|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm pretty sure there actually are already limits on what a truck can carry. Trucks are not limited to one trailer; limiting them to one trailer would increase the number of vehicle miles per year and thus the number of drivers.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:How are we going to find three million open jobs that pay as good or better than truck driver, and then retrain all the truck drivers to do them? Getting all the drivers into new jobs would be a massive undertaking, which I don't really see happening. I think they're gonna get fired, and the lucky ones will end up working at Wendys. For a start, care work. Seriously, it's a massively understaffed sector that's constantly recruiting. In the long term, moving society away from being so work dependent and giving people a lot more personal freedom to follow their own interests instead of giving away most of their lives to people who don't give a poo poo about them. People keep bringing it up because it's directly related, you act like this is a different issue to when it happened previously but it's not. Automation has been argued against before, and the benefits outweighed the negatives. The same thing will happen again because the benefits still outweigh the negatives. It's a good thing to reduce the amount of manual labour we as humans have to do, so we can focus on personal, society and spiritual development. Guy Goodbody posted:it just seems like an easy problem to fix. Automation and the change in the way we have to work to live is a massive change to how society works that we still haven't figured out quite yet, so no it's not an easy problem to fix. It's something that is going to change the face of human existence. Banning that progress and just staying where we are forever isn't the solution most people want though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm talking about truckers because it seems like a pretty simple fix. As I said in the OP, just pass a law saying something like, "all commercial vehicles on public roads must have a qualified operator on board". Boom, three million jobs saved, without much downside. Saving other jobs is more complicated, I bet. Your rationale still rests on the idea that people working for money is a moral good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Your rationale still rests on the idea that people working for money is a moral good. This, a millions times this. Automation is a step towards a future where we don't have to pay to live, and we don't have to give our lives away to work that is ultimately meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:For a start, care work. Seriously, it's a massively understaffed sector that's constantly recruiting. Massively understaffed to the tune of three million good paying positions open right now? And even if it is, how are we gonna retrain all the truckers to do it? Lord Banana posted:In the long term, moving society away from being so work dependent and giving people a lot more personal freedom to follow their own interests instead of giving away most of their lives to people who don't give a poo poo about them. OwlFancier posted:Your rationale still rests on the idea that people working for money is a moral good. OK, massively reshape society, great(don't get me wrong, all you GMI people are picturing Star Trek, but it's gonna be Judge Dredd and you know it.) but for now, before the massive society reshaping, why don't we go ahead and ban self driving trucks and save those jobs? Then we can undo the ban after we've got that robot powered utopia where work is unnecessary and everybody spends their days happily contemplating flowers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:This, a millions times this. Automation is a step towards a future where we don't have to pay to live, and we don't have to give our lives away to work that is ultimately meaningless. Yeah. I'm sure the ruling class that privately owns all the automation is going to pay for all your tendies and anime so you can masturbate and shitpost worry free until you die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:but for now, before the massive society reshaping, why don't we go ahead and ban self driving trucks and save those jobs? Then we can undo the ban after we've got that robot powered utopia where work is unnecessary and everybody spends their days happily contemplating flowers? You want to undo the ban on the robo-utopia after you get the robo-utopia that you previously banned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:06
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Massively understaffed to the tune of three million good paying positions open right now? And even if it is, how are we gonna retrain all the truckers to do it? Probably not as well paid, but there are certainly the position available. Basic carer work is about a months worth of training. Better paid work probably a years, nothing that's impossible to do. Guy Goodbody posted:OK, massively reshape society, great(don't get me wrong, all you GMI people are picturing Star Trek, but it's gonna be Judge Dredd and you know it.) The society changes are a way off, but bans like that only make it take longer. Big companies will either find ways around it (even if they have to use licensed drivers they won't pay the same to not do any work) or just pay the fines involved. There are massive costs to that kind of legislation that you keep skirting around (western governments are already spending ridiculous amounts in overzealous legislation of things). I specifically said robots won't take all work as well, there are plenty of jobs that require us no matter what, even at the low skill level (for example while fast food can replace some service staff, a lot of people would prefer to served by humans at bars/restaurants, in manufacture there will always be a place for unique products over mass manufacture) but why should we not be working towards a future where people don't have to drive for hours to put food in their children's mouths?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:OK, massively reshape society, great(don't get me wrong, all you GMI people are picturing Star Trek, but it's gonna be Judge Dredd and you know it.) "If you think this thing is bad then why don't you support laws that perpetuate it and then we can work on getting rid of it!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Yeah. I'm sure the ruling class that privately owns all the automation is going to pay for all your tendies and anime so you can masturbate and shitpost worry free until you die. Haha, good one. I think it's pretty clear I work in care, and that's something I'd do even if I didn't have to worry about food and shelter (which is what I think we should be striving for. There can still be a place for a luxury economy), but the fact is if I wasn't lucky enough to have a job I like I'd still have to work to not die, in most jobs spending most of my life doing something I didn't care about for someone who doesn't care about me. That's insane, and we can really do better than that for people now. We can use automation to make it so people are more able to work jobs they find personal rewarding, and to not have to work for so long if they don't want to. Edit: I had to google what a tendie was. I figured it would be like an anime teddy bear or something, so wrong!