The Cost of Progress
Autonomy and safety in the age of automation
Master Thesis Philosophy University of Amsterdam Student: Tove Oegema
Student nr.: 10209964 Supervisor: Gijs van Donselaar
Second reader: Thomas Nys Words: 17044
Pages: 38
Table of content
Introduction 1.
1: Framework and concept definitions 2.
1.1: Governments and influence 2.
1.2: Case study: self-driving cars 4.
2: Moral Philosophy 6.
2.1: Utilitarianism (Mill) 7.
2.2: Deontology (Kant) 8.
2.3: Paternalism and the moral status of technological artifacts 10.
2.4: Our liberal and technological legacy 11.
2.5: Application to case-study 12.
3: Society, culture and the individual 13.
3.1: Psychology: fear and phobias 13.
3.2: Culture and evolution 14.
3.2.1: Luddites, labor and loss of identity 16.
3.2.2: Economy and automation 17.
3.2.3: Evolutionary biology and paternalism 18.
3.2.4: Self-driving cars and popular culture 19.
3.2.5: The opposition 22.
3.3: Equality and technology 25.
3.4: Control and dependency 26.
4: The transition 28.
4.1: Government policy 28.
4.2: Embracing the age of automation 30.
Preface
During the writing of this paper, there was a quickly expanding body of literature, audiovisual material and speeches devoted to figuring out how to deal with the introduction of the driving car. Talk shows, especially in the United States of America, started mentioning the self-driving car and various news and documentary pieces were devoted to hosts or guests sitting in a self-driving car and describing their experience. The first articles and news stories (especially in the first two years) describing or showing the progress of the self-driving car had a certain joy and wonder to them. Whenever a video or article of Google’s self-driving car was published, the tone of the articles and videos were always optimistic and were full of enthusiasm. It wasn’t until after the initial excitement subsided that the critical questions and evaluations came into
existence. People started wondering what the actual consequences would be. No longer was the self-driving car science fiction made into reality. It was now clear that the self-driving car was going to part of society in the near future.
It was at this turning point that I delved deeper into the literature and various technology forums. To my surprise, there was quite a lot of opposition from a variety of people from different sectors of society. Not only car-enthusiasts or people who fear technology in general were voicing opposition, but also the taxi industry, truck drivers, users of Uber and many others. I also found my way to the literature that does not care much (generally) for the introduction of advanced or autonomous technologies. Usually, this remains in the area of technophobia and is primarily based and fueled by science fiction movies who portray autonomous technology as an extreme danger to mankind.
However, some of these fears did touch upon a crucial aspect of the human existence, namely that people like to be in control. The fear of losing control and handing over the reins to technology leaves people with a certain anxiety. While understandable, I wondered if this
anxiety could be made into a sufficient argument for stopping or delaying certain technologies. It is at this point that I started bringing up these issues while talking with my master thesis
supervisor, Gijs van Donselaar. Through our conversations and discussions, it became clear that there is great potential in writing a master thesis about the self-driving car and the subsequent issues that may arise from the introduction of it. After numerous conversations, it became clear that this problem touches upon the classical debate between utilitarianism and deontology. When I first started researching and writing the first chapters, it became clear that the problems that arise from the self-driving car must be addressed within a broader context. The possible opposition and other problems that might arise from the introduction of the self-driving car, were all over society and thus the thesis could not just be limited to the mentioned classical debate. This broader perspective made it possible to include arguments that are not in the classical debate and allowed for arguments that have an economic, sociological or anthropological aspect to them. It remained important however, to always remember the philosophical aspect of the core question: is this argument sufficient enough to stop or delay the introduction of the self-driving car?
This approach allowed me to use the knowledge that I had accumulated during my time as a student within the University of Amsterdam. During these five years, I took classes in
anthropology, sociology, psychology and the philosophy of technology. This put me in a position to evaluate the arguments from different disciplines. On top of that, it made this master thesis the perfect conclusion to my studies.
However, it must be stated that the research and writing were not always easy. The first obstacle was applying the arguments from the classical debate between utilitarianism and deontology to the discussion about the introduction of the self-driving car. The reason for this was that society has changed quite a bit since the writings of Kant and Mill and the dependency on technology has increased dramatically. With this change, the notion pf paternalism has received a new or different meaning. No longer is it simply from person to person or from institution to person, but paternalism now includes almost every aspect of everyday life, since we are constantly steered in particular directions by technology. It was this difficulty in the early days of researching this master thesis, that doubt about the viability of the subject matter arose.
Thankfully, my supervisor managed to provide structure in the research process and somehow managed to cope with my occasional chaotic (verbal) argumentation. I sincerely think this master thesis would not have been so complete without the consistent support of my supervisor Gijs van Donselaar. I sincerely want to thank him for his persistence, motivation and the absolutely wonderful examples. All of these examples have made their way into this thesis and I believe they have greatly livened up this paper.
May the reader find valuable insights and be made ready for the implementation of the self-driving car!
1
Introduction
“You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem.” - Edward’s Law
The human race is entering a new technological age. Technologies that were previously only conceived in the minds of science-fiction writers are now closer to coming into existence than ever before. Self-driving cars, self-repairing circuits in computer chips, the creating of artificial life and even body enhancement through the use of nanotechnology are just some examples. These technological developments has led some scholars to describe a phenomenon called ‘sub-politicization of society’, whereby important decisions that could have an effect on entire societies are no longer instituted via the traditional political institutions (such as a parliament or government agencies) but by researchers and developers of new technologies (De Vries, 2007). The introduction of these new technologies presents us with problems, often in retrospect. The still on-going privacy debate that followed from the introduction of the internet or the current debate over the mobile phone application that allows citizens to become their own taxi-drivers (‘Uber’) and the concurrent consequences for established taxi businesses are just two examples. With most of the cases of new technologies, new laws or changes to laws have to be made afterwards. It seems that in the context of the introduction of new technologies, our laws are always one step behind. This observation might lead to the conclusion that laws will always be outdated and have to be constantly revised in the face of technological changes in society. One might even argue that these laws are in the way of quickly introducing new technologies which could lead to a better society.
This paper will address these issues from a more positive point of view and eventually argue for proactive action from both governments and civil organizations (including businesses and entrepreneurs). The aim of the paper is to explain and evaluate the possible implications of autonomy reducing technologies for moral theory. The primary focus will be on technologies that promise an increase in physical well-being at the cost of a specific liberty. The question that will be addressed from different points of view in this paper is if a decrease or potential
elimination of traffic accidents justifies the decrease in autonomy, a change in culture or other objections to the introduction of a new technology with potentially wide implications for the way we organize society. Using a case-study of self-driving cars, the paper will discuss the possible ethical or moral implications of the introduction of such technologies. These implications will first be discussed from the point of view of two dominant ethical theories or approaches, namely utilitarianism and the deontological point of view. Apart from this classical debate however, this paper will also address a wide variety of arguments that can potentially be used against the introduction of this technology. After a careful weighting of the various arguments, it will eventually be concluded that in the context of maximizing physical safety or well-being in the public sphere, the potential loss of liberty and potential changes in culture are justifiable.
