I've always been fascinated by theories that lead to great inventions, for example I'm able to write fart jokes and how I'm a born again virgin not by choice on steemit because someone called Alexander Graham Bell was tired of sexting with his mistress using pigeons and losing his boner by the time he gets a response. Fake history aside, and I know how all of you are disappointed that story isn't true, but considering that this is Alexander Bell
You might be better off not thinking about his penis and how hairy and grey it might be. Either way we know Alexander Bell invented phones because he was tried of sexting with pigeons or risking mail men reading his letters, basically needing something is the mother of inventions, or is it inventions being the mother? I don't know, my mother died early on so wouldn't what that's like anyway, and I googled "Mothers" and "Need" only to end up with thousands of results ranging from Africa based charities all the way to porn sites.
In 2015 the World Health Organization (WHO) dropped a report report reflecting information from 180 countries, indicates that worldwide the total number of road traffic deaths has plateaued at 1.25 million per year. 1.25 million! that's 0.25 million short of how many guys my Swedish cheated on me with, that girl was the cheapest Swedish export since IKEA furniture. A staggering 94% of car accidents is caused by human error, most likely the drivers were distracted by my Swedish ex giving them blowjobs. So an obvious solution presented itself to a lot of people stating that by removing the human error as a factor we'd be dropping the rate of accidents by 94%, thus the aspect of self driven cars arose giving my ex the chance to give all the blowjobs she wants with minimum risk other than loyalty and self respect and also improving the experience of watching a Faketaxi video.
A self driven car that calculates the distances around you, minimizing the risk of getting into an accident to zero as it makes all the decisions for you and all you need to do is basically nothing, a concept that wouldn't only make the roads safer but even more efficient allowing @traf and his wife the chance of getting on the road without causing damage. Sounds great, right? well before they'd make those cars couple of questions needed to be considered. How would that car act in specific situations, similar situations to those expressed in the trolley problem, what if the car was forced into a situation having to choose between killing 5 people or just 1? Let's assume your car is driving itself down the road and you're distracted in the front seat getting blow job from my ex and up in front of you there are 5 people crossing the street from left to right and on the other side of the road there is one person doing the opposite, would your car kill the 5 ahead or swerve to the other side and kill just one person? Or you know what? since steemit is filled with all sort of fucked up people that wouldn't mind killing all six and considering the blowjob they're getting they'd climax right afterward, the car is also offered a third option that doesn't exist in the trolley experiment, what if it swerves off the road and hit a brick wall? Forcing you to death or even worse, having your penis bit off by my ex after her jaw locks shut? You thought I'd just let you guys get away safe and sound, didn't you?
According to Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism principle (that's right, I'm going full philosophical on this one) the car should be programmed in a way that minimizes the total harm saving the biggest amount of people as possible, which goes against the teachings of Immanuel Kant, and I Kant help but bring up Immanuel who says that you shouldn't deliberately harm a person, so by swerving to the right to kill one person you'd be harming a person and swerving off the road you'd be harming yourself, both done by conscious choice. That's I brought Kant up to this bitch and according to him you should let the car keep going forward no matter the number of people in front of it even if those were the 5 people mentioned in the trolley problem.
So between Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham's car model, which one would you pick? Jeremy Bentham's obviously, right? After all you're all just sweet hearts who are willing to sacrifice one person for the livelihood of the group, you're all just a bunch of fuzzy, lovey dovey people, aren't you? So you'd go with Bentham's car, sacrificing one for the livelihood of more people, how noble of you! alright, so what about you, you little ball of passionate care love handles? Would you buy the car knowing that the Bentham's model? The same model that would sacrifice the few for the many? Knowing that it would sacrifice you for the benefit of the many? Personally I wouldn't let it sacrifice me, I mean I bought the car, why would I pay shitload of money for a car that would kill me? Would you? Alright, then let's go with Kant's model, of course that's just for you, everyone else should go with Bentham's car. Everyone should ride a car that would make them equal, except for you of course, you're special and your view about how funny farts are should be cherished and live on to future generations along with you.
So let's assume you have a car manufacturing company, and everyone is looking to get a blowjob from my ex while driving to work with minimum risk and you want them to buy your car. If you were to say that the car you're making would sacrifice it's owner, no one would buy a car from you. If you were to say that your car would kill the many for the driver's benefit then that's just horrible marketing, isn't it? You just presented a plan that is harmful for the public just for the livelihood of just one client. Considering the age we live on you'd be facing rage and boycott and with either models you wouldn't be selling your cars.
