Can anyone tell me why "driverless cars" will not be the most important issue in 2016 election

[CK_John]

cycle.

Especially after the GM announcement for the 2017 model Cadillac. I'm baffled that we don't see how this will effect every state.

http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/gm-says-driverless-cadillac-hit-road-2017-n198231

[Skidmore]

1. Who can afford a freaking Cadillac?

That might give you a clue as to why it is not the most pressing issue on the political landscape.

[CK_John]

18. Cadillac is not the issue, its auto technology.

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. Why would automotive technology ...

but a, let alone THE, issue is 2016? Unless one works for or owns stock in the auto industry?

[REP]

2. Erm, because not being able to afford fancy cars ... or food, medicine, shelter is more important?

[Louisiana1976]

3. Agree wholeheartedly.

[tooeyeten]

4. Is that anything like

The driverless Congress?

(Sorry couldn't resist)

[FSogol]

5. Everyone knows that "you kids get off my lawn" will be the main issue.

[Mercy_Queen]

6. People are more worried about gainful employment than Cadillacs

Most people aren't fortunate enough to own a Cadillac. Those of us who own one (or several) probably have more important things to think about, too.

[Exultant Democracy]

7. Because none of the major stakeholdrs would use that election as a venue.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. The robots will slowly take over and you won't hardly notice.

Cars today are already incorporating "creeping autonomy". At some point in the near future you will realize that when you take your hands off the wheel your car just keeps driving to where you told it to go, and does so much better than you ever could.

[AngryAmish]

109. Ask a receptionist if robots can take over a job

Right now there are 2 kinds of receptionists...close to retirement or eye candy. And there are 5 for every 20 there used to be.

[arcane1]

9. Because it's two years away and driverless cars aren't going to be popular.

One of those statements is pure conjecture, of course

But yeah, it doesn't seem to me that there's a market for self-driving cars. It's neat-o whiz-bang new tech, but how practical (and reliable!) would it be? GM makes cars that go out of control when a human is driving them! There is no way I'd go 70mph in one of those things.

Besides, we need technology that leads to fewer cars, not more.

[CK_John]

21. Google has over 800,000 miles without any problems in live testing.

[jberryhill]

77. The GM model with the ignition switch problem has tens of millions of miles

800,000 miles is like four cars.

[whatthehey]

104. and people still cause many many times more accidents than all recalls combined.

[FSogol]

119. Actually, they had one wreck where the car went the wrong way on a one way street, IIRC.

Of course, I saw a fricking tour bus do the same thing for 2 blocks in Richmond last Sunday.

[DireStrike]

34. Ending the commute won't be popular?

Being able to go to work while reading, sleeping, or surfing the net won't catch on?

The only question is when the technology will become economically viable.

[WinkyDink]

88. That's called "bus" and "train." And the commute is still there.

[whatthehey]

103. only for a tiny fraction of the nation

my 14 minute commute would take a half mile walk on each end, a transfer with a minimum 20 minute delay, about 45 minutes of travel time and one chance every hour ending an hour before I normally leave work. In about 10 massive cities public transit works well. Elsewhere it's a waste of time.

Bring on the self driving car.

[DireStrike]

106. Once I moved out of New York I saw how completely inadequate other transit systems are.

There are enormous areas of land that are either not serviced or not serviced adequately enough by mass transit. Very many people live in these areas. The population density is not as high as a city, but the amount of land not serviced is still huge. Here in VA, I would have to drive 30-60 minutes depending on traffic, in order to get on the last stop of the WMATA metro to enjoy my overpriced ride into DC. (luckily I work at home.)

Even among people that have access to adequate mass transit, you still have to wait for the bus or train, sometimes out in the elements. You then get to sit in a tiny space and read or listen to music. Or you get to stand and do nothing. You have to deal with all the people around you, which limits the activities you can partake in. You can't really eat or talk on the phone; getting work done on a laptop is tough due to constant distractions and the bumpy ride. It's noisy and often dirty. There are service disruptions. You can miss your bus or train, or fail to get off at the right stop. A private self-driven car is obviously the much nicer, more luxurious option - the only reason not to use it would be the cost, if indeed it costs more.

Plenty of people spend several hours per day in their car commuting. Getting that time back, even for a limited range of activities, would make many peoples' lives much better.