2 1: Framework and concept definitions
In the following pages, an imagined or hypothetical scenario is taken as a point of view. In 2025, in societies all over the world, a large part (20%) of the automobiles are of the self-driving kind. The statistics show that these cars have little to no accidents whatsoever. The government officials are confronted with these facts and as usual, they do not know what to do. Should they make the self-driving cars mandatory to not only prevent death and suffering but to also decrease the ever expanding medical costs, or should they allow people to drive whatever kind of car they want thereby respecting their choices and autonomy? The politicians do not immediately jump to action of course: instead they ask a student of philosophy to write a report on the arguments for and against the introduction of the self-driving car. The politicians hope that this report will give them a definitive answer on whether or not they should make self-driving cars mandatory. After the student negotiated that he should be paid two million euro’s for the report, he quickly got to work.
1.1: Governments and influence
There are various ways in which governments influence or try to influence the behavior of citizens. The various motivations or goals of governments for this endeavor is a topic for another paper. What is relevant to the current discussion is the way governments (or other institutions) do this or the methods they use.
The most obvious or dominant way governments try to influence behavior is making laws and enforcing them. This approach consists in prohibiting a particular kind of behavior and
associating a punishment with the occurrence of such behavior. In the context of traffic for instance, this is made particularly visual by the road signs telling car drivers that they may not exceed 50 km/h. The driver knows that surpassing this speed limit could lead to a very expensive fine. Other examples are smoking bans in certain buildings or the taking of objects owned by others (theft). These laws are very often made visual through the use of signs to increase the possible effect of deterrence. The idea is that knowing that something is prohibited and will be punished will deter people from behaving in that particular way. What is interesting about this approach is that this particular method is specifically used when potential physical danger is present. This observation will be further analyzed in the next section.
Another method is physical limitation. These are direct restrictions to movement in public
spaces. Examples are speed bumps, access gates (at parking lots for instance) or simply fences or even locked doors. These physical limitations are a dominant way of making a particular type of behavior simply impossible. In the example of the speed bump for instance, one is forced to slow down to avoid injury or damage to the car.
There are however some more subtle approaches. These approaches depend on the manipulation of psychological effects. This method consists in creating an environment in which people are forced or strongly motivated to do something. Examples are access roads (Dutch:
‘invoegstroken’), signs on doors (male/female bathrooms) or camera’s in public space (speeding cameras or cameras on streets to prevent crime). These types of influences largely serve two
3
purposes: practical law-enforcement purposes (evidence for in a court) and (social) conformity. These social conformity aspects are great tools for maintaining and reinforcing a desired convention (driving on the right side of the road for instance).
Not all methods and strategies are based on punishment and deterrence however. Positive reinforcement is another effective method for changing or steering behavior. In practice, this simply means the rewarding of a particular kind of behavior. This is most often done through financial rewards. This approach is backed by substantial evidence from the behavioral sciences (particularly psychology), which shows that rewarding the good or desired behavior leads to better outcomes than punishing the bad behavior (Aronson et al.,2007: 214-252). An example is the rewarding of not smoking or quitting smoking through a decrease in a health-care premium. Essentially, this method provides an (financial) incentive to behave in a particular way.
Where methods become more complex, is in the area of nudging. This method combines various previous methods but in a far less intrusive way. It might be the case that the environment in which a particular choice is made is organized or set up in such a way so that persons are more likely to choose the desired option. This can be achieved through certain subtle psychological influences. An example is placing healthy fruits in quickly visible spots in lunchrooms or
supermarkets. What is distinctive about this method of influencing behavior is that it leaves a lot of room for choosing otherwise, since there is no direct social conformity aspect (such as shame) nor is there a clear positive reinforcement during the act of choosing between certain available options (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008: 1-6 and Verbeek, 2014: 25)
While the presented methods are useful for analytical purposes, it should be stated that in practice many of the described methods are used in combination with each other. If we look at traffic for instance, there is a clear combination of various approaches or methods: speed limits (law and punishment), speed bumps (physical limitations), speeding cameras (psychological influences) and even rewarding those that keep within the speed limit as was recently done in Sweden (positive reinforcement). Nonetheless, these methods will provide us with a rough framework for understanding the arguments in favor of restrictions and the arguments against such limitations from different moral theories.
4 1.2: Case-study: self-driving cars.
“Als de automobilisten zich niet intelligenter weten te gedragen, dan moeten de auto’s maar intelligent gedrag gaan vertonen.”
- Tineke Netelenbos
In 1999 in The Netherlands, specifically in Tilburg, an automated system for speed control was tested. This system was called ‘ISA’, which stands for ‘Intelligente Snelheidsaanpassing’ (English: Intelligent speed modification). This system was outfitted in certain cars in Tilburg to see what the results would be in terms of the experience of drivers and what it could do to prevent traffic accidents. The system uses the Global Positioning System (GPS) to discover on which road a car was driving and would automatically set the speed-limit that was allowed on that road in the automobile (Verbeek, 2014:p.33). Reflecting on this specific technology
beforehand might lead one to assume that this enforcing or restricting technology would be met with great resistance. After all, it directly restricts the liberty of automobile drivers. Remarkably however, is the conclusion of the ISA report (p.61) that there is a wide acceptation of the system after a certain period of time. While this test was small (only about one hundred people), it does show that our possible intuitions about certain freedoms can be proven wrong through
experience with new technologies. The experience of driving a car were altered: the usual
experience of stress was reduced since the speed of the car was limited anyway, so the stress was seen as useless or non-functional and hence quickly dissipated (Verbeek, 2014: 34).
Other technologies take the concept of automated driving a step further. In another city in The Netherlands, namely Eindhoven, a system called ‘Phileas’ was shortly introduced. This was a bus that could go completely without a driver (Dorrestein, 2004). There seems to be a slow trend towards more automation in cars. These isolated test-cases aside, the general public was
probably first introduced to the concept of a self-driving car via the company Google, which created a self-driving car. This marvelous invention consists of a laser-system on the top of the roof of a normal looking car, which creates a 3D-map of the environment which allows it to navigate on the roads and anticipate the actions of other automobile drivers. It can adjust the speed, allow for other cars to come in front of it at an intersection and practically everything else that a human-driver can do as well. Thinking ahead of time, one can imagine that the argument for the immense decrease in traffic accidents could radically change people’s minds about automated cars. If all the cars are automated and aware of one another, traffic accidents could potentially be eliminated, potentially avoiding the deaths of millions of people in the process. This argument will further be reflected upon in the following chapters.
