Boomers outvote millennials.
As it will continue to prove itself capable of doing most jobs (top to bottom), what do we do with all the people that can't find work? My dad's opinion was to kill off the useless people. Funny how he thought my opinion of killing off all the individuals that 65+ monstrous to balance the budget.
I think legalizing it would make things better.
Abusive pimps and johns would quickly find themselves in jail as sex workers are able to go to the police and report crimes against them. The need for pimps would also decrease as likeminded sex workers could form houses of business with security personnel. Or others make clients go through more thorough screening while they work as private contractors.
It would also be harder to spread disease as you could make licensed sex workers go through regular STD screening.
You could also put a vice tax on services similar to alcohol or tobacco.
I also don't believe that only damaged women engage in sex work. You don't have to like the profession but I think those individuals that choose to engage in it shouldn't be punished for it. Carlin made the point "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?"
Taxis, buses, professional drivers, insurance claims, body shops, traffic cops...
Those individuals will be just as affected. And this technology will advance regardless of whether people like it or not. Either we're prepared to accept a future where labor is no longer as important as it once was and we move to allow all people to pursue other interests (work week reductions as well), we're just going to have larger and larger prisons or social as people won't just accept not eating, or the less fortunate will revolt and there will be blood in the streets.
I think there's more peaceful ways to do make the transition but I doubt the elite will necessarily approve. For some reason, re-training will continue to be a fantasy solution in their eyes.
commenting to remove dismoderation
Almonds do use a ton of water. But that's nothing compared to the estimates I've read for cattle. Even when corrected for weight, cattle still use twice the water as almonds.
I'd be happy if they cut alfalfa, cattle, and almonds from California though. Everyone argues that they make a ton of our food. So we go without for the time being, prices rise, and someone else comes in because it's profitable for them to do so. And then add meters for all residential and businesses (I hear it's a mixed bag) so people start paying for their usage and not access.
Imagine all the jobs in the transportation industry that are obsolete. Traffic cops and insurance suffer as you mentioned but body shops also become less needed. Governments have profited off traffic fines instead of raising taxes. What happens then.
And let's not get started if the cars are electric.
The real problem is going out to eat has netted massive serving sizes. If you eat the whole plate, you'd generally eaten more than a day's worth of food. Usually two. Now most of the time when I eat out, I generally cut the meal in half and take the rest home. Now I get two meals out of one (so it was more cost efficient for a broke student) but it's also healthier. Sometimes I could even eat leftovers over two meals too for things like Chinese or Mexican. It's not perfect but works pretty well.
I also dumped sweets from my diet almost exclusively (not soda but the amount is down). The thing is that I saw it as competition between sweets and alcohol in terms of empty calories and I wasn't planning giving up booze. If I did, I'd probably see even more weight loss.
If I have to be attentive and ready to take over in the event something happens, then I might as well be driving the car myself. Why bother having all the stress of driving without having to actually do it?
Nitpicking over aviation CO2 is like arguing over US budget balancing but not touching the military, Medicare/aid, and SS.
Is aviation as efficient as many modes of ground transportation? No.
But it's not like manufacturers aren't looking to reduce fuel consumption as there's no incentive to make an inefficient aircraft either. One of the biggest challenges for aviation is the fact that aircraft have a 30 year lifespan. Aviation has NOx emissions and noise standards that already exist and they are working to finalize aircraft CO2 emissions standards. These standards are regularly tightened to help put pressure on continued technical development.
Additionally, load factors for aircraft are far closer to 100% than most automobiles. There's great potential to reduce automobile emissions at minimal standard of living changes. We could easily phase out ancient powerplants and replace them with modern designs or tax buildings/residences that are above some particular power consumption threshold. All it really takes would be a best bang for buck study to figure out what we should do.
It has a significant number of issues.
ST:ID should have been a battle for the soul of the Federation. You've got Sellers arguing for increased militarization of what was a peaceful and scientific organization. Keep Cumberbun in there as the guy making it all happen - hell, he can even be Khan because I have nothing against that. But the ending should have been with Spock suffering significant injuries and Khan stealing the badass ship to escape. Every attempt to punish Kirk for being disobedient never did anything because he was automatically promoted back in charge almost immediately. Then Khan can come back in the third film and end the cold war between the Klingons and the Federation as they have to work together to defeat him.
As is, they stole too much symbolism from Wrath and made death no longer remotely threatening with magic blood. The fact you need Nimoy to tell us that Khan is bad should have been a clear sign they should have started over. But Orci and Kurtzman aren't talented enough writers to deal with that and JJ is far too loyal to drop them.
I don't have to run anything. It will happen regardless.
Automation and other technology developments will continue to remove the need for a number of jobs at a rate faster than we can generate new ones, creating an increasing class of the unemployed. It's not really a question of if it will happen but when.
Laws can be changed if there is sufficient will. By having to pay out smaller claims, they also no longer need as many employees. It will be a steady drop as more and more cars go driverless. If premiums are held constant, insurance companies will be raking in massive profits. But the free market will easily take care of that because plenty of other people will want a piece of that pie. The real challenge will be whether someone wants to insure the software company developing the self-drive and what it will cover.
I disapprove of robotic reporting. Largely because you could get multiple tickets before being informed of the first one. Also, your definition of less polite drivers may differ from mine.
There will be a number of significant implications from self driving cars that I want to have happen.
- Decreased accident rates, resulting in less damage and therefore smaller insurance companies
- Far fewer traffic violations, such that traffic police will either be let go or reassigned to more pressing matters
- Shitty pay driver jobs will be nonexistent
Essentially, it helps push towards increasing unemployment and that is good in my opinion because it will require a new train of thought in how the world works.