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:There's a restaurant called Eatsa where there's 5 guys working in the back to put together orders but you'll literally never see them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7dhJQBaf0 - Now let's jump forward and try to imagine how much more advanced this technology will be in 60 years. Oh cool we're still getting the lovely dystopian future but the automats have touchscreens. Progress!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Oh cool we're still getting the lovely dystopian future but the automats have touchscreens. Progress! Eh, I doubt gimmicky poo poo like that will ever really take off. Why bother when you can just set things up so people order food on their smart phones before they ever even walk into the restaurant?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:but why should we not be working towards a future where people don't have to drive for hours to put food in their children's mouths? How is letting three million people lose their job working towards that? Are just arguing for accelerationism? When tons of people are out of work, someone will come up with a scheme where people don't have to work, and then everyone will agree on that and it will happen? What if it doesn't work like that? There are a lot of countries with much higher unemployment rates than the US, and I don't think any of them are closer to a work-free future. OwlFancier posted:"If you think this thing is bad then why don't you support laws that perpetuate it and then we can work on getting rid of it!" Come up with the work-free way or organizing society, popularize it, get everybody agree to vote in the no more work plan, and then have people not work, yeah. Because we live in an existing society with real people right now, and if driverless trucks become a thing, a whole lot of people are going to lose their jobs in a society where their survival depends on having a job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Somethings unconsidered, pilferage and lashing. I'd imagine not having to stop for rest periods would really cut down on theft ( which is a big problem actually). I'd also think not having a driver would make some lashing types, particularly over the top lashings, significantly less effective. OTT lashings loosen over time and drivers have to tighten over the top four them to continue doing anything. So in modes like marine they aren't ideal. What automation would mean would be that the over the road mode would be more like the marine and rail modes. So while making over the road cheaper, it would make the transition to intermolecular easier too. Hurm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Come up with the work-free way or organizing society, popularize it, get everybody agree to vote in the no more work plan, and then have people not work, yeah. Because we live in an existing society with real people right now, and if driverless trucks become a thing, a whole lot of people are going to lose their jobs in a society where their survival depends on having a job. Which is the way in which survival depending on jobs will be discredited. Necessity is the mother of invention, change in circumstances necessitates change, do you have absolutely no comprehension of history at all? Do you really think that societal change just magically happens because someone decided it would be a good idea? What do you think motivates people to change if not the need to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Eh, I doubt gimmicky poo poo like that will ever really take off. Why bother when you can just set things up so people order food on their smart phones before they ever even walk into the restaurant? Oh, totally. I went to a Panera a while back (for some reason) and apparently I could have ordered on my phone, avoiding even interacting with the girl at the counter. But as long as whatever frozen garbage ended up on my plate was driven by a human driver behind the wheel for however many hours, society is safe. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:How is letting three million people lose their job working towards that? Are just arguing for accelerationism? When tons of people are out of work, someone will come up with a scheme where people don't have to work, and then everyone will agree on that and it will happen? What if it doesn't work like that? There are a lot of countries with much higher unemployment rates than the US, and I don't think any of them are closer to a work-free future. At the end of the day you're right that society isn't going to just change tomorrow and build the schemes we need to support these changes, but equally governments aren't going to put in high cost, hard to enforce legislation that goes against corporate interests. We're both arguing fantasy solutions when we know the current state of affairs is just they're hosed, oh well. I prefer the more progressive idea to the regressive one though. And agreeing with what OwlFancier said, the more we move forwards with things, the more we push society towards a point where it had to change to adapt to the new circumstances. Truckers losing their jobs to automation is just a symptom of changing times, and banning automated trucks won't stop those changes, it'll just mean the people who do ban it are further behind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Here's a neat article on construction automation. The title involves brick-laying robots that are 3x as efficient as humans. Also contains a few gifs
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm not an expert on telephone exchanges, but I think there's too many phone numbers now to do it like in the olde-timey sepia photographs with the ladies and the wires. I just don't think it's feasible To put it another way, if you were alive when automated phone systems were coming along, would you have been arguing for banning them at the time for the sake of ~jobs~? And with what you know today, is that a position that would have made sense in retrospect? No repeat that exercise for bowling alley pinsetters, elevator operators, anyone who worked in a Blockbuster, people who lit street lights before electrification, most farmers, the factory worker who turned a screw that's now turned by a machine, and so on and so on. It really shouldn't be hard to extrapolate that train of thought to other forms of automation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