Back to the present reality. As a result of the lobbying of Google, a couple of states in the United States of America allowed self-driving cars to be on public highways (New York Times, 2011). As a result of this technical accomplishment, there was wide media attention in the form of news stories, documentaries and this in turn lead to public debate. After the laws were passed to allow driverless cars to be used on public highways, it became painfully clear that the law and legal practices were not fit to deal with the concept of a self-driving car. Most of the existing legal
5
approaches to transportation vehicles, including the automobile, originate from horse
transportation (New York Times, 2011). A new legal approach therefore has to be developed to deal with the self-driving cars.
Apart from these legal challenges, the self-driving car of Google has great potential according to its designers. Sebastian Thrun, leader of the project of the Google driverless car, has claimed that the automated cars will lead to higher energy efficiency and greatly reduce injuries and deaths that are related to traffic accidents. The driverless car would hence have a positive effect on the climate (they are completely electric), reduce healthcare costs and prevent a whole lot of
mourning for family members who lost a loved-one in a car accident (New York Times, 2011). It is hard to imagine how this new development can possible be met with hostility. Yet, as we shall see in the following chapters, these possible positive consequences do come at a cost.
6 2: Moral Philosophy
When the topic of self-driving car is introduced in the context of moral philosophy, a specific ethical dilemma is usually put forward. This dilemma is presented as a question to a person contemplating the introduction of the self-driving car. Imagine yourself sitting in a self-driving car. All of the sudden, a mother, father and child start crossing the road. The traffic light is red for them. The self-driving car can steer to the right into a wall, killing you, or it can continue on its course, killing the family. What would you want the self-driving car to do? Or in other words; what would you want the self-driving car to be programmed for? Safety of the people inside the car or outside the car?
Some would say that the car has to continue on course, since the family that was crossing the road ignored the red light and therefore are to blame themselves. They ignored the rules that should be obeyed by everyone and are therefore at fault and not the person sitting inside the self-driving car. This argumentation would most probably make Immanuel Kant smile. Yet, it might seem somewhat counter-intuitive to others. One death or three, the choice must be the one, regardless of principles of traffic. Any other choice would be an increase in misery and unhappiness. This argumentation would in turn provide John Stuart Mill with a smile.
While seemingly a new ethical dilemma, it is worth noticing that this ethical dilemma is already ‘decided’ when it comes to our modern day society. It is decided by the fact that we have laws that allows our system of justice to allocated blame. What you should do, when taking into account the decision of a judge who precedes over the case, is largely discoverable by simple looking at a law book (provided that you are interested in the legal consequences of your actions). The thing that does changes with the self-driving car however, is that the decision is taken out of the hands of the individual and implemented via the technology that decides for you. You as an individual will no longer be able to choose otherwise, since the car does the driving and steering for you. While this dilemma will ensure that you will have a good discussion at the bar, it also serves to show the underlying complexity of the delegation of moral decisions to technology (2.4). This complexity will be discussed in detail during the following paragraphs. When reflecting upon the realistic possibility of the introduction of the self-driving car in the near future, one can easily find possible objections to this new technology. In this paragraph the presented technology will be evaluated by first settling some conceptual issues with the meaning of paternalism and the moral status of non-human ‘actors’. Afterwards, two dominant moral theories, namely utilitarianism and deontology (Kantianism), will be used to discover potential approvals and potential objections. These two theories are chosen because they lead us to the classical contradiction between principled autonomy (Kant) and possible positive consequences (utilitarianism). This contradiction is crucial in evaluating the possible objections to the self-driving car and similar technologies.
The contradicting conclusions leading from the two moral theories can best be understood by looking at autonomy and possible (desired) effects. If a certain technology is introduced that has a desired effect without negatively impacting the autonomy of individuals, there is no problem and the implementation won’t be objected to from a moral point of view. Problems seem to arise
7
when a technology is introduced that reduces or changes the autonomy for a desired effect. In other words, if a technology is to be implemented or introduced in a society that has as its consequence a reduction in autonomy or liberty, it requires a justification from moral theory. This justification becomes especially crucial when a certain technology or policy is perceived as form of paternalism.
2.2: Utilitarianism (Mill)
John Stuart Mill is perhaps the best know defender or advocate of utilitarianism. His description of the ‘greatest happiness principle’ is a clear outline of this specific moral point of view:
According to the greatest happiness principle as I have explained it, the ultimate end […] for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people) is an existence as free as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments.
(Mill, 2010 [1861]: 8).
The immense value attached to the freedom from pain in Mill’s texts makes this moral point of view attractive in evaluating the presented case-study. Presented with the self-driving car which could eliminate massive amount of suffering through preventing injuries and death while driving, it becomes clear that from a utilitarian’s point of view, the technology should be implemented immediately. It would drastically decrease human suffering and it hence seems justified. However, Mill also wrote influential texts on the notion of liberty and limiting the power of the state. There are strong anti-paternalistic notions in his treatise on what liberty entails. It would seem that when confronted with our case-study, Mill shows a certain contradiction. On the one hand we should decrease or prevent suffering by introducing the self-driving car while on the other hand we must not be paternalistic. The paternalism that Mill objects to, is the form of the government intruding or implementing policies that harm the autonomy and the ability for people to develop themselves. The self-driving car is in the form of the ‘technological delegation paternalism’ which I will describe in detail below. Furthermore, the paternalism objected to by Mills deals with individuals and their autonomy in the context of personal development. The case-study is about the introduction of a technology in the public sphere, which deals with preventing massive ‘harms’ on public roads.
On the other hand, Mill’s theory can also be interpreted in such a way that the joy or experience of driving a car increases an individual’s happiness. Driving is part of their conception of the good life and should hence be incorporated into the utilitarian calculus. The two conflicting variables in the calculus should then be weighed against one another to discover if the self-driving car is morally justified from this point of view (Mill, 2010 [1861]: 3). At first sight, the two variables are not easily weighed, since the numerous formulations of the Greater Happiness Principle in Mill’s writing do not specifically state which aspect of the principle should be given priority: avoidance of suffering or increasing happiness. On further inspection however, it
8
becomes apparent that the total amount of suffering caused by not introducing the self-driving car would be far more important than the relatively small amount of happiness gained from driving a car yourself. The numbers simply tell us this.
