Autonomous Cars

I read a recent article that talked about the virtues of “autonomous cars” and what a brave new world the future would be if only all cars were self controlled.

I started reading the article because the title was intriguing and I was curious why the author choose to use a somewhat obscure word to describe efforts and goals for making cars more self sufficient and ultimately capable of going from point A to point B without any human input.

The planners envision a future with drivers doing office work, reading the news and perhaps even taking a nap while the vehicle does all the work. They tell us that cars will not get into accidents, travel will be more efficient, gas mileage will be better and efficiency will improve.

I see their future dream as one more step towards removing control from the human loop. The futurists who are selling this concept belong to a culture that wants to centralize authority to “those who are more capable than the common man”  and taking the right of each one of us to decide how and in what manner we choose to lead our lives…and knowingly responsible for the results of those decisions.

I know that driving from one place to another is a minor task but I would much rather depend on the awareness of a human being rather than the known fact that electronics fail at the worst possible time, with the worst possible consequences.

As for autonomous cars we already have that capability. If you don’t want to drive you can usually take the bus or hire a taxi.

Just a Thought

We have been on vacation and have little opportunity to update the blog, but the events in Boston have made me think about what constitutes terrorism and who the players are.

I find it most striking that the President can't seem to get energized when he talks about the bombs and the action the government is (should) be taking to find the perpertrators responsible. When he talks I get the feeling that he is bored and uninterested in the subject and is just talking about the problem because it's an expected thing for him to do. I wish I were wrong, but it goes along with his style of government by fiat and demonizing of any one who questions his tactics.

Perhaps he isn't interesting in pursuing the subject of terrorist bombings because his close friend and Chicago mentor, Bill Ayers made his reputation by being a domestic terrorist and is still proud of the actions he took as a younger man. To this day Ayers has refused to do anything other than brag about his history and still considers a bomb to be a political statement.

Since the Presidential thinking is much influenced by the Chicago political code it appears that deep down he doesn't see any problem with terrorism as a political tool.