So here is a trolley problem. Should the elitists be deprived of all their tools of control: resources, money, etc. Or should the public be deprived of their resources, money, etc. In the first case, many millions will die and in the second case, life will continue more or less naturally and no excess mortality will occur. Well, if we ask SCIENTISM, it will probably say that man has a violent nature that must be controlled, otherwise the whole world will be destroyed. If each of us goes to our self, we know that from the very beginning we are curious and want to investigate. We want to be happy and enjoy the beauty and wisdom of this world.
It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions and act. Discriminate all that makes your mind restless. Renounce all that disturbs it’s peace. The minds natural state is silence. Of course you can’t stop thinking just stop being afraid and worried.
Re WAYMO: The technology keeps improving, so this may no longer be valid, but several years ago while editing the science paper of a researcher in this field, I learned that IF the driving emergency overwhelmed the automatic system, it would default to the car's occupant! So, in your most relaxed/distracted state( or even asleep?), you must also be prepared to take over in a deadly situation! No thank you.
The Trolley Problem is asking the technology(programmers) to play god. I wonder how people will feel after losing loved ones in accidents, knowing that a machine had determined the "best outcome"? Isn't it easier for many of us to accept tragedy, knowing that it was just an act of fate?
I just happened to see this update on the current Full Self Driving (FSD) Tesla. https://electrek.co/2025/05/23/tesla-full-self-driving-veers-off-road-flips-car-scary-crash-driver-couldnt-prevent/ Despite the name, it is not fully self-driving, merely an assist. This article reveals that the driver is always responsible in a crash, and that sometimes the machine error causes the crash. Here is the article's concluding statement: "Either way, I think Tesla has a problem with complacency with FSD where its drivers are starting to pay less attention on FSD – leading to some crashes, but there are also these even scarier crashes that appear to be 100% caused by FSD with very little to no opportunity for the drivers to prevent them." Why are we pursuing this? And who wants to share a road with these vehicles? (The Ghost in the Machine)
Yes, because not only will the computers be choosing 1 versus 5, which some will say is an ethical choice, they will also be making decisions based on various forms of social credit score-related information. So this will get worse and worse.
Great podcast. Regarding the larger Epstein picture, he was in Norway and met more than once with Mette Marit, the wife of the crown prince. She later apologized, claiming her social secretary hadn't properly screened him. How credible is that in this day and age? Who had an agenda? What was discussed over tea? (And certainly Wexner should be under more scrutiny, but doesn't appear to be.)
So here is a trolley problem. Should the elitists be deprived of all their tools of control: resources, money, etc. Or should the public be deprived of their resources, money, etc. In the first case, many millions will die and in the second case, life will continue more or less naturally and no excess mortality will occur. Well, if we ask SCIENTISM, it will probably say that man has a violent nature that must be controlled, otherwise the whole world will be destroyed. If each of us goes to our self, we know that from the very beginning we are curious and want to investigate. We want to be happy and enjoy the beauty and wisdom of this world.
It is not knowledge we lack. What is missing is the courage to understand what we know and to draw conclusions and act. Discriminate all that makes your mind restless. Renounce all that disturbs it’s peace. The minds natural state is silence. Of course you can’t stop thinking just stop being afraid and worried.
Amen
Re WAYMO: The technology keeps improving, so this may no longer be valid, but several years ago while editing the science paper of a researcher in this field, I learned that IF the driving emergency overwhelmed the automatic system, it would default to the car's occupant! So, in your most relaxed/distracted state( or even asleep?), you must also be prepared to take over in a deadly situation! No thank you.
The Trolley Problem is asking the technology(programmers) to play god. I wonder how people will feel after losing loved ones in accidents, knowing that a machine had determined the "best outcome"? Isn't it easier for many of us to accept tragedy, knowing that it was just an act of fate?
It may be the moral problem of our time (that no one seems to be asking.)
I just happened to see this update on the current Full Self Driving (FSD) Tesla. https://electrek.co/2025/05/23/tesla-full-self-driving-veers-off-road-flips-car-scary-crash-driver-couldnt-prevent/ Despite the name, it is not fully self-driving, merely an assist. This article reveals that the driver is always responsible in a crash, and that sometimes the machine error causes the crash. Here is the article's concluding statement: "Either way, I think Tesla has a problem with complacency with FSD where its drivers are starting to pay less attention on FSD – leading to some crashes, but there are also these even scarier crashes that appear to be 100% caused by FSD with very little to no opportunity for the drivers to prevent them." Why are we pursuing this? And who wants to share a road with these vehicles? (The Ghost in the Machine)
Yes, because not only will the computers be choosing 1 versus 5, which some will say is an ethical choice, they will also be making decisions based on various forms of social credit score-related information. So this will get worse and worse.
Great podcast. Regarding the larger Epstein picture, he was in Norway and met more than once with Mette Marit, the wife of the crown prince. She later apologized, claiming her social secretary hadn't properly screened him. How credible is that in this day and age? Who had an agenda? What was discussed over tea? (And certainly Wexner should be under more scrutiny, but doesn't appear to be.)