It hence becomes quite clear that utilitarianism places a lot of emphasis on avoiding or negating suffering to increase happiness rather than giving an extensive substantive list of things or activities that increase happiness. Not only would such a list be difficult to create, it is also near to impossible because of the subjective nature of what is to be considered an ‘happiness
increasing activity’. It is therefore save to conclude that Mill would advocate for emphasizing the utilitarian calculus in the context of preventing harm on public roads and hence would jump with joy if he learned of this marvelous new invention that would eradicate so much misery and suffering.
2.3: Deontology (Kant)
Where the Kantian approach becomes interesting for our case-study is its opposition to paternalism. An argument from the utilitarian point of view was that the overall well-being of people in a society would increase when self-driving cars are introduced and hence it is justified. In the deontology approach to ethics, moral autonomy is given a central place rather than an instrumental one. The conditions for self-agency or autonomy are placed at the forefront. As a result, there are strong anti-paternalistic notions imbedded in the deontological approach. The emphasis on autonomy ensures that we treat people as being able to formulate the moral laws themselves (respect them) and not having someone or some institution dictate to us what is morally right or wrong (O’Neill,1984: 174, Schneewind, 1992)
Kant claimed that we all are rational and autonomous and this is the primary reason we deserve or are worthy recipients of respect. What this approach clearly brings forth is its previously mentioned opposition to paternalism. Shafer-Landau (2010: 161) describes paternalism as follows: “To be paternalistic is to assume the rights and privileges of a parent – toward another adult. Paternalism has us limit the liberty of others, for their own good, against their will.” This limiting of our liberties is precisely what would be one of the consequences of the
implementation of the self-driving car. Even if, as utilitarianism would claim, the
implementation would lead to an overall well-being. It still is not justified according to the deontologists on grounds of the disrespect for the autonomy of individuals. Important to add is that it is irrelevant if the person agrees with the described moral laws or behavior. A person can fully agree with the prescribed behavior, but it still must be his or her reasoning and action. For instance, if I were to clean the room of a university teacher who previously expressed his dissatisfaction with the mess that he had created in his own working place, that teacher would most likely view my actions as being paternalistic towards him, even though he agrees it needs to be cleaned and organized. I will delve into this phenomenon in chapter 3.
This Kantian approach brings forth another potential problem with certain technologies that either force us or even strongly motivate us towards specific ethical behavior. This problem arises when the Kantian approach looks at the intentions of behavior and following certain
9
guidelines (specifically the ‘categorical imperative’) that can discover if an action can be considered moral or immoral. The specific rational arguments for acting a specific way is what is crucial in the Kantian approach. When one introduces certain technologies that push, force or nudge individuals towards a desired behavior, the entire aspect of behaving in accordance with one’s moral duty seems to entirely disappear (Verbeek, 2014: 53). The technology described in the case-study could hence be seen as taking away a possibility for people to be moral in the first place and it does not fully honor the moral autonomy of individuals.
However seemingly opposed Kantians might be to the self-driving car, there is another aspect of the deontological approach which might lead the Kantians ethicist to look on the self-driving car with satisfaction rather than disgust. An important notion of the Kantian approach is that an individual also has a certain responsibility to take care of him or herself and strongly opposes the possible instrumentalization of one’s self. In other words, the moral laws that follow from the rational capacities of men must also be applied to one’s self. The second formulation of Immanual Kant’s categorical imperative makes it abundantly clear:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. (Kant, 2010[1785]: 36).
In the case of someone who is contemplating suicide for example, the question must be asked if taking one’s own live is not opposed to his duty towards himself. The way to discover this duty towards himself is to universalize his actions (make it into a maxim) which leads him to realize it is strongly opposed towards his duty (Kant, 2010 [1785]: 30). In a different way, this formulation also makes it possible to argue that not taking precautions is a violation of one’s
self-preservation. If these notions are transferred to our case-study, it can be argued that not introducing or not getting into a driving car, negates your duty towards your own self-preservation. In addition to this realization, it can also be made clear that choosing to drive a car yourself, is choosing pleasure (a tendency) over rational self-preservation. The joy you get from driving a car can’t outweigh your self-preservation. Therefore, it is not so obvious to state that Kantian ethicists are opposed to the self-driving car. If the option is available, it might even be against Kant’s own formulation to simply say no to the apparent paternalism present in the technology.
10
2.4 Paternalism and the moral status of technological artifacts
Before these two moral theories can be used for further analysis for our case-study, it is
important to note a dual meaning of the notion of paternalism, or rather two different contexts. One the one hand, we have a more general paternalism which is often invoked when talking about government intervention or certain intrusive policy. An example of this sort is the fact that in The Netherlands children are legally bound to attend a school. Even if the parents might object to this policy, the government will enforce this by sending government agents
(‘leerplichtambtenaar’) to get a child back into a school. Paternalism in this form is not bound to technological artifacts and involves an institution advocating or doing something that infringes upon people’s ability to act themselves or even make the same decisions themselves. This inability to make a decision to act in a moral way is what the objection (among others) of the Christian-Democrats is to higher taxes that would be used to help the poor: it robs people of their own ability to do the right thing and hence makes them unable to serve God. As described, the Kantian approach has similar objections.
On the other hand, there is a form of paternalism which occurs when morality is delegated to machinery or technology. In this context, things become more complex. In this form, the
paternalism is no longer bound to institutions or laws. It is also not always clear whether there is a real intention behind the implementation of certain technologies. There might very well be side-effects which were not imagined by the inventor or implementer of a specific technology. The delegation of morality encompasses a transfer of a moral point of view to technology in such a way that we are forced or nudged to act in a particular desirable way. These types of influences are part of the ‘sub-politics’(De Vries, 2007) mentioned in the introduction.
Bruno Latour (1992) described this transfer using the concept of ‘scripts’. These scripts are ‘inside’ a specific technology to enforce a particular type of behavior. An example is the check-in-check-out (‘OV-chippoortjes’) gateways on tram and train stations in The Netherlands: they remind us to pay for a public transport ticket and in some stations (such as in Rotterdam) one is forced to first pay to then be able to pass through one of the gates (Verbeek, 2014: 23). Another more context appropriate example is the seatbelt in a car: the technology has been designed and implemented in such a way that a very annoying alarm or a blinking light on the dashboard goes off if one does not have his or her seatbelt on (Latour, 1992: 1-2). When an apparent success of a technology is very clear, it will most likely find its way into the laws. In this context for instance, it is punishable to drive around without a seatbelt. In the article, Latour further argues that we are hence completely surrounded by all forms of technology which embody our cultural and moral norms. These technologies influences our behavior on a daily basis. Therefore, paternalism in this context can mean a huge, obvious form of paternalism (the seatbelt alarm) or it can be small, minor form such as automated doors that embody our environmental attitude by closing
themselves and thereby increase energy efficiency.