[Throd]

10. I don't want a driverless car. It would only become an issue if they try to take the ones I have.

[AngryAmish]

20. Well, Im a drunk.

It will help me a lot. However, uber is filling that role.

[Volaris]

50. ahahahahha..I think that's the first time I've laughed in 3 days..thanks for that.

[CreekDog]

11. well, are you predicting they will be?

[CK_John]

16. Well GM will need a legal process from every state to put those autos on the roads and

a change of every insurance liability in every state and a decision of the need for a driver license will need to be settled.

This will effect our economy,laws and elections for next 20yrs.

[CreekDog]

22. so you're predicting it won't be the biggest issue of 2016

[CK_John]

38. IMO, it will be the biggest issue of 2016.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Bigger than ... say ...

Syria, Russia, Racism, Poverty, Income Inequity, Political Stagnation/Ill-will is Washington?

I'm not convinced.

[CK_John]

47. Those issues are for DU type junkies, get between a voter and their car lookout.

[yeoman6987]

62. Oh you must be pulling our legs

Seriously, your joking right? Biggest issues of 2016? I highly doubt it.

[LanternWaste]

83. That's a rather creative prophecy, but not really anything more than that...

That's a rather creative prophecy, but not really anything more than that as I've seen no objective evidence nor analysis which validates your allegations.

[jberryhill]

12. What is the "issue"?

[CK_John]

17. Driverless cars.

[jberryhill]

65. ah, yes, who can forget the 1952 pop tart debate!

There are a number of legal and regulatory questions, but I don't see a political issue here.

[IDemo]

13. Because car-less drivers and jobless workers are more important issues

[LuvNewcastle]

15. Definitely.

[former9thward]

113. How many jobless workers do you think there will be with driverless cars?

Tens of millions. Delivery drivers, taxi drivers, truck drivers, etc.

[GummyBearz]

116. Delivery drivers?

How is the car going to place my delivery package on the porch? Or will it just park in front of my house all day until I get home from work..

[former9thward]

122. It will be worked out.

Just like all technology. Amazon is already talking about drone delivery.

[GP6971]

14. I can see it now

enter your car, program the destination, set the alarm clock and take a nap. Then the computer(s) fail........what happens then? I see a vibrant market! NOT!!

[DireStrike]

35. So far driverless cars have a perfect record.

Far better than humans.

[tritsofme]

19. If there isn't a partisan disagreement, why would it be an important election issue?

[CK_John]

24. State revenue and the billions floating around for influence peddling.

[conservaphobe]

23. Nah. Hopefully the lobbyists make it a non-issue pretty quickly.

I'm excited about this new technology and nothing would kill it faster than Luddite-inspired red tape.

[fadedrose]

25. Not enough voters can afford one

I'd love one, but I don't see any of the frontrunners running for President
promising me eough wealth to buy one.

[CK_John]

26. Its not just GM, all auto models are being readied for market.

[fadedrose]

29. Am 76 - Driving is harder, too many cars, etc...

But I am in the age group that would benefit most from this gizmo - worth selling the house and furniture to get one

I wonder what this will do to driving instructors' business or State driving tests......

By the time they're on the road, I won't be here, but it sure makes me think I was born too soon....but then again, food used to be better it is now, so it's a toss-up.

[CK_John]

40. I'm only 2yrs behind you and hope I'll be here for 2016 elections.

[SheilaT]

27. This won't be even a tiny issue in the 2016 election cycle.

None of them will be coming to market for at least two years, meaning at best at the very end of the cycle. They will be expensive. There won't be very many of them. This won't even be an issue for the 1%.

Plus, these earliest versions will not be truly driverless. I'm sure eventually all cars will operate without a human driving, but that's probably going to be somewhere past the end of my life -- I'm 66 -- and will require an extensive infrastructure to make work. Essentially, I'm thinking, roads the driverless cars will take will need to be lined with sensors. If I'm right, and of course I could be totally wrong and they'll essentially work off some gps system, then driverless cars will only be able to operate along those roads.
Which could lead to some fascinating infrastructure wars, which would make the current debate about wi-fi and the like look like nothing.