In 2016 when car manufacturing companies were asked about that dilemma most of them avoided answering that question, Volvo's spokesman basically said "We don't get into accidents, so that won't be a problem, so let us work and fuck off you little pessimist over-the-top philosopher wannabe piece of shit" I'm paraphrasing of course. While Volvo took the evasive route Mercedes took a different route all together as Germans are pretty nice and honest people, since 1946 at least so Mercedes' Senior manager of active safety Christoph von Hugo said 'If you know you can save at least one person, at least save that one. Save the one in the car.' in a statement that wasn't taken lightly by the daily mail who reported that Mercedes self driven cars would rather run over a CHILD rather than swerve and risk injuring the passengers inside which really doesn't sound like something they should add to their slogan "Mercedes: Best or nothing, and the occasional child murdering". After the article an outrage was caused and Mercedes did the same thing I did after spending hours psyching myself up to confront my Swedish girlfriend before she showed through the door, back off and apologized.
Now we're back to square one, aren't you guys glad you're reading this? Car accidents are at an all time high and people aren't willing to buy a car that would sacrifice them for the safety of the many, and they're outraged by cars that would do the opposite and the result is of course nothing is being done for the safety of the guys my ex is giving blowjobs to. That's not even the only dilemma in the situation, going back to the example given previously, what if we replace the 5 people are with a doctor on one side and a criminal is on the other side of the road? Of course people would lean toward saving the doctor. Another example because really at this point I'm just having fun hypothetically killing people; What if you're driving down the road and someone is crossing the street from the green side that allows them to cross it, on the other side is someone whose side is red and shouldn't cross yet, which should the car choose? People of course are leaning toward saving the one who is following the rules. Okay let's replace the one that isn't following the rules with 5 people, who should the car hit? People suggested it hits the one following the rules. Many more scenarios can be pictured here along with their results, babies over old people, women over men. athletes over unhealthy people. The last one hurts me specifically.
Those are the standards set by developed countries, developing countries have different standards, in fact the standards change from certain communities, countries like Hong Kong and the Netherlands have extreme respect for traffic laws, jaywalking isn't a normal thing over there, especially in the Netherlands which almost cost me a lot of money, but I acted like an idiot Iraqi and gotten away with it, even though I'm a smart person, and I look like one, but the policeman let me get away with it, I really deceived him though, being a genius and all, he thought I'm an idiot who doesn't understand anything, even though I understand everything, I don't like talking about myself a lot really. Anyway here in Iraq we have horses and donkeys carrying gas tanks and going on the wrong side of the road, most of us here see traffic lights as accessories, so what is the decision of hitting the one jaywalking based on? He's just crossing the street you asshole! Countries with high human development index really don't care what's your job title when it comes to these situations the same way people with the low index. We generally don't hold values for the doctor over a worker or a criminal, most of the times we elect that last one for office. Each family has like 10 children so why does a child have more value than an old man? And if we hire a woman to take the clothes of the one hit by a car, she could easily replace her in real life, too cruel? Alright, spot the difference.
Maybe at the time all those discussions were looking way ahead of the time but this year we had the first self driven car fatal clash as an Uber self driven car hit a woman in Tempe, Arizona and caused her death, tragic story of course but I can't help but laugh at the fact that the manufacturing company of the car was "We'll never face such a situation" Volvo. Question is; who do you blame for that? Is it the Uber observer who was observing the car? Is it Volvo in general for manufacturing the car? Is it Uber for getting it? Is it me for writing this long post? I don't know, all I know is I'm enjoying laughing at the smugness of Volvo as it slowly fades. Kinda like my ex after getting a compliment for how good her blowjob is before getting a load to the face.
In the end this whole serves as a luxurious take on self driven cars. I mean after all you don't think of those things while driving yourself so why should a self driven car manufacturing company consider them? The trolley isn't exactly based on something that occurs in our lives regularly so we're forced to think about those things, I mean why did we go for the worst possible scenarios? I mean there are plenty of steps before those scenarios, maybe the whole thing can be fixed by just readjusting the brakes. Why am I talking about either hitting one person, 5 people, or myself? All of those things need to put into a box of consideration, or out of consideration, or I could just hold on to it till you find a place for it to fit in consideration, also getting fit is in my consideration. Also what is the point of considering those scenarios, they're most likely won't happen, I'm just having fun thinking about extremely difficult and evil things, plus I enjoy hypothetically killing people. Also I think I have unresolved issues with my Swedish ex.
The length of what those scenarios do really is fit into a Steemit post, also if you're reading this you're most likely not able to afford the car anyway. Let's just make the money and only then consider getting a self driven car, which most likely will be the Mercedes one of course.
This is a new thing I'm planning to do regularly, feedback is welcomed