This is important to point out because there are two seemingly separate discussions going on. On the one hand, there is the classical (often political) debate for and against the use of paternalism via government policies. This debate does not take the material surroundings into account and
11
specifically focuses on intentions and uses of individuals with power. On the other hand, there is the discussion of the ways in which morality and technology interact (which is the primary object of study in the field of philosophy of technology). This debate is relatively new and in the past decades various approaches have been described and advocated (Verbeek, 2014: 11-15). However, as different as these discussions may seem, there is something which they have in common. This commonality can be found when one looks at the role paternalism plays in the two debates. When certain values are delegated to machinery or technological artifacts that are used by others (and hence steer them in a certain direction), a form of paternalism seem to always be involved, whether intentionally or only subconsciously. This point becomes apparent in the debates about justifiable forms of (technological) paternalism, such as the self-driving car.
2.5: Our liberal and technological legacy
If the effects of technology are fully acknowledged, a question then arises how to adequately combine steering, nudging or enforcing technologies with our modern liberal notions about autonomy and freedom of choice. Thaler and Sunstein made an attempt by introducing the term ‘libertarian paternalism’ in their influential book ‘Nudge’ (2008). Thaler and Sunstein describe two systems which influences our behavior: the automatic and the reflexive system. The automatic system is mostly responsible for the unhealthy, harmful or negative choices. An example is eating unhealthy food in a cafeteria. By organizing our so called ‘choice-architecture’ we can steer the automatic system towards healthier or better decisions. This can be achieved by the previously discussed nudges. What is important is that the reflexive system is not shutdown during the behavioral influence. This influencing of the environment or the situation in which decisions are made, allows us to change our automatic system while maintaining our reflexive system. This way, the influence of technology or certain restructuring of environments is acknowledged while respecting the liberal aspect of our society. We are still able to actively reflect on the nudges that we are confronted by and if we so desire, can still decide to act
otherwise (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). In a more Hegelian approach, we might say that the ability for negation remains intact.
What becomes apparent here and what makes the moral evaluation of the self-driving car so complicated, is that even this libertarian paternalism does not fully acknowledge the ways in which technologies already influences our behavior. It remains within the realm of the
government/policy paternalism by consistently placing emphasis on human autonomy (Verbeek, 2014: 25). Thaler and Sunstein seem to suggest an idealistic notion of the possibility of the total negation of certain nudges or influences. What is misunderstood here is that technology always influences behavior and is intertwined with it (Latour, 1992). Not only is our daily behavior influenced by it, the entire history of homo-sapiens is shaped by technological progress. This has led some to conclude that the driving factor of human progress is in fact technological
development and its positive consequences on human well-being, as opposed to world religions for instance (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014: 6-12). Secondly, Verbeek (2014: 26-30) points out
12
that there still is a hidden ‘conception of the good life’ in the proposed nudges from Thaler & Sunstein: every nudge implies a ‘good’ way of living one’s life. This seems to be in opposition to the liberal character of our societies and one of the core values of liberalism; what is considered a good life is left to the individual to figure out.
Verbeek hence argues that it is better to accept that technology steers us in all sort of directions and that we better come to grip with this reality. If we do this, we can have adequate democratic control over the choice-structure and can debate the undeniable consequences of the
implementation of certain technologies, rather than maintaining the illusion of complete autonomy in a technological age.
2.6 Application to case-study
It hence seems that whatever notion of human autonomy or freedom one may have, technology is all around us and influences most of our behavior. Morality is all around us in the form of
steering technologies. The Kantian approach, with its emphasis on rational capabilities of people for determining their own actions, therefore seems somewhat idealistic or perhaps even slightly delusional when confronted with our technologically mediated everyday practices.
Furthermore, the possible objections from the moral approach of Kant to the self-driving car would be that introducing such technologies would eliminate the possibility of people to act in a moral way all together (as discussed in 3.1). The question is if this objection could possibly be a legitimate reason for not introducing the self-driving car. This would have as its consequence the continuation of 1.2 million people dying and 50 million people being injured each year from car accidents (WHO, 2004). While it is expected that there are perhaps a few die-hard Kantians who would agree to these terms, more reasonable Kantians would have to agree that the elimination of the moral agency in the specific context of traffic (driving a car), does not outweigh the possible prevention of millions of deaths. They would have to eventually, just like their utilitarian counterparts, agree to these terms.
Secondly, it is precisely this context that makes the Kantian arguments less feasible for application. While it is easily defensible to object to certain kinds of paternalism (in whatever form) when it comes to individual life decisions that only affect that individual, it becomes much harder and perhaps even ridiculous, when the form of paternalism is implemented in the context of public traffic whereby a wrong or bad choice could lead to the destruction of the lives of not only yourself, but others as well. These arguments combined with the realization that we are all influenced by technology on a daily basis (and hence are not usually the inventors of our own actions), makes the possible Kantian objection to the self-driving car quite weak.
13 3: Society, culture and the individual
“The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear – fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety.”
- Henry Louis Mencken.
The classical discussion between deontology and utilitarianism just discussed creates an interesting framework for analyzing potential approvals and objections to the self-driving car. However, as I will describe below, there are many more factors that need to be considered and not all fit within the classical framework of deontology versus utilitarianism. In the following pages, I will attempt to predict possible objections or obstacles to the implementation of self-driving cars. I will be as realistic as possible while trying to maintain a bold look towards our inevitable technological future. There are various modern topics that simply must be addressed when confronted with self-driving cars. These topics are divided up in three separate categories: psychology (3.1), society and culture (3.2), and equality (3.3).
3.1: Psychology: Fear and phobias
There are many reason for experiencing fear of getting on an airplane. There are various factors involved, such as fear of crashing, confinement (claustrophobia), heights and lack of control (Foreman et al, 2006: 70). They are simply passengers or passive observers and if anything goes wrong, they can’t do anything about it. Even if one does not have an actual fear of flying, this potential reason for certain phobias is at least understandable. Interestingly, it should also apply to public transport, where one too depends on a driver or pilot of a transportation vehicle. In other words, certain psychological aspects come into play when there is a delegation of responsibility to someone or something outside of one’s own control. Not only can it cause phobias, it is also a matter of personal autonomy. To not be depended on somebody else for getting to work on time, might even be one of the reasons the modern auto-mobile is so popular. As can be expected, these fears and concerns will emerge when people get into self-driving cars. One has to delegate responsibility to the machine and basically put one’s life in the hands of a machine. This might be a very disconcerting thought for many people and could cause a lot of emotional distress. While this is a hypothetical situation, there are currently cases where similar decisions are being made and these fears are actually encountered. For instance, automated robotic surgeons are already being used today and someone might ask if he truly wants a robot to dig around in his or her body. Even if success rates are higher, it is understandable that people would still prefer a human actor (The Guardian, 2014).