[CK_John]

32. No infrastructure is needed and Google is testing in CA and Nev. Link with

more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

[Nye Bevan]

28. Is there something about driverless cars that Republicans and Democrats disagree on?

Like Ted Cruz loves them but Hillary wants them banned? Things tend to become "issues" in elections only when there is something to argue about (e.g. Romney wanted to repeal Obamacare, Obama did not; Obama wanted to raise taxes, Romney did not, etc.)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. Interesting legal questions arise.

When 'driverless cars' are in accidents, who gets sued? The owner? The manufacturer? The programming team? And on a related note, are they assumed to have less 'fault' than other driver(s) involved? Is it assumed that 'fault' must lie with the regular old human drivers? Will they be programmed to attempt to avoid running over animals or humans on the road? What happens if they suddenly try to avoid hitting a squirrel or a deer on a highway, and effectively 'slam on the brakes' at 65 miles an hour?

With human drivers, I can often see cues in the drivers' body language that let me know they're likely going to be braking even before they do, or that they might be planning to switch lanes, or slow down or speed up. With a driverless car, that won't happen.

[DireStrike]

37. There is no reason that can't happen.

All of the things you mention being able to see can also be seen by the car's cameras. Interpreting them is difficult but not impossible. A brain is only a machine, after all. We may have to wait for better computers, but it's not as if humans never misread, or completely miss, such signs today.

Regardless, the reaction time of the driverless car is far superior to humans without any of these cues. That alone may be enough to give it the advantage. The record speaks for itself.

The question of who gets sued in an accident is a fascinating one, though.

[WinkyDink]

89. The brain is not a "machine." That's trans-humanist propaganda.

[DireStrike]

107. Ok. I guess you prefer religious propaganda?

[jberryhill]

82. To your last point...

...where things are going is to have all cars, human-driven or not, communicating with one another in an ad hoc network.

For example, semi-automation is already working its way into regular cars, such as braking for obstacles. If my car is behind your car and we are going 60 mph, your car and my car are communicating with each other, and with surrounding cars. If you slam on the brakes, your car tells my car, and both of our cars slow down to allow both to stop without a collision. If I'm in your blind spot and you are trying to get into my lane and turn the wheel, your car is not going to come into my lane without your car speeding up to get clear of me, or my car is going to slow down to let you in with a safe clearance. Add in more cars, and all of the cars start to act like a swarm which accommodates where everybody needs to go, and also reduces congestion by the entire swarm behaving intelligently.

The larger problem is that we've got to get out of the cars anyway, but we are stuck with a geography of sprawl which makes that difficult.

[brooklynite]

31. Because people don't care...

1) how many people want a 1st gen driverless car?

2) how many people want a Cadillac?

3) how many people see this as a political issue?

4) how many people care ENOUGH to have a greater impact than jobs/health care/foreign affairs, etc?

[BlindTiresias]

33. I don't see this kind of automation being a thing

Not yet, in a few elections probably.

[CK_John]

36. 5 states and DC have already passes laws allowing driverless cars, the auto lobby

is working overtime.

Where there is a need to pass laws, law makers will create paths to obstruction.

[BlindTiresias]

39. If it becomes widespread

And the logistics fleet is fully automated that is not going to bode well for employment figures.

[CK_John]

42. Millions of jobs of taxi, freight, and delivery will be effected. IMO, the GOP will benefit the most

[Xithras]

95. Freightliner is already working on semi-automated heavy trucks.

Fully automating them becomes a problem when you factor in things like backing into a dock, or self-lumping and strapping a load, which can't really be done in an automated fashion, but there are already FUNCTIONAL prototypes of systems that will reduce the need for drivers on long-haul routes. One of these is an "automated convoy" system in which the lead truck is directed by a human, followed by several computer controlled trucks that are essentially playing follow-the-leader. When the truck arrives at the destination, the driver is responsible for any manual work involved, but out on the road the autonomous trucks do their own thing under the direction of the driver in the lead truck.

There are, of course, other variations of this. Like having driving teams in multiple trucks that simply trade off the lead position, creating convoys that never have to stop, or having the lead truck contain living quarters for several drivers, while keeping all of the cargo in the computer controlled trucks, to accomplish the same thing.

