The true cost of Self Driving Vehicles

[poppa x]

I thought I’d start a conversation about a topic that IMO is more than a simple discussion on self-driving cars but is in fact about how technology impacts our lives.

But first a disclaimer. I am not opposed to new technologies and progress. There is ample evidence of how it’s improved our lives in many ways.

So, to the issue of self-driving vehicles.
In theory, it sounds like a great idea. We can all read our iPads, play games or sleep while our car takes us to our destination. Hell, we can even have romantic interludes. So why do I oppose them?

To answer this, we need to ask “who wants them and why”? Technology must have a purpose and if the purpose is unclear then is it technology for technology’s sake? So, who benefits from driver-less cars? This is the key question since technology must benefit some-one. Is the benefit of having your car do the work for you enough to warrant the huge investment involved? I think not, so, something else is going on.

Amazon this week made their first delivery by drone, and it is predicted that driver-less trucks will be on the highways of the USA within 5 years. Here in Oz, there is a test of driver-less cars on the Monash Freeway over the next few months.

The future is clear. No jobs for truck drivers, pizza delivery drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers and any paid vehicular activity that involves human input. This technology could then be applied to pilot-less aircraft (which almost happens now), and cargo ships sailing around the world with no people on board.

Is the future we want? A world where robots do the work? A world where the financial benefits of robots accrue to corporates with the paid work force getting fewer in number and the unemployed can forth and multiply?

As I said at the start, I am not opposed to technology, but my support for technology is based on society (meaning people) benefitting.

In the case of self-drive vehicles, I struggle to see the overall human benefits. Of course, if you think you REALLY NEED your car to drive you to work then, I’m wrong. But this simple benefit is not IMO enough to justify the investment, which is based – again IMO – on the bottom-line of corporates.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Is the future we want? A world where robots do the work? A world where the financial benefits of robots accrue to corporates with the paid work force getting fewer in number and the unemployed can forth and multiply?

As I said at the start, I am not opposed to technology, but my support for technology is based on society (meaning people) benefitting.

Technology is supposed to benefit people by reducing the workload and making our lives easier. The question is whether or not you believe people should work for a living?

It's economics and human nature that is being challenged here. Technology can only automate basic, predictable and repetitive tasks. Humans are still needed to drive innovation. Being freed of menial tasks will enable people to concentrate on other areas of their lives.

 

[tigersnake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o

one of my favourite movies.

Good post pop.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Personally I am all for self driving cars.
No more old people, young people, drunk people, drugged people etc. in control of mobile weapons & more time stuck in traffic to do other things.
Bring on the future I say.

 

[lukeanddad]

The true benefit of self-drive cars is that it should lead to reduced car ownership. If my car sits still for 90%+ of it's life, it is a very lazy asset that costs me $$s/year to keep. If instead, I use an app to request a car at 7.15am and then again at 5.15pm, others can access the asset while I am not using it. No doubt Uber and Lyft are rubbing their hands together in anticipation.

I agree that if I own a driverless car, aside from convenience/ease of use, there is limited benefit - at an increased cost

 

[Baloo]

It'll balance itself out. Will cost me less as control of the car wont be in the wife's hands anymore, but will cost more as I can drink a fair bit more if I know I'm not driving.

 

[tigersnake]

It'll balance itself out. Will cost me less as control of the car wont be in the wife's hands anymore, but will cost more as I can drink a fair bit more if I know I'm not driving.

8-

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Driverless cars have been cited as a possible terrorism risk.

 

[TigerForce]

Driverless cars have been cited as a possible terrorism risk.

:hihi

I thought I heard this fear about robots taking over in 1984 with George Orwell's book. Weren't we supposed to fly in the air by now?

 

[tigersnake]

Driverless cars have been cited as a possible terrorism risk.

can't see why they could'nt be hacked as well

 

[AngryAnt]

I thought I’d start a conversation about a topic that IMO is more than a simple discussion on self-driving cars but is in fact about how technology impacts our lives.