But, while it might be understandable, acting on these fears and/or concerns, might mean that people refuse to get into a self-driving car which will mean a continuation of over a million deaths per year. The argument can be made that the concerns or fears of an individual do not outweigh the huge decrease in suffering. In this context too, it can be stated that emotional distress alone does not constitute a sufficient reason to prevent massive amounts of harms. However, the presented case-study is unique in a certain way: while fear of flying or even fear of
14
getting on an elevator can be (largely) avoided by taking other means of transportation (go via boat or taking the stairs), in the case of self-driving cars, no such alternatives are available. The concerns or fears people have of putting their lives in the hands of a machine, will be a real problem when the self-driving cars are introduced. However dramatic this may sound, fear remains a poor advisor. Just like with fear of flying or any other type of fear, there are plenty of treatment options available that show great promise (Foreman et al, 2006: 69-71). In addition to the treatments, it will be incredibly reassuring to know that this self-driving car has far less (or no) chance of crashing when compared with normal cars driven by humans. When looking at the numbers in a rational way, overcoming your fear will, in a future with self-driving cars, be a matter of life and death. All we can hope is that the field of psychology and psychiatry will continuously make progress in the research and treatment of fear and phobias.
3.2: Culture and evolution
Human progress is always accompanied by something that is left behind. By deciding to do something different, one abandons a previous way of doing doings. In other words, certain traditions and its associated value-system loses some of their value within that culture. Viewed in this way, progress could actually mean the elimination of a certain tradition, a certain way of doing things. Some of the modern technologies have had exactly this effect. Some examples are the disappearance of the elevator man when the automated elevator was introduced (New York Times, 2011) and the huge reduction in people who would copy entire books by hand for distribution with the introduction of various printing machines (Eisenstein, 2005). In order to fully understand this complex phenomenon, a more broader perspective has to be adopted. Those educated in evolutionary biology or psychology will be familiar with the line of thought that is required to understand the cultural, psychological and social effects of new technologies. Let me propose to view the human being as a creature that inhabits X amount of capabilities. From an evolutionary point of view, the fact that our X capabilities is higher than all other known animals, gives us a higher chance of survival since we have more ways of adapting to new and changing circumstances. Now, there is a direct correlation and causation between the developed capability and the specific circumstance. Out of the total amount of human
capabilities, a certain set is ‘chosen’ through adaption to our physical and social environment. While taking thousands of years on a natural and genetic scale, this type of adaption happens on a daily basis on the social and material level. We grow up with specific material and social circumstances that eliminate the stimulus for the development of a specific capability. This process has been accelerated by the industrial revolution. The reason for this is technology and its inevitable consequence: automation. While the early technologies in the 18 and 19th century were only responsible for partial automation, the technology in the 20th and the current 21st century show the potential to fully automate certain human activities. But, to adequately analyze the potential effects of the introduction of the self-driving car, we only have to look at the effects or consequences of the technological mediated and partially automated activities of the past. If this framework is used for further analysis, the problems and effects of new technologies become
15 apparent.
The introduction of new technologies has tremendous effects on traditional ways of doing things, as mentioned above. The cultural effects are hard to predict in detail, but a general pattern becomes very obvious when studying the cultural effects of technology in the past. First, the inevitability of the adaptation of the specific technological artifact when accompanied by
efficiency. In my opinion, this inevitability appears to stem from a weird combination of laziness and a drive to not do monotonous, mind-dulling tasks if not absolutely necessary. Why walk three hours to a local pond to get fresh clean water when you can simply use a water tap in your home? No person would in their right mind still opt for the three hours long walk. The fully automated filtration system that provides houses with clean water in most of the western world makes the walk obsolete. The tap is more efficient and allows one to spend time on other things. The capability (and training) of long-distance walking is no longer required and subsequent generations will no longer have a stimulus to develop that particular capability. A possible negative consequence of this development could be an increase in obesity. This example is a simple one, but things get more complex when a certain way of doing things is associated with a lifestyle and requires life-long training, which leads us to our second point: the loss of a specific lifestyle associated with a way of life or value-system without the technological artifact.
As mentioned earlier, before the invention of the printing press, medieval monks would train for years to be able to quickly and adequately copy books by hand. Their lifestyle was strongly associated with their work, spending day after day rewriting books. They mostly lived in monasteries wherein they could maximize their output. With the introduction of the printing press, their work became obsolete. The sudden appearance of this marvelous machinery must have been a shock to them and thus their lifestyle. There work and lifestyle were no longer efficient and no longer required. The important thing to note here is the following: with the disappearance of their lifestyle a certain capability was lost as well. Their material and social circumstances were organized in such a way that the skill set of being able to perfectly copy books by hand was no longer trained, rewarded or necessary. A more recent example in the same context is the introduction of typewriters (and later computers), which made handwriting itself (partly) obsolete. Not only is it faster, it also allows for quick editing and ensures perfect readability to a broad audience. It is this same phenomenon and context that has contributed to the fact that poetry nowadays is considered an art form, not a useful tool for memorizing certain books. Poetry used to be extremely useful for memorizing passages because of the mysterious psychological phenomenon of experiencing pleasure (among other things) when words rime. The capabilities and their associated lifestyles change or become obsolete because of technology. Because of the fast paced introduction of new technology, people can experience that some aspects of their training, education or lifestyle as a child become obsolete within their lifetime. In the words of the framework painted above; their capabilities and its associated lifestyle are no longer rewarded or stimulated and will most probably die out forever. This realization can cause a backlash, which is my opinion, is the fundamental cause of negative attitudes towards new technologies. The people who experienced joy or reward in doing things a particular way, now
16
see that technology makes that activity obsolete. They might hence see the new technology as an infringement upon their lifestyle or see it is a potential deprivation of the lifestyle for future generations. It is important to note that they might very well be correct in their assessment. The introduction of digital devices has had numerous questionable effects. To name just a few: the incapability of young people to remember phone numbers, the incapability of remembering appointments because a digital agenda will always inform you a day before or the extremely poor handwriting skills of millennials who grew up with computers.
3.2.1: Luddites, labor and loss of identity
While the capabilities approach described above provides an adequate understanding of possible negative responses to technology, it is important to note that there is one more conceptual distinction that has to be made. This distinction is between the loss of income or a job and the loss of identity and/or lifestyle. It is obvious that these two tend to overlap because our job and lifestyle are often closely associated. But the distinction becomes crucial in understanding the response to specific technologies. While a certain technology might be primarily opposed because of the negative effect it will have on employment opportunities (like truck-drivers), other historical examples (like the samurai) show that the loss of lifestyle is the main reason for opposition.
