cheaper. I’ve already done the math and uber occasionally is cheaper than owning a car. Self driving electric will be even cheaper.
      - littlexsparkee 6mo ago
        how are you going to compare cars with no fixed location premium with housing? also utilization is totally different - cars sit ~95% of the time, housing can be nearly round the clock if you work at home. transportation is more like a utility/commodity whereas there are so many personal factors for where to live.
next_xibalba 6mo ago
Automobiles are one of a key pillar of logistics. Getting things (food, medicine, construction materials, etc. etc.) to and from backbones like rail, harbors, airports etc. So even for those who don't own a vehicle or even want to own a vehicle, automobiles are still a vast net positive. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Maybe everyone lives in giant 10 million+ population cities that are all connected to each other by rail (and rail connects all airports, harbors, etc.) and then you have to show up at rail station to get your groceries or whatever else?
- californical 6mo ago
  Personal cars are not the same as using them for logistics. Yes cars/trucks/busses are still useful overall and are an incredible last-mile solution for freight. But on a personal level, it means we all must live far apart and maintain our own individual vehicles, along with the average total costs of $11,500/year PER CAR. [0] I’m not saying they should’ve even been banned for personal use - owning a car and living in a rural suburb should still be an option, but it is very expensive to choose that lifestyle. However the auto companies on the early to mid 1900s had heavy influence on policy, even buying and shutting down their public transit competitors, converting cities into “car cities”. This is where it drove into “negatives outweigh the positives” territory. Everything before that was more positive, but this was a massive negative on society and continues to handicap cities today, making them expensive and even just dangerous to walk around (due to high speed roads and limited sidewalks) [0] https://www.nerdwallet.com/auto-loans/learn/total-cost-owning-car https://www.nerdwallet.com/auto-loans/learn/total-cost-ownin...
  - Marha01 6mo ago
    > Personal cars are not the same as using them for logistics. Yes, they are in fact, the same. You cannot introduce such massively useful technology into the world and then say that it would be used only for logistics and not for personal transportation. Short of a worldwide totalitarian government, such arbitrary restriction would be completely unenforceable. It is possible to shape things with regulation, but only to some degree. With any great technology, you have to take the good with the bad. And the good outweights the bad in any historical technology. AI will be no exception.
1234letshaveatw 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Earw0rm 6mo ago
  It's fine if people choose it. It's not fine if that choice denies other people the choice not to. And there seems to be a lot of the latter. For example, when shopping facilities or hospitals are built so as to be, de-facto, only accessible by automobile, that locks people out of the choice to say no thanks.
  - 1234letshaveatw 6mo ago
    I don't follow, are people then not able to choose to live somewhere that has shopping facilities or hospitals that are built so as not to be only accessible by automobile?
    - mynameisbilly 6mo ago
      We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC.
      - iamnothere 6mo ago
        How is Bumfuck MT, population 250, going to support the infrastructure to live comfortably without a car?
        omegabravo 6mo ago
        as someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car.

mwigdahl 6mo ago

Ironically, AI facilitates self-driving cars, which promise to _reduce_ the need for private automobile ownership.

nradov 6mo ago
There is very little connection between ownership and who does the driving. I still want to own my own cars even if a computer does most of the driving. That way it's always available, and more importantly I can keep my own stuff in it.
- mwigdahl 6mo ago
  And you should be able to. But people who don't want that or don't have the means to afford it can have the benefits of automobile transport without the capital expense.
  - nradov 6mo ago
    Consumers can already rent or lease automobiles. This is an operating expense, not a capital expense.
- Gigachad 6mo ago
  Rental cars are expensive because they are covering the risk and increased wear and tear of rental drivers. As well as the downtime of when the car is rented to you but you aren’t driving it. Self driving cars would make this massively cheaper and remove most of the reasons to own a car. It would make about as much sense as owning a train for most people.
  - gosub100 6mo ago
    Yep just like how massively cheaper housing is to rent, right?
    - Gigachad 6mo ago
      I use cars more like I use a hotel. Inconsistently on demand when PT doesn’t cover the route I need. If I bought and sold a house every time I needed somewhere to stay on holiday, renting would be massively cheaper. I’ve already done the math and uber occasionally is cheaper than owning a car. Self driving electric will be even cheaper.
    - littlexsparkee 6mo ago
      how are you going to compare cars with no fixed location premium with housing? also utilization is totally different - cars sit ~95% of the time, housing can be nearly round the clock if you work at home. transportation is more like a utility/commodity whereas there are so many personal factors for where to live.

next_xibalba 6mo ago

Automobiles are one of a key pillar of logistics. Getting things (food, medicine, construction materials, etc. etc.) to and from backbones like rail, harbors, airports etc. So even for those who don't own a vehicle or even want to own a vehicle, automobiles are still a vast net positive. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Maybe everyone lives in giant 10 million+ population cities that are all connected to each other by rail (and rail connects all airports, harbors, etc.) and then you have to show up at rail station to get your groceries or whatever else?

californical 6mo ago
Personal cars are not the same as using them for logistics. Yes cars/trucks/busses are still useful overall and are an incredible last-mile solution for freight. But on a personal level, it means we all must live far apart and maintain our own individual vehicles, along with the average total costs of $11,500/year PER CAR. [0] I’m not saying they should’ve even been banned for personal use - owning a car and living in a rural suburb should still be an option, but it is very expensive to choose that lifestyle. However the auto companies on the early to mid 1900s had heavy influence on policy, even buying and shutting down their public transit competitors, converting cities into “car cities”. This is where it drove into “negatives outweigh the positives” territory. Everything before that was more positive, but this was a massive negative on society and continues to handicap cities today, making them expensive and even just dangerous to walk around (due to high speed roads and limited sidewalks) [0] https://www.nerdwallet.com/auto-loans/learn/total-cost-owning-car https://www.nerdwallet.com/auto-loans/learn/total-cost-ownin...
- Marha01 6mo ago
  > Personal cars are not the same as using them for logistics. Yes, they are in fact, the same. You cannot introduce such massively useful technology into the world and then say that it would be used only for logistics and not for personal transportation. Short of a worldwide totalitarian government, such arbitrary restriction would be completely unenforceable. It is possible to shape things with regulation, but only to some degree. With any great technology, you have to take the good with the bad. And the good outweights the bad in any historical technology. AI will be no exception.

1234letshaveatw 6mo ago

[flagged]

Earw0rm 6mo ago
It's fine if people choose it. It's not fine if that choice denies other people the choice not to. And there seems to be a lot of the latter. For example, when shopping facilities or hospitals are built so as to be, de-facto, only accessible by automobile, that locks people out of the choice to say no thanks.
- 1234letshaveatw 6mo ago
  I don't follow, are people then not able to choose to live somewhere that has shopping facilities or hospitals that are built so as not to be only accessible by automobile?
  - mynameisbilly 6mo ago
    We shouldn't have to completely upend our lives to move to the small handful of major cities that provide the infrastructure to exist comfortably without a car. At least in the US, your options are limited to NYC, Chicago, Boston, and maybe a few others (Seattle/SF). And even then, the hard set default in these major cities is car ownership EXCEPT for NYC.
    - iamnothere 6mo ago
      How is Bumfuck MT, population 250, going to support the infrastructure to live comfortably without a car?
      - omegabravo 6mo ago
        as someone who lives there, they're not. Nor is that what is being suggested, it's critiquing car-centric cities where not having a car is needlessly difficult. Population 250 isn't going to ban cars, but the city may discourage driving and provide ample facilities for those who don't have a car.