But first a disclaimer. I am not opposed to new technologies and progress. There is ample evidence of how it’s improved our lives in many ways.

So, to the issue of self-driving vehicles.
In theory, it sounds like a great idea. We can all read our iPads, play games or sleep while our car takes us to our destination. Hell, we can even have romantic interludes. So why do I oppose them?

To answer this, we need to ask “who wants them and why”? Technology must have a purpose and if the purpose is unclear then is it technology for technology’s sake? So, who benefits from driver-less cars? This is the key question since technology must benefit some-one. Is the benefit of having your car do the work for you enough to warrant the huge investment involved? I think not, so, something else is going on.

Amazon this week made their first delivery by drone, and it is predicted that driver-less trucks will be on the highways of the USA within 5 years. Here in Oz, there is a test of driver-less cars on the Monash Freeway over the next few months.

The future is clear. No jobs for truck drivers, pizza delivery drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers and any paid vehicular activity that involves human input. This technology could then be applied to pilot-less aircraft (which almost happens now), and cargo ships sailing around the world with no people on board.

Is the future we want? A world where robots do the work? A world where the financial benefits of robots accrue to corporates with the paid work force getting fewer in number and the unemployed can forth and multiply?

As I said at the start, I am not opposed to technology, but my support for technology is based on society (meaning people) benefitting.

In the case of self-drive vehicles, I struggle to see the overall human benefits. Of course, if you think you REALLY NEED your car to drive you to work then, I’m wrong. But this simple benefit is not IMO enough to justify the investment, which is based – again IMO – on the bottom-line of corporates.

Good post poppa.

This is a good example of the changing nature of work given tech change and innovation. It's been happening since the industrial revolution but the pace is accelerating.

Appreciate that people lose jobs when industries are disrupted by new tech, but yeah, adapt or die. Opens up possibilities for other types of work to be done.

More broadly, we have to think about what it might mean to live in a "post-work" world - assuming eventually technology can do almost everything for us. Do we all become artists, or do we just swan about on perpetual holiday? Is human life meaningful without work and endeavour?

 

[TigerForce]

Good post poppa.

This is a good example of the changing nature of work given tech change and innovation. It's been happening since the industrial revolution but the pace is accelerating.

Appreciate that people lose jobs when industries are disrupted by new tech, but yeah, adapt or die. Opens up possibilities for other types of work to be done.

More broadly, we have to think about what it might mean to live in a "post-work" world - assuming eventually technology can do almost everything for us. Do we all become artists, or do we just swan about on perpetual holiday? Is human life meaningful without work and endeavour?

Government pensions.......is this thread going to morph into a political one? ;D

 

[poppa x]

Government pensions.......is this thread going to morph into a political one? ;D

Dunno but I hope not.
It's bigger than politics.
Technology has over the years assisted humans.
For example, the Ferguson Tractor meant farmers could plant more crops and feed more people. And Computers and the Internet has in my view been - on balance - a plus for society.
On the downside, consider splitting the atom. What did we gain? Nuclear weapons and nuclear power that some consider evil.
I put self-drive vehicles somewhere between these positive and negative examples.
Taken to extremes, all human work could be done by robots, so the question becomes "how do we exist"?
Do we need work to satisfy our need to be useful?
How do we pay for those things that robots produce?
The list goes on.
The issue of self-driving vehicles is I think a turning point for society, which should give us pause for thought.

 

[Giardiasis]

Taken to extremes, all human work could be done by robots, so the question becomes "how do we exist"?
Do we need work to satisfy our need to be useful?
How do we pay for those things that robots produce?
The list goes on.
The issue of self-driving vehicles is I think a turning point for society, which should give us pause for thought.

Labour will always be a scarce good, it doesn't matter how much robots take over what has traditionally been human work. Wage labour will always compete against the capital costs of robots.

People find new and inventive ways to put themselves and other people to work. We'll be able to pay for the robots because they will allow people to be put to work in other capacities, and through the cost savings that robots provide. Value isn't created by labour, and requiring people to work when robots can do it cheaper doesn't make us more wealthy.

