What Cars May Come

I imagine a not-so-distant future in which rush hour, traffic lights, collisions, and road rage are only memories. With entire cities full of cars connected to and controlled by a central computer, almost all traffic issues would be eliminated. Essentially we would all be chauffeured around in private cars without a worry in the world. As much as the internet holds the promise of freedom and equality, I think the same possibility exists with the mass automation of transportation.

Most traffic problems are a result of unexpected or non-conforming actions - when a person goes against the expectations of those around them. Driving slowly on the highway, too fast on crowded streets, surprise lane changes or turns, unexpected stops or slowing, racing, pulling over (or not) for emergency vehicles, and more. Think about every time you've slammed on the brakes, and how many of those times were "some idiot doing stupid, dangerous things." Swerving to avoid a collision, slowing down to evaluate another driver's actions, or just feeling uncertain about what to do. What percentage of the time have you been reacting to another driver? Inversely, it can be me who cuts someone off, doesn't signal, speeds to make it to work on time, or any number of offenses because I'm in a rush or distracted. Car crashes will cease as distracted and impaired driving, missed exits, miscalculated hazards (i.e. wet/icy roads or bald tires), and errors in judgement ("I can make that light") are relics of the past. No longer do I have to worry about what stupid thing I have to deal with next because there will be no more human error.

Traffic jams would go away because there would be no hesitation or need to negotiate between individual drivers. Each car would move to its destination, along with all the others, without the near-misses, anxious adjusting, or jockeying that all result in braking and disruption. Every car would go to its destination with certainty, as there would be no checking of maps or second-guessing of routes. In order to keep traffic moving at its most optimal flow, the computer would divert traffic before a problem, allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded, and provide passengers with an immediate replacement in the event of a car's failure. Merging and highway/freeway on-ramps will also be smooth, doing away with the need for metering lights.

Instead of worrying, bicyclists could move about the roads with the confidence that every car was aware of them and would respect bike zones. Intersections and crossings could be handled easily. The computer adjusts (slows without stopping) traffic flow in one direction to allow time for crossing foot and vehicular traffic and then alternates directions. This would allow for traffic to move continuously, even in busy downtown areas. No more circling the block looking for parking. When I reach my destination, I just step out and the car is ready for the next person.

Another benefit would be the freeing of police to concentrate on substantial crimes instead of speeding or other trivial traffic issues. In addition, the impact of police in traffic (i.e. drivers slowing or focusing on a cop car) would be alleviated.

Never worry about the next oil change or if there is enough fuel in the tank, as that would all be taken care of by technicians who maintain the fleet. Similarly, cleaning, repairs, and upgrades. Alternatively, the motor vehicle department would serve different functions. Licenses would still be needed, but for other reasons. Registration, titles, and other areas dealing with ownership and transfers would be eliminated.

Another major change would be road signs. No longer would there be any reason for anyone to watch for danger or search for addresses. Information could be shown on the screen (windshield) of the car, using a heads-up display. Alternatively, the display could show entertainment, ads, or artistic accompaniment, or could be completely off and act as a plain window. Since I will not need to keep my eyes on the road to navigate and steer, I'm free to simply enjoy the view. All billboards and business signs could be replaced with greenery.

The infrastructure for all this would be immense, which has positive and negative aspects. First, the design, construction, and maintenance requires a sizable workforce. Great for employment in those industries, although many of the existing jobs and personnel could be transitioned to the new system with training and modification. Also, taxi services are subsumed into this new system. Private auto insurance, car modification, or 'personalizing' will be eliminated when all vehicles are public goods. Auto mechanics become public employees, as they are needed to keep the roads rolling. Gas stations, parking garages, and car washes are also public goods and can be used for varying purposes.

The central idea to all this is simple enough: relieving people of the burden of automobiles. This is done by accentuating all the positive and reducing the negative impacts. It is not all post-modern, futuristic wonderment. All these points need to be worked out, security and finances addressed, and implementation is always over-budget and behind schedule. Many aspects of making the transition will take a fair amount of negotiation. However, the bright outcome is enticing enough to overcome such resistance and definitely warrants the effort.