There are a few specific historical examples that show that is not just a resentment that can arise, but also full blown revolt. This revolt is often aimed at the advocate of a new technology or the technology itself. The famous Luddite Revolt in 1812 in England is a prime example. The introduction of new machinery made a group of laborers organize and eventually carry out attacks on factories and farms with the purpose of destroying machines that would automate their labor. This eventually became a full-blown revolt, a literal rage against the machines. The
assaults on the machines came about because of the workers experienced less jobs and/or income and saw their future in jeopardy. Their specific skills in handcrafting specific goods, which provided them with a satisfying life and a good income, was soon going to be obsolete. It should be noted that the Luddites were not against technology all together, but feared the new labor conditions in a factory or farm that would have partly automated production (Brian, 2014). The destruction of industrial machinery would quickly spread across England leading government to take aggressive and lethal action against the Luddites. New laws were implemented that would severely punish anyone that destroys industrial machinery.
What is interesting in this example is that it introduces the possible consequences of automation in the contest of labor relations. In an article by Gijs van Donselaar (2016) the Luddite Revolt is approached on a more theoretical level. In the article it is argued that wage labor and automation might very well be enemies of one another. Using two examples from Adam Smith’s famous ‘Wealth of Nations’ (1981 [1776]), he argues that wage laborers are no owners of their products and hence have no incentive to be creative or innovate any type of technology. Any type of technology that would automate part or even all of their job would actually be seen as something that must be prevented, rather than (as Adam Smith argued) encouraged. If the laborers were to innovate, they rob themselves of their own job. He summarizes his findings as follows:
17
It is perhaps a disturbing thought, but a workforce of wage laborers, just like a workforce of chattel slaves, is as good as lost as a source of human creativity and innovation. - Van Donselaar, 2016: 3.
He then shows that the possible natural inclination for self-improvement of wage laborers is actually countered in real life circumstances. If one laborer increase his production or even makes an invention (in the context of automated technology), he would receive praise by his boss and severe judgment and hostility from his peers because his co-workers are now either out of job or have to increase their production to keep their job. The creative or innovate worker, if he is really motivated by self-interest, would be better off not being innovate or creative at all. On top of all of this, it becomes abundantly clear that technology becomes a great nuisance to wage laborers and the Luddite revolt should perhaps have been predicated by Adam Smith.
Another great example has recently been made famous by a Hollywood movie named ‘The Last
Samurai’ featuring Tom Cruise. In this movie, it becomes obvious that the samurai, with their
lifelong sword-training, are slowly becoming obsolete because of new semi-automatic weaponry. This new technology means that they lose their position as skilled, advanced warriors that are feared by the entire country. Now, every non-trained civilian can best them in combat because of this new machinery. Not only does it mean their life-long training becomes less useful, they also realize that their tradition, which was predicated on the mastery of the sword, does no longer provide them with a differential advantage in society. The movie shows that they try to revolt and fail miserably.
3.2.2: Economy and automation
In the example of the Luddite Revolt, two aspects of automation are thrown together: the loss of income and the loss of identity and/or lifestyle. From a cultural point of view, the loss of identity is the aspect that causes most problems. From a more macro point of view however, the changes in the way our economy functions must also be discussed.
The mentioned cases are but a few examples of how technology and automation can produce enormous changes and thereby create conflict. Unfortunately we must admit that it is not far-fetched to say that there might be similar emotions towards the self-driving car. For instance, modern day cab-drivers will find themselves unemployed relatively fast. Bus, train and tram drivers will have to look at other employment opportunities as well. As a recent article in The Guardian showed, 3.5 million truck drivers in the United States will find themselves out of a job with the introduction of the self-driving truck (The Guardian, 2016). However, that is just the transport sector. Predictions about what jobs could possibly be automated in the near future are growing each day. Even professions which previously were considered to be un-automatable, are considered now as well. This even includes journalism; the first article written by a
robot/algorithm has already been published (The Verge, 2015). David Rotman (2013: 2-3) adequately describes the historical trends in the type of jobs per sector:
18
At least since the Industrial Revolution began in the 1700s, improvements in technology have changed the nature of work and destroyed some types of jobs in the process. In 1900, 41 percent of Americans worked in agriculture; by 2000, it was only 2 percent. Likewise, the proportion of Americans employed in manufacturing has dropped from 30 percent in the post–World War II years to around 10 percent today—partly because of increasing automation, especially during the 1980s.
While Rotman (2013) does point out that the exact cause of the decline in number of jobs and (human) productivity is still being discussed among economists, it is not hard to imagine that autonomous systems will take over many more jobs in the future. While he points out that demand for low-skilled jobs (such as waiters and chefs in restaurants) has seen an increase, it must be stated that in this industry as well, autonomy is rising: the first automated restaurant already opened in Germany in 2007 (Engadget, 2007). Many people in the Netherlands will also be familiar with the self-checkout machines in some supermarkets. Needless to say, automation marches on. What the exact consequences will be and if there will be enough jobs in the future is something that will only be answered in the near future. For now, we can only hope that the response will not be as severe as a full blown revolt, like with the Luddites. One way to prevent this potential suffering is to consistently point out the huge amount of positive effects automation will have on the public. However, serious action by governments must be required to provide the people with potentially obsolete professions with an alternative. Funding for schooling and/or job-training must seriously be considered.
3.2.3: evolutionary biology and paternalism
In addition to this insight, evolutionary biology also might provide valuable input on the nature and origin of our negative responses towards paternalism. In chapter 2, I have explained the problem of paternalism from a purely philosophical or moral point of view, but there is still more to be said. In the example of the professor with a unorganized office, he might very well agree that the room needs to be cleaned, but if somebody else does it, it still feels as an imposition and is likely to receive a negative response. From an evolutionary standpoint, two distinctive human characteristics can be described that are most likely responsible for this response, namely self-reliance (‘zelfredzaamheid’) and the evolutionary explanation of children’s development, specifically puberty.
Any parent will describe their children’s period of rebellion, referred to as puberty in the
literature, as quite sudden, surprising and difficult. It seems the children change dramatically in this period and try their best to resist or outright challenge their parents or caregivers authority. To be dependent on the knowledge and skills of your primary caregivers is to adapt to their world and their way of doing things. This way might very well be outdated and an increase in chances of successful adaption depend on adapting to the actual world, here and now. It would hence make sense from an evolutionary point of view, that children would not want to be bound
19
to their caregivers but rather explore the world themselves. This not only allows the children to adapt to the world here and now, but also puts them in an advantageous position later in life. This in turn increases their chance of survival and therefore rebelling against one’s caregivers, while difficult and perhaps painful for the caregivers, is in their evolutionary interest. It is in fact a training in self-reliance. The brain has mature in such a way to give rise to a new capability, namely to judge and think for yourself. Parents and caregivers are of course quick to point out that this judgment is not based on experience and are therefore often simply flat out wrong, However true that may be, it is probably in this aspect of development that children grow their negative emotions towards paternalism. In later years, this anti-paternalism still remains. The period of puberty might be over, but the willingness of self-reliance still persists.