In the long term, it's possible that we may see fully automated trucks, but those will require a number of changes to the industry as a whole. You'd need truck stops to become full service, for example, so that there will be humans available to fill the fuel tanks periodically. Trucking companies would need to start hiring local talent to meet up with the trucks to dock them and tie down cargo, or the shippers and receivers would need to take responsibility for that sort of thing. You'll need to change the way weigh stations work, to account for driverless trucks, and you'll have to work out responsibility when shippers overload those driverless trucks. There are a number of challenges, but none are insurmountable. Given the cost savings and safety improvements involved, I'd guess that we'll be there in within 15 years.

[kentauros]

114. All good points!

Although I can think of one simple solution to shippers overloading trucks. Just have weight sensors built in and configured such that if the shipper overloads the truck, then it shuts down until the extra weight is removed.

Such sensors could also eliminate the need for weigh stations by making the current weight broadcast and sensed the same way automated tollways work

[arcane1]

44. Good, they should be devoting more attention to public transportation anyway.

Even if that includes driverless buses and trains

[customerserviceguy]

45. I remember when

the Segway was going to change life as we know it. Didn't happen.

And I have as much faith in Cadillac's driverless car as I had in GM's EV-1. Not gonna work, back to the drawing board.

[Logical]

46. It will happen, no doubt about it. nt

[customerserviceguy]

49. Eventually, yes

A couple of years from now, no. Other than a few hyper-expensive test models that can only do controlled course driving.

Put that driverless car on the Garden State Parkway, and it will be a hunk of twisted metal in a day or two, trust me!

[Logical]

54. Google has put millions of miles on theirs, no accidents yet. nt

[customerserviceguy]

55. Is Google telling us it plans

to mass market these things in a couple of years? Or did I miss something here?

[Logical]

59. Yep, Google says its goal is to get the technology to the public by 2017,

[customerserviceguy]

68. So, then

It's Google's technology that they hope GM will mass market to the public through the Cadillac division in three years. Good luck with that.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I see a barrier to trusting these things that will need years to overcome. Electric-only vehicles haven't taken the country by storm, and hybrid vehicles needed many years of tax credits to become the fraction of the market that they are today.

[Chathamization]

58. "...only if intricate preparations have been made beforehand, with the car’s exact route, including

driveways, extensively mapped. Data from multiple passes by a special sensor vehicle must later be pored over, meter by meter, by both computers and humans." (here)

Something that gets lost amidst the hype.

[Logical]

60. Which they also have a plan for! nt

[Chathamization]

63. Google and other tech companies have lots of "plans". Let's see them implement them before jumping

on the hype train.

[rickford66]

101. The data base will have to be updated continually.

Road closures, signal and sign changes, accidents, storm damage etc have to be detected in real time. Someone like Michele Bachmann may not want to notify the authorities if they add or remove a driveway onto a public road. Anticipating every situation is impossible. When the car stops like your PC freezing, manual controls will be necessary, sort of a reboot.

[Nye Bevan]

48. The human body will simply explode at too high a velocity (nt)

[randome]

72. Leaving nothing left on planet Earth but endlessly driving, automated cars.

Badly in need of having their interiors hosed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[MADem]

51. Because "flying cars" have been in line since BEFORE the JETSONS!!!! nt

[Codeine]

52. I don't understand why you think it's an issue at all.

You've not really communicated your point well at all, so I'm not sure how to respond.

[flvegan]

53. Because we already have them. They're called "Camry owners"

No clue why they buy one except that they think they should.

[Egnever]

64. Really?

You cant see any advantage to not having to drive?

[REP]

96. Nope. I like driving.

I live in Silicon Valley and have to drive around Google cars. They're slow and annoying. They're like my Roomba, but better at mapping, but you can tell they're figuring out when to turn, etc. Slower than a human driver. Most human drivers.

[flvegan]

112. Oh my goodness, yes I can.

It would be taking the wheel out of countless, mindless idiots that have no idea what they are doing once they close the door and turn the key.

a/k/a Camry drivers.

And it's not that it's a terrible choice of cars, if it's a choice. It's reliable, spacious, comfortable, well-appointed and not terrible to look at. Sadly it's the go-to for a segment of morons that's can't otherwise make a decision of what to drive. It's a default. These are the brake-riding, left-lane-hogging, unable to turn-right-on-red because they fear commitment idiots who know nothing more about their car outside the name.