How far should we go to blocking technological progress in order to protect human labour? This is very much a 'how many grains of sand make a heap' sort of question, its sort of arbitrary. But there are many reasons other than the economic to favour automatic trucks over human drivers. They will be significantly more environmentally friendly (no need for A/C or heaters), they are likely to be safer on the highways, it'll preserve the health of the driver etc. What lengths are we prepared to go to as a society to safeguard the (false) dignity of work? And if the answer to that is that we are prepared to legally bar advances, then a logical response is to look back at history and say 'that would've been a bad if understandable approach then, what makes this situation so different?' I should point out that Queen Victoria herself tried to hold back the tide of the industrial revolution for these very same reasons, for all the good that it did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Trucks are not limited to one trailer; limiting them to one trailer would increase the number of vehicle miles per year and thus the number of drivers. AreWeDrunkYet posted:To put it another way, if you were alive when automated phone systems were coming along, would you have been arguing for banning them at the time for the sake of ~jobs~? And with what you know today, is that a position that would have made sense in retrospect? Geez you people sure get confused easily about who is living and who's not
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
No you see none of those other kinds of work matter because the only thing the OP cares about is trucks. Therefor any argument by analogy is automatically invalid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
3 million people losing their own jobs is a pretty bad deal which is why Im proposing the solution of dropping my pants, bending over, and exploring my own rear end hole
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
I only got 2 pages into this awful thread, but it appears no one has ever bothered to realize that there is more to the world than the US of A. Australia is going to do automated trucks because then they could run even larger and more efficient road trains, Canada will do the same, so will China, etc and so forth. Truck drivers also get tired and need to stop—automated trucks do not, so you can get a good 23 hours a day out of them (still gotta refuel them), every day, minus maintenance every now and then. If the US enacts this (stupid) law, it won't stop other countries from going towards automated trucks, it just means shipping in the US will be more expensive than shipping in other countries, which always spells bad news in the end. There are better solutions. OP do you freak out when you walk into a McDonalds and order from a machine? They're basically all like that where I live now and in many airports i've flown through recently. Come to think of it, I even went to a Ruby Tuesday's recently in rural America and it had iPads instead of waiters. (There was one waitress for the entire restaurant).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
The op keeps saying why don't we ban self driving trucks. Who is "we"? Who is the group that will be willing to enact a legislation on truckers' behalf?BrandorKP posted:theft ( which is a big problem actually). here's some 2014 statistics: 79.25 thefts per month, which works out to 951 a year. The industry is risk-averse and fearmongers about it for the money in associated security services (and for individual companies' reputation toward prospective customers) but out of millions of shipments yearly it's not an issue for more than 99% of people involved Rodatose fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The op keeps saying why don't we ban self driving trucks. Who is "we"? Who is the group that will be willing to enact a legislation on truckers' behalf?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:The op keeps saying why don't we ban self driving trucks. Who is "we"? Who is the group that will be willing to enact a legislation on truckers' behalf? I think Congress is the organization that passes laws in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Trucks are not limited to one trailer; limiting them to one trailer would increase the number of vehicle miles per year and thus the number of drivers. Regulations on how many trailers and what kind of trailers differ from state to state. For instance, a few states allow triple "pup" trailers, but only on turnpikes or certain interstates and 3 miles from that to get to a terminal. Others allow two full length trailers; others allow a length + pup, the rest only two pups.  You'll notice that most of the states that allow more than two pups are in western/plains states that have large swaths of land that are sparsely populated. There's three main types of drivers: Over-the-road, regional and local. Most drivers want to be regional or local because that means they can be home more than once every other week or monthly. There aren't enough local or regional drivers in those states in addition to over-the-road drivers to make up for all of the crap that needs to get hauled across those states, so you get longer combinations. Also, those states are much more rural in general with fewer different roads so it's not as dangerous to have long combinations than it would be in a state where you have to do a bunch of urban driving with sharp turns. Every state sets and enforces their own rules through their state's DOT, and reliance upon enforcing national guidelines is based on giving or withholding federal funding. It's a mess. Trying to pass national standards would require taking away power from individual state governments, including a bunch of republican states who are pretty happy with the arrangement now of receiving lots of federal funding to make up for low state taxation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:951 thefts a year at an average value of $171,000 makes this a 162 million dollar problem. Obviously no one expects to drive thefts to zero, so maybe this is the best security/theft trade off available, but if I can spend a million to reduce theft by 10%, that's a great deal. It's pocket change quote:The value of freight shipments in 2002, including domestic commodity shipments and domestic transportation of exports and imports, was $11 trillion. Guy Goodbody posted:I think Congress is the organization that passes laws in the US. What groups in congress are going to represent the welfare of truck drivers instead of the corporate welfare of trucking companies (my breakdown of how truckers are currently represented in congress was here) Rodatose fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Twist: OP is literally Donald Trump, only his China is The Future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:but out of millions of shipments yearly it's not an issue for more than 99% of people involved I suppose I disproportionally encounter it as a guy who occasionally writes the "yep poo poo was stolen" reports
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:42 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think Congress is the organization that passes laws in the US. Yep, the Rep majority congress totes gonna do this, nooo problem. E: Ahahahahaha, loving rights right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:01
|
|