In addition to this seemingly negative approach to rebellion, it should also be noted that the joy experienced by mastering or doing something on your own, provides one with a great source of (cognitive) pleasure. Watching someone doing something that is useful, beneficial or in any other way positive fills us with a will to be able to replicate that type of behavior or skill. The student wants to become the teacher, the child wants to become the parent. We should therefore take great care to not underestimate the negative feelings or attitudes towards paternalism instilled in almost, if not all, human beings. So too it will be when the self-driving car is introduced and perceived as a form of paternalism.
3.2.4: self-driving cars and popular culture
There is no doubt that when one assumes the self-driving car will be introduced, it will be followed by a huge cultural change. There is a massive car-culture with a subsequent enormous industry. Different models, functions, designs, looks are seen by some as incredibly important for expressing who they are and are therefore a big part in the lives of many people. The massive amount of magazines and television programs devoted to cars alone is mindboggling.1 The societal effects of the automobile are so huge, that entire books are dedicated to it (see for instance Kay (1997) and Jakle & Sculle (2004)). Even more mind-boggling is the fact that the auto-mobile industry managed to completely change our infrastructure to make way for cars. They used slick campaign strategies to push their products on the general public and because of these campaigns, we now consider the huge amount of attention and priority given to cars in the context of city planning as normal.
Peter Norton (2007) describes the proceedings and conflicts about streets in the early 20th century. Before automobiles, streets were occupied by (slow driving) city cars, horse carriages and, most importantly, pedestrians. This included playing children. It wasn’t long before
accidents started to happen, since the new automobile drivers were driving their cars at full speed in crowded streets. Because of the increase in accidents, the pedestrians became more and more outraged with the situation and started looking at ways in which the cars could be removed or
1 For a partial overview of TV-programs, magazines and forums devoted to cars, see
20
restricted on the streets. Norton (2007: 336-338) describes the intensity of the struggle between the pedestrians and the automotive interest with great detail:
Whatever the legitimacy of their claim to street space, the motoring minority had the power to drive pedestrians from the pavements. Fearful for their safety, nonmotorists learned to limit their own access to streets and to caution their children to look both ways before crossing. But regarding the car as intruder, they also sought long-term solutions in the strict regulation of automobile traffic. When such rules started appearing, and with more oppressive proposals on the horizon, automotive interests (or “motordom,” as they called themselves) discovered that their greatest danger lay in the prevailing social construction of the street. To secure an urban future for the car, they would have to win a legitimate place for it in the street and cast doubt on the legitimacy of those who stood in the way.
The pedestrians were mostly favored in court-cases by both judges and juries and the automobile drivers were almost by default seen as the party at fault. The pedestrians, mostly parents and/or guardians of children, and their advocacy groups even actively campaigned for technological solutions to limit the speed at which cars could drive. This frightened the ‘motordom’ and they even took out ads in newspapers urging people to vote against mandatory governors (see picture A).
One way the industry managed to eventually win the battle and claim the streets as a place for cars, is the introduction of the term ‘jaywalking’ (the closest translation in Dutch which roughly covers this term is ‘roekeloos oversteken’). While this term seems somewhat neutral to people from English speaking cultures in our present predicament; between 1900 and 1930 this term was considered highly offensive. A ‘jay’ referred to “country hayseed out of place in the city” (Norton, 2007: 342-343). In other words, a sort of oblivious (and thus blameworthy) hillbilly. The industry repeated this term in numerous discussions and it would eventually work so well that they would ensure that city planning has automobiles, rather than pedestrians, as their main priority. In addition to the introduction of this term, they also argued and marketed the car as a symbol of modernity, progress and later a symbol of freedom. The car as a symbol for freedom seems to have been a particularly effective marketing strategy in The United States of America and is perhaps one of the main reasons they are considered so important there. These marketing tactics in combination with their position to influence policy makers, made the streets into what they are today: streets for vehicle traffic and sidewalks for pedestrians.
This historical example is interesting for our case-study for three reasons. First, the example illuminates the massive influence of the car. Our entire infrastructure and city planning is based upon it. The example therefore also shows that with better organization of our infrastructure, made possible by the self-driving car, a lot of new opportunities arise. Just imagine how quick the discussions about broadening high-ways would end if traffic accidents (the main reason for traffic jams) would dramatically decrease. The money and energy traditionally invested in such projects would immediately become available for other purposes.
21
Secondly, it shows that change in public perception in how we organize transportation is certainly possible. The more conservative voices in society will see the self-driving car as an intrusion in the traditional way we organize transportation and will take the current
circumstances of the human driven car as their ‘normal’ or in some (other) cases as ‘natural’. This example clearly points out that the ‘normal’ is but a historical contingency and can
therefore change. Pointing this out to the opposition of self-driving cars, in addition to stressing that our streets might be filled with playing children again rather than an endless stream of steel cars, might help to sway them to embrace progress.
Thirdly, it perfectly illustrates the cultural change that has to take place before the successful introduction and acceptance of a new technology. In our current case-study of the self-driving car I would argue that here lies a opportunity for governments to act pro-actively. For, as I have described in the above chapters, it is obvious that the self-driving car will have tremendous effect on the functioning of societies who adopt this marvelous machinery. It must therefore be stated, that there arises a responsibility to educate the public on this coming changes and perhaps even organize the introduction and react to the possible input of citizens For to blindly introduce a technology without preparation is irresponsible and ill-advised, especially a technology that will dramatically change people’s lives. In order to adequately address the concerns of car enthusiasts for instance, these people must not simply be ignored and shamed, but must be enlightened about the futility of their persistence in their life-style. Not only does our democratic values demand this, it will also help to prevent a possible backlash (just like the backlash to automating
technology during the Luddite Revolt) to this technology. It is important to stress that therefore this educational project must begin before the introduction of the self-driving car, or at least right after the first couple of self-driving cars are on the road. While it might be unconceivable to some that a new kind of Luddite Revolt might occur in modern times, the massive change caused by the self-driving car, will be met with hostility from not just car enthusiasts, but also from people suffering from technophobia, the powerful car industry and even the oil industry (the self-driving cars are electric). In their collective rage against the machine, these groups will most likely find one another and create a powerful block that will do anything within its power to stop the self-driving car. And it is precisely this concern that provides an absolutely necessity for government and public intellectuals to start an educational program to ensure citizens are informed and aware of the positive effects of the self-driving car.