Lacking the ability to efficiently move forward seems quite...stupid to me, especially when you're in control of the movement.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

56. The driverless car technology has been in the works for years

The infrastructure in terms of roads isn't there yet to support it. It will come. Driverless Caddies will be a novelty, but driverless over-the-road trucks will be a huge issue at some point in the 2020s. Imagine a truck cab with a small set of redunfant computers, extensive sensors, and room dor diesel fuel or CNG where the driver currently sits or sleeps. They'll be able to run coast-to-coast at speeds approaching 100 on the plains, and will not need to refuel or make rest stops. Now add this to the drone technology being advanced by Google & Amazon. Bad news if you are a driver -- for an OTR hauler or for FedEx/UPS/USPS.

Pilotless aircraft carrying freight will also be coming soon. At first, probably for trans Arctic/Pacific/Atlantic/Indian ocean flights. Once that works safely foe several years, overland flights will be soon behind.

[jberryhill]

76. Rubber on concrete is a foolish way to move freight long distances

[NYC_SKP]

57. Clowns, mostly. 2016 will be the year of clowns. Zombie clowns.

They're here now. They plan ahead.

[yeoman6987]

61. I love the idea of a driverless car

If a candidate ran expanding it to all cars, I would be thrilled. Seriously, the elderly who have to give up a license won't have to. Paraplegics may be able to drive easier. So many positives. I am hoping you feel the same.

[BlindTiresias]

66. Why is everyone so excited about this?

This has the potential to create millions of unemployed people in a short time frame and essentially close off even more employment to individuals. Does everyone really think that new and equivalent jobs will be open and be able to be filled?

[kcr]

71. They're excited for the benefits of lives saved

and freedoms gained for members of the population that currently don't have it. Those aren't small benefits. Job losses are sometimes a cost of progress. There are ways to mitigate those losses and hopefully that will happen.

[BlindTiresias]

86. The jobs are lost for good

And our society is against the kind of mitigation that would help. It is nothing but a purely bad development.

[kcr]

90. If job loss were never acceptable we'd be stuck in the dark ages

Society has to be able to weight the cost vs the benefit.

[kcr]

93. I want to clarify that I'm not saying, "Job loss no biggy"

I think it's a factor that should weigh heavily and more so now that it would have in the past. I mainly just wanted to explain the excitement over the benefits.

[BlindTiresias]

110. There is no benefit

At least when you start looking at it beyond automation of particular industries into automation and taking it into aggregate. I should say that there is no benefit with the current economic system, where automation is a pure negative as the gains only go to a tiny handful of people. There are ways to make automation a positive development but our society hates the notion of people living well and not working so the more likely scenario is lots of poor people, hyper militarized police, and an extremely rich class of people who benefit from automation.

I also don't buy the argument that more jobs will be made, not this time around. We are looking at the complete automation of jobs, even so-called "creative" jobs like programmers and plenty of engineering professions as well as many elements of the medical profession. There is very big difference between industrialization and true automation, in other words.

[kcr]

115. That's what I meant by more so now than in the past

I'm not arguing that the benefits are worth it. I honestly think you're right. I was literally answering your question about what people were excited about. They aren't considering the points you're making in your post I'm responding to. They aren't considering it because in the past progress has been worth it.

[jberryhill]

67. Google and Uber will.merge to form Goober

[hatrack]

69. You neglect to mention the Flying Car Question!!

And you haven't even touched on the Undersea Domed Resort Controversy!!

[Capt. Obvious]

70. Exactly

I want to know if Mitt will write an Opinion piece titled, "Let Spacely Sprockets Go Bankrupt."

[hatrack]

73. Have you seen the leaked PR images from the Romney 2016 campaign team?

[CK_John]

81. Mitts' father was chairman of American Motors in the 60's and Mitt will try to ride this issue

to the WH.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

99. We're all supposed to be driving them by October of next year.

Just in time to watch the Cubs win the World Series.

[Glassunion]

105. Fukin' A!

I want my hover board too...

[hatrack]

74. But if each state receives beer and travel money, it might work out OK!

.

[MineralMan]

75. Because it is not an important issue.

That's pretty clear. It has nothing to do with the presidency at all. Now, it's an interesting issue, and driverless cars are something I'm concerned about, but I can't see any reason it should be an election issue at all.

