Philosophy Now Forum

I think that people have an irrational fear of the upcoming driverless cars. When cars first came out over 100 years, I can picture people refusing to ride in one due to fear of the gas engine blowing up or some other reason. Then we have other modes of transportation such as airplanes.

In current times people have expressed a fear of the driverless cars although it's felt it can save about 30,000 lives in the US per year. What would it take to convince you that it's really in your best interest? What confidence level are you looking for?

Currently testing is going on in the US, mainly in the west.
It's not going to happen overnight so there's plenty of time for discussion. I'm including a survey on this important topic.

PhilX

Q: What’s so different now?

A: It’s looking like the difference is a high level of corruption driving public policy, whereas in Henry Ford’s heyday, autos multiplied because of genuine need, namely, NYC was sinking under a great load of horse hockey.

*

What’s going on with the cars sounds like a variation of smash and grab, as explained below, namely, use influence to create a situation, then engage crony capitalism to profit.

“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.

“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”

Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/ ... h-buddies/

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:05 am Q: What’s so different now?

A: It’s looking like the difference is a high level of corruption driving public policy, whereas in Henry Ford’s heyday, autos multiplied because of genuine need, namely, NYC was sinking under a great load of horse hockey.

*

What’s going on with the cars sounds like a variation of smash and grab, as explained below, namely, use influence to create a situation, then engage crony capitalism to profit.

“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.

“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”

Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/ ... h-buddies/

How does this relate to driverless cars?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 12:29 pm
How does this relate to driverless cars?

PhilX

- The need for change to the horseless carriage was natural.

- What's so different now is that the need is artificial.

- The need for change to the driverless cars is artificial.

- The need for ownership change of the university (link) was artificial.

- The link about the university theft is an example of how political influence in the name of the people was misused to create an artificial need for change, for the purpose of personal profit, in that instance.

- Since the natural need of the public is not the driving force pushing for driverless cars, then some form of artificial need is obviously being created.

- Most likely the need for driverless cars is being created for personal profit, and not the public interest.

Walker: When you claim that companies that provide goods and services are not interested in the public needs, but in creating artificial needs, I have to scratch my head. You are aware that a business only makes a profit by satisfying its customers? And what are you claiming is an artificial need versus an actual one? Do people need books? Not really. I suppose we could do without them, so does that mean private book publishing companies are merely satisfying an artificial need that should remain unsatisfied?

I don't have a problem with the development of self-driving cars, and see this as inevitable. However, if cars remain the same as they are now, where one sits in a seat looking out at the road, and cannot do much anyway, I would prefer to drive, because otherwise I would be bored to death. If self-driving vehicles are developed where one can sit back in a larger area and watch TV, read a book, cook, eat, etc., then that would be great.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:05 am Q: What’s so different now?

A: It’s looking like the difference is a high level of corruption driving public policy, whereas in Henry Ford’s heyday, autos multiplied because of genuine need, namely, NYC was sinking under a great load of horse hockey.

*

What’s going on with the cars sounds like a variation of smash and grab, as explained below, namely, use influence to create a situation, then engage crony capitalism to profit.

“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.

“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”

Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/ ... h-buddies/

Wow, quoting Breitbart. And Drumpf never lies through his teeth.

Can someone find a source that says there's a need being met by driverless cars OTHER THAN greedy corporations trying to not have to pay drivers, and thus save money? There are so many actual needs in the world that this just seems frivolous.

As for the actual OP. I would drive a driverless car after there have been zero train accidents for 5 years. Trains literally go back and forth on a railroad, and STILL have accidents. By comparison a car is practically an airplane.

It's clearly safer to ride in one than be in front of one!!

RustyBert: First off, when a company increases profits, then the company is using resources efficiently. If cars can drive themselves, then that means people who now drive cabs can do something more productive. Secondly, as far as needs being met, I can name numerous ones, including the ability for blind people to be independently mobile, little children can be picked up from school while their parents are still at work as the car can pick up the kids, drop them off, and then arrive back at the parent's workplace, which cuts down on the need for owning more than one car, and also having to have someone pick up the kids. Drunk drivers can avoid DUIs. Physically disabled people will also be able to be more independent, including those with dementia.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:22 pm Walker: When you claim that companies that provide goods and services are not interested in the public needs, but in creating artificial needs, I have to scratch my head. You are aware that a business only makes a profit by satisfying its customers? And what are you claiming is an artificial need versus an actual one? Do people need books? Not really. I suppose we could do without them, so does that mean private book publishing companies are merely satisfying an artificial need that should remain unsatisfied?

Re: Supply and Demand

Consumers are not demanding driverless cars.

The only reason books are still published in the digital age is because people demand them.

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 pm It's clearly safer to ride in one than be in front of one!!

The big business mouthpieces were quick to point out that the poor woman wasn't in the crosswalk, implying that she's at fault.

RustyBert wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:30 pm Wow, quoting Breitbart. And Drumpf never lies through his teeth.

So, another of that tedious type.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:15 pm

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 pm It's clearly safer to ride in one than be in front of one!!

The big business mouthpieces were quick to point out that the poor woman wasn't in the crosswalk, implying that she's at fault.

If we're talking about the same accident, the police are now saying she was at fault.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:21 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 7:15 pm

wtf wrote: ↑Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:38 pm It's clearly safer to ride in one than be in front of one!!

The big business mouthpieces were quick to point out that the poor woman wasn't in the crosswalk, implying that she's at fault.

If we're talking about the same accident, the police are now saying she was at fault.

PhilX

I'm not surprised.