Breaking the Golden Rule

Most people have heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This precept is offered as a way to smooth relations and extend respect to others. However, it is as much simplistic as it is simple. It goes so far as to be harmful in some contexts, while useless in most others.

Too many times it is unwise or unkind to treat another person as I would want to be treated. This approach is problematic if for no other reasons than issues of perspective, culture, self-worth, abuse, shadow, and projection. The first two can be easily demonstrated by asking if I understand how a person of another gender or culture (or other background) actually wants to be treated. This is not my assumption and not how I think they would want me to treat them; those are important to recognize in order to see the difference between my thoughts and reality, but do not substitute for the information the other person provides. The next one is a bit tricky, since my own view can be skewed after surviving trauma. Obviously, I don't want to perpetuate the violence I have experienced, but I also need to be aware of my own post-traumatic stress reaction and how that can influence my actions towards others. Next, if I have poor self-image and/or self-worth, then I am liable to have poor self-care and tend to disregard my own needs and wants. Not only shouldn't I do that to myself, I certainly ought not treat anyone else that way. This ties in with shadow - which I understand to mean my unconscious and subconscious beliefs - and how it colours my interactions and decisions. These are often unaddressed, childish ways of seeing things. The same is true of projections, which are the ways I see those undesirable parts of myself in others. These trigger me so I do not think clearly and interfere with my ability to see others as they are.

Furthermore, it is improper for me to treat someone who differs from me as though they were the same. It is no benefit to ignore differences as though they were unimportant. These differences constitute each person as much as their name, and they are important pieces of identity for everyone. It is disrespectful to pretend that someone else is the same as me when they have different expectations for what constitutes propriety and morality. Likewise, if I treat someone with their ideal deference or obsequiousness, am I respecting my own needs? This notion does not sit well with some individuals I know.

Finally, a word on reciprocity. Acting in accordance with the Golden Rule likely means that I expect the attitude will be returned - that the other person will pick up on how I want to be treated and give that to me. Yet how can that be, since if each person was following the Golden Rule, then they would each be pushing their own expectations onto the other in order to get the message across? Contrariwise, if I stop treating the other person how I want to be treated in order to treat them how they want to be treated, then I am breaking the rule.

So is there another way? Can all parties give and get respect in a situation without this Golden Rule? Indeed, but it is not so trite or simple. There aren't shortcuts to this method, but it has a surety to it. It requires acknowledging ignorance, and then finding out for every person at each initial encounter. Raising the subject for each person involved requires an understanding and mutuality that can seem difficult. This difficulty is often because there is competition, an undercurrent ubiquitous and unacknowledged because it is so commonplace.The presence of competition leads to scarcity-based thinking. The expectation becomes that if one person is afforded respect, then another will lose out because there is only so much to go around. If one person gives, they lose out on getting; if a person is given to, then they will hoard and not reciprocate. Instead, the opposite is true: The more respect I give someone the more empowered they are to offer respect.

I recommend rejecting assumptions and instead asking, being brave enough to be seen as imperfect and willing to admit such. It is a great way to demonstrate humility and humanity.

Insidious

This is a follow up of What is a Lie? (13 April, 2015). I mentioned briefly that jokes are lies, meaning they are not reflective of reality. A horse did not walk into a bar, and muffins do not talk. The intent to deceive is tempered with the intent to entertain. However, even jokes can be malicious and harmful. In ways greater, such as bullying, or lesser, as with 'fuzzy logic'. For example,

A man rolls through a stop sign.

A cop, seeing this, pulls the man over.

When asked, the man says, “I paused!”

The cop begins smacking the man on the head.

 The cop asks the man, “Do you want me to stop, or pause?”

