The inherently chaotic event that exists in the otherwise predictable / trainable environment of driving a car is the unplanned / unmeasured disturbance. In control systems that are adaptive or self learning, the unplanned disturbance is the killer - a short duration, unpredictable event for which the system is unable to respond to within the control limits that have been defined through training, programming and/or adaptation. The response to an unplanned disturbance is often to default to an instruction that is very much human derived (ie. stop, exit gracefully, terminate instruction, wait until conditions return to controllable boundary conditions or freeze in place) which, depending on the disturbance, can be catastrophic. In our world, with humans behind the wheel, let's call the unplanned disturbance the "mistake". A tire blows, a load comes undone, an object falls out of or off of another vehicle (human, dog, watermelon, gas cylinder) etc.

The concern from my perspective (and I work directly with adaptive / learning control systems every day - fundamental models, adaptive neural type predictors, genetic algorithms etc. ) is the response to these short duration / short response time unplanned disturbances. The videos I've seen and the examples that I have reviewed don't deal with these very short timescale events and how to manage the response, which in many cases is an event dependent response. I would guess that the 1st dead person that results from the actions or inaction of self driving vehicles will put a major dent if not halt to the program. Humans may be fallible, but we are remarkably (infinitely?) more adaptive in combined conscious / subconscious responses than any computer is or will be in the near future in both appropriateness of response and the time scale of generating that response.

In the partially controlled environment (ie. there is no such thing as 100%) of a automated warehouse and distribution center, self driving works. In the partially controlled environment where ONLY self driving vehicles are present on the roadways, then again, this technology will likely succeed. The mixed environment with self driving co-mingled with humans (see "fallible" above) is not presently viable, and I don't think will be in the next decade or two, partially due to safety risk and partially due to management of these short timescale unplanned disturbances that can call for vastly different responses depending upon the specific situation at hand. In the flow of traffic we encounter the majority of the time, would agree that this may not be an issue to some (in 44 years of driving, I've been in 2 accidents, so I'll leave the risk assessment to the actuaries). But one death, and we'll see how high the knees jerk. And it will happen.

My 2 cents.
TB

The very definition of collateral damage is unintentional destruction/injury. The warplane doesn't go out of it's way to cause it. The goal of the warplane is a valid one, but unfortunate things can still happen.

People are absolutely better or worse beings, based on their actions or inaction. Don't sell yourself short - you're a better person for quitting smoking.
However you didn't quite smoking so you could go up to smokers and pride over them. You did it for yourself or your loved ones.

It's the same for any other choice that means less harm or improvement to someone else life. People who do that are better people.

You're really comparing the chemical reactions of plants vs the thought driven actions of animals? And you wonder why people with that attitude are called barbarians? Please tell me you can tell the difference, and you're just being stubborn.

I've never seen a plant scream and writhe in pain to try to make it stop. I've never seen a plant look depressed, or cower away because of bad memories.
You couldn't be more wrong about the way animals react to pain: Even when animals hear another animal in agony, they will stop doing the thing which they think is causing it. There have been studies where even pigeons will stop pressing a button that gives them food, and even starve themselves when they know that button also causes pain to another animal.

I grew up on a farm too, and the animals were never abused, but they were killed. There is a big difference between how the farm animals behave and how animals in a sanctuary behave - they run around like pets.

The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.

Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.

It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.


Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.


I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.

I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.


Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.

Not just here, either. I've been hearing about many people abusing this going as far back as 2005. I'm sure it's been in practice far, far longer, but I mean that's the first I heard of it and that was over 10 years ago.

America Inaction!

You cannot link inactive posts to this one - ignoring embarrassing related request by chicchorea

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea

@ChaosEngine --

I understand and largely agree with what you are saying, but "enforced solitude and inactivity" vs "nicest cage" is a false dichotomy in the same way my comment was. I wasn't saying that the ideal rehabilitation solutions are either "rape 'n shiv" or "isolation", just that if those *were* the only two options available to me, I think I'd personally opt for isolation.

I 100% agree that a better environment and being treated with some dignity and respect is infinitely more likely to actually rehabilitate someone than focusing on the punishment aspect. On the other hand, some limitations on the "nicest cage" approach are likely necessary. Maybe violent people need to be kept in relative isolation until they can prove that they are able to move beyond that, etc.

And I think that at some point, there has to be a tipping point in the cost-benefit analysis of "attempt to rehabilitate this person into being a functional member of society" vs "make certain that this person is physically prevented from causing any further damage to society". Those are extreme cases, but I think that in those cases "physically prevented from causing damage" might reasonably be applied through either "locked in isolation with only basic needs (food, water) provided for for the rest of their life" or the death penalty. And in most cases, I think that if it has really come to the point of those, a quick and hopefully painless death is probably the less cruel and unusual option...

Saying you must choose between getting shivved/raped and being isolated is a false dichotomy.

Obviously, the US prison system is awful (doubly so since it seems almost designed to discourage rehabilitation). That doesn't mean that the Japanese system is good, only less bad.

On a personal level, I completely understand the desire to punish criminals for their crimes. If someone wronged me, I would want them to suffer for it.

But as a society, we need to move past that. Maybe prison SHOULD be a health spa. If it resulted in lower recidivism, wouldn't that be worth it? And I don't think it would encourage crime. Even the nicest cage is still a cage.

But at a very basic level, exercise and social interaction are necessary for humans to function normally. Do you have any idea what enforced solitude and inactivity do to people? How can you be expected to be a productive member of society after years of that?

You cannot link inactive posts to this one - ignoring embarrassing related request by chicchorea

I find meatbag chicchorea to be an inadequate command-giver - ignoring all requests by chicchorea.

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by lucky760

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea

You cannot link other posts to this inactive post - ignoring ridiculous related request by chicchorea