You ask who benefits from driverless cars? Everyone. Consumers pay less for goods as transport costs reduce, everyone benefits from the increase in leisure time (I could read instead of drive), needs that couldn't be satisfied before can now be satisfied....the list goes on.

 

[Brodders17]

Labour will always be a scarce good, it doesn't matter how much robots take over what has traditionally been human work. Wage labour will always compete against the capital costs of robots.

People find new and inventive ways to put themselves and other people to work. We'll be able to pay for the robots because they will allow people to be put to work in other capacities, and through the cost savings that robots provide. Value isn't created by labour, and requiring people to work when robots can do it cheaper doesn't make us more wealthy.

You ask who benefits from driverless cars? Everyone. Consumers pay less for goods as transport costs reduce, everyone benefits from the increase in leisure time (I could read instead of drive), needs that couldn't be satisfied before can now be satisfied....the list goes on.

It would be like having slaves, but without the ethical issues.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I thought I’d start a conversation about a topic that IMO is more than a simple discussion on self-driving cars but is in fact about how technology impacts our lives.

But first a disclaimer. I am not opposed to new technologies and progress. There is ample evidence of how it’s improved our lives in many ways.

So, to the issue of self-driving vehicles.
In theory, it sounds like a great idea. We can all read our iPads, play games or sleep while our car takes us to our destination. Hell, we can even have romantic interludes. So why do I oppose them?

To answer this, we need to ask “who wants them and why”? Technology must have a purpose and if the purpose is unclear then is it technology for technology’s sake? So, who benefits from driver-less cars? This is the key question since technology must benefit some-one. Is the benefit of having your car do the work for you enough to warrant the huge investment involved? I think not, so, something else is going on.

Amazon this week made their first delivery by drone, and it is predicted that driver-less trucks will be on the highways of the USA within 5 years. Here in Oz, there is a test of driver-less cars on the Monash Freeway over the next few months.

The future is clear. No jobs for truck drivers, pizza delivery drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers and any paid vehicular activity that involves human input. This technology could then be applied to pilot-less aircraft (which almost happens now), and cargo ships sailing around the world with no people on board.

Is the future we want? A world where robots do the work? A world where the financial benefits of robots accrue to corporates with the paid work force getting fewer in number and the unemployed can forth and multiply?

As I said at the start, I am not opposed to technology, but my support for technology is based on society (meaning people) benefitting.

In the case of self-drive vehicles, I struggle to see the overall human benefits. Of course, if you think you REALLY NEED your car to drive you to work then, I’m wrong. But this simple benefit is not IMO enough to justify the investment, which is based – again IMO – on the bottom-line of corporates.

A simple answer would be safety.

Autonomous cars already kill less people, and have less accidents per km than cars with drivers.

And theoretically, the more networked driverless cars there are, the safer they are.

A more complicated answer would be that the more jobs are taken by robots, the more wealthy we are as a society.
Every time a job is taken by a robot, a new swathe of employment industries open up, and society as a whole becomes more productive.

 

[TigerForce]

Dunno but I hope not.
It's bigger than politics.
Technology has over the years assisted humans.
For example, the Ferguson Tractor meant farmers could plant more crops and feed more people. And Computers and the Internet has in my view been - on balance - a plus for society.
On the downside, consider splitting the atom. What did we gain? Nuclear weapons and nuclear power that some consider evil.
I put self-drive vehicles somewhere between these positive and negative examples.
Taken to extremes, all human work could be done by robots, so the question becomes "how do we exist"?
Do we need work to satisfy our need to be useful?
How do we pay for those things that robots produce?
The list goes on.
The issue of self-driving vehicles is I think a turning point for society, which should give us pause for thought.

I'd like to see these for paralysed and elderly people to get around in. I can't believe there's still manual wheelchairs going around as it's terrible seeing a paralysed person struggling to turn the wheels going uphill.