As a child, this joke held a number of messages: personal safety, police violence, consequences, others' pain can be funny, hurting others as male 'explanation', surveillance by authority, and the importance of word choice.

The issue I want to focus on here is that the joke that leads to illogic. The man's actions did not warrant physical violence, nor is being beaten an analog for not fully stopping at a traffic sign. To compare potential harm with actual harm is wrong. It would be akin to saying I am justified in locking up a person who accidentally swept up another's checkbook in a pile of papers. There could have been malicious intent, but actually, there was none; furthermore, the harm is only a bit of worry before the confusion is sorted out.

Why is this worth mentioning and exploring? Many of the consequences to faulty logic are real-life and contemporary. Scams require victims to be oblivious to logic or susceptible to making erroneous conclusions. Malicious individuals rely on victims to not make logical choices and connections. This is not cause-and-effect and I am not claiming that laughing at silly jokes will lead to losing all your money to a con artist. I am supporting awareness of the ways we are fooled, and to be conscious of those patterns or instances in order to choose when to be on guard.

The Stake That Sticks Up is Hammered Down

The title of this post is taken from a Japanese proverb (see end of post). The reason I'm repeating a 'tired and misunderstood' aphorism is this simple: special people are ruining the world.

I believe this is the precise meaning and original reason for the saying. Not that every individual must conform or is prescribed a narrow role to fulfill. Rather, I take it to mean that those who "stick out" do not fulfill their obligation to the structure in which they reside. I see ubiquitous examples in a hyper-individualistic society like the U.S. From the person at a stop sign telling others to "go", sociopathic commodities traders, and the lobbyist/elected official 'revolving door positions' to entitled socialites, self-righteous Social Justice Warriors, and privileged children. These are all examples of persons who - by exempting themselves from common rules - cause havoc and unhappiness for others. As they are self-absorbed, it seems likely they rationalize by concentrating on the desired effect to themselves and ignoring the harm to others.

What would be the goal or underlying motivation for such seemingly diverse groups of people to behave so similarly? The simplest explanation would be fear. I could expand or de-emphasize it by using words like scarcity and insecurity. In the end, I am still talking about a belief that if one does not 'bend the rules' then one will suffer or 'lose out'. That belief is simply a story that intellectualizes the basic human emotion of fear. However, and more importantly, this belief confuses a want with a need. If I am willing to trample another person to get to a sale item, I have confused priorities. A TV on sale is not the same situation as boarding the last life boat on the Titanic. Not that I agree with trampling someone even then.

I will state my own opinion here: the minimum expectation to which people could hold themselves is of 'not taking my own stuff out on others.' In this case, eliminating or soothing my own fear at the expense of another is not acceptable. My emotions, even intense ones, are solely mine and for me to grapple with. If I require help, I am able to make requests. I cannot - in good conscience - use controlling behaviours to force others to get what I want.

Another reason why these are 'special' people is that they are not fulfilling a culturally necessary role through these actions. Even 'rebels' and 'deviants' have a place in society: that of questioning or challenging authority and complacency. This is noble and necessary. However, selfishly disrupting the harmonious functioning of culture by interfering with others for ones' own benefit is not. This is not conscious or peaceful protest of unjust laws, it is blindly acting out habitual, feal-based patterns. I will suggest calling it selfishness.

According to http://dictionary.reference.com:
selfish
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

So, in the end, these 'special' people are just selfish people. It may be time to use the hammer appropriately on the selfish, for the benefit of all.


The following links are discussions about the meaning of the proverb:
Reddit
Wikiquote
Cultural Blog

Why Is There No Post Here?

I was inspired to write a critical analysis of The Lord of the Flies recently, and it ended up being a larger project than I anticipated. It has taken much longer than most of my posts, and expanded into something that may require publishing in another format. I am replacing one of the original posts (yes, it was turning into a series) with this explanation, and will need to write new posts to take the place of the other parts. This is at the same time as a number of changes in my life, so I appreciate your patience with my process.