[tularetom]

78. Will the driverless cars float?

Since driverless cars are a more important campaign issue than global climate change, they should be able to navigate the canals of New York, Miami and other cities after the glaciers all melt and the oceans rise 10 feet or so.

[randome]

79. They will swim, fly, drive and land you on the fucking Moon! In Version 2.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[hatrack]

80. What would you do if you saw a driverless car with an ISIS logo and t-rex arms in a K-Mart?

And what if that driverless car had frickin' LASER BEAM headlights?

[randome]

84. Car Wars.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[CK_John]

85. Give it a rest.

[WinkyDink]

87. I don't get it. I like to drive. Many people do.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

91. LOL.

because technology is hardly as important as security (jobs, food, terrorism) or freedom (to marry, to have health care choices, blah blah)

[Koch Ebola]

92. Most public buses are driverless

But I am with you, it is not a important issue

[uppityperson]

102. Where are public buses without drivers? Welcome to DU

[FSogol]

120. Most? I did hear of a national park out west somewhere that has a driverless* bus system

that drives around the park making various stops.

* There is a human driving in the seat, but their role is only to open/close the door and work an emergency brake if required. The drivers say the experience is unsettling, but that bus accurately follows the route without even minor deviations.

[alarimer]

94. When I'm stuck in traffic on I-95, I wish all cars were automated.

I think this technology could be very, very good for traffic. No more idiots braking for no reason and causing traffic jams. In fact, I think one day, we should reserve interstate highways for driverless cars and trucks only. If you want to drive yourself, you have to go another way. It will solve the congestion problem, save on fuel consumption and reduce accidents due to human error.

Even technology that will automatically adjust your cruise control would help immensely.

So, yeah, I'm all in favor of driverless cars. Long journeys would be so much better if I could nap once in a while.

Still, though, this technology is years away from being common. I'm all in favor of it.

[demwing]

97. Jobs. Wars. Air. Water. Money in Politics.

Just 5 issues that are significantly more important than driverless cars.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

98. Clearly the biggest issue will be breastfeeding pitbulls at Olive Garden. nt

[Savannahmann]

100. This is going to be "The Issue" in your mind?

Economic issues? Not so much in this scenario. Sure more than 90 million people are unemployed and the economic experts say this has become the "new normal" but that's no biggie, because the issue is going to be whether or not a car a vast majority of people can't afford can drive without human input.

Privacy won't be an issue, by 2016 everyone is going to be used to the idea that the NSA must listen and read everything in order to protect us from ISIS/IS/Islamic State or something. Besides, GM will be a bare year away from deploying the Driverless car, and won't that be awesome?

Legalization of Marijuana won't be an issue but that's fine, because GM will be a year from putting driverless cars in the showroom.

Militarization of the Police will be accepted by the population after they realize that GM is going to put Driverless cars on the road.

Oh I admit it could be a bit of an issue. I mean, who is to blame if the computer screws up and drives over a Nun escorting an orphan through a crosswalk? Will the dolt on the iPhone 6 Plus who is reading Facebook the one responsible? Or will it be the Boffin who screwed up a line of code that is held responsible?

When people are gnashing their teeth around here next January as the Rethugs take control of the senate, just remind them that the Rethugs are probably on the wrong side of the Driverless Cadillac issue and that is certain to hurt them in 2016. Or something.

When we are weeping as Chief Justice John Roberts is swearing in Rand Paul as the next President, remind everyone how Rand Paul was on the wrong side of the Driverless Cadillac issue, and how that will certainly affect his popularity. Or perhaps he'll be the one on the "right" side of the Driverless Cadillac issue, perhaps he could be carried to the inauguration in a heavily modified pre-production model.

[randome]

121. And yet the subways and trains keep going with relatively few problems.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

108. Translation: Technology scares me.

[BlindTiresias]

111. Well, to be honest

Our brand of ruthless capitalism and class-based eliminationism coupled with automation should scare the crap out of you.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. Ayup.

But not terribly surprising.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Because our political process lags well behind social as well as technological change.

Hell, if the people themselves hadn't pushed it, do you think the political poob-bah "we know better" class would even have marijuana legalization on the radar? Or LGBT marriage equality, even?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck, no.