Clean Disruption
 

Just watched this interesting video by Tony Seba. I don't know about his date predictions, but his S-curve predictions of adoption of technology seems reasonable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0

He makes good points in all of his disruption videos with a basis from historical technology disruptions. Transportation and energy is going to change dramatically when you can call for a self driving car to come get you any time you need a ride. Less money for car dealers or insurance companies and banks. Sweeping trickle down effects.

An excellent video. And he is not the only clever man who is predicting the same.
This one is equally predictive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWJcpesr6A&t=959s

Lots of talk. Eventually one of them will be right. It's like monkeys and typewriters.

One point that stuck with me is that nearly everyone attempts to forecast the future by carrying out current trends into the future with a linear graph. For example, here is a natural gas consumption graph from EIA which shows a steady increase in consumption through 2040.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/im...05.26/main.png

As Tony pointed out, successful technology is adopted on an S-curve, which makes prediction especially tricky since there is a long period of slow adoption followed by very rapid adoption.

Any rate of increase or decrease is ultimately unsustainable. I wonder how much lower the cost of PV and battery production can go before reaching the limits? Then again, if the future involves robots doing the vast majority of all work, then the cost of most goods should approach $0.

The predicted decline in gas used for electrical production is a few years too early on that graph. We are closing down gigantic (compared to annual output of solar farms) nuclear generators right and left and replacing them with gas. And new coal.

Why? Is a self-driving car fundamentally different than a taxi? If you're an urbanite, you have access to taxis and public transport already. If you're a non-urbanite, it's going to take a while for that self-driving car to arrive, and you may prefer not to waste that much time - not to mention that there are lots of places where calling is not an available option :-)

The most expensive part of running a taxi, for a large firm, is paying the driver's wages. If you don't have a driver you can half your costs, which allows you to drop your fair. That in turn makes your service much more attractive.
Public transport runs well below capacity for most of the time (I was a bus driver for Stagecoach). The fares collected only go a little towards the cost of providing a service. If it wasn't for government, and local government subsidies, most services would be withdrawn.

...and there's no ribbon in the typewriters.

Wait, who authored those atrocious "Planet of the Apes" movies?

Autonomous ride sharing and car hailing will be much cheaper than taxis or car ownership. Cars that are on the road will be in more constant use. by a factor of 10 at least. That means there will be less cars being made, sold, and parked. Huge disruption. Just around the corner. Get ready or get left behind. The ride sharing will be much more efficient than a bus since it more or less goes directly to your destination in a six passenger electric vehicle. Like a custom route which is constantly evolving. With a couple stops to let a person off or another person on. All coordinated from everyone's smart phone.

Probably these guys.

When my wife was accepted to PA school at OHSU in Portland, we had to figure out how to get her the 15 miles to school every morning and then back again. It's a trip that takes 20 minutes, unless you're trying to get there at 8am when school starts, in which case it takes an hour. Traffic back in the afternoon is even worse, perhaps 70 minutes.

We tested the bus route one morning to see what that would be like. This would free my wife up to study or relax instead of the 2hrs being wasted. She had the option to walk about 1/4 mile to a bus stop, which would then take her to the transit station where she would get on another bus. That adds about 20 minutes to the ride, or you could just drive the 1.5 miles to the transit center, park the car, and get on the bus. We drove to the transit center rather than spend the extra time.

From there, it makes several stops before needing to get off and catch another bus. This required a 1/4 mile walk. Once there, we waited about 15 minutes, which was about 10 minutes behind the posted schedule. In talking to others waiting for the bus, they said it never runs on time.

It took 1:15 after driving to the bus transit center to make it to class, with a good deal of walking and standing around waiting. If anything doesn't go to plan, you're late for class. The cost is $125/mo.

My wife ended up splitting an apartment in Portland with a classmate, and I brought in 2 roommates to defray the cost (which I still have).

Public transportation sucks and is a last resort, probably only useful for tourists who don't have rental cars. Bus routes can't survive much longer, thank goodness.

My grandson went for his usual train to go into Edinburgh for a exam at the local university. The trains were cancelled. By the time he got there the exam was started and he was refused entry. He had to resit which delayed his graduation.
I avoid public transport like the plague, and that is even after the Scottish government gives me free bus travel because of my age!

HISTORICAL IRONY - Benito Mussolini's only benefit to Italy was his "...trains run on time."

So? It's not (from my admittedly limited experience) all that expensive now. It's not the monetary cost, it's the time spent waiting for the thing to arrive.

WRT public transit, I have to admit my only extensive experience was with the Swiss system, which seemed to work pretty well.

The plans are to have the ride at your door in under 5 minutes (seen some business plans where if it doesn't arrive in that time your ride is free - like pizzas). My flat is that far from the kerb as it is. It takes me that long to get to my own car! So you call it, stick on your coat, pick up your keys, and it's there.
And yes, the Swiss rail system is exemplary, but that is the exception that proves the rule.
I love driving and love my car, but would be hard pressed to own one if I could enjoy all the benefits for less than half the price.

Well, maybe that works for urbanites :-) But it takes me ~20 minutes to get from my place to where there are more than a few scattered houses. And I live way too close to town - a consequence of needing high-speed internet for work. I have friends that live a lot further out.

And that's only the starting from home end. Many of my car trips take me to trailheads &c that are a long way from anywhere, and often don't have cell service. So I'm supposed to call (if I can), and wait an hour or two? And is the autonomous vehicle provider going to be willing to send its expensive asset down a rough dirt track?

Obviously, things are rarely 100%. We still have people who commute on horse, despite cars being dominant the last hundred years.

Your need of high speed internet for work is testament to the disruptive nature of technology. Some people aren't able to get high speed internet due to where they live. Regardless, the internet has changed life for most people.

Technology will still be disruptive, even if it doesn't directly change the way you choose to do things. Try viewing the world through a different lens than your own. You might even win friends and influence people in the process.

And why wouldn't they have off road EV's in an area like that? If the Nissan Leaf can take part in the Mongol Rally, why not.

I've noticed a lot of people arguing the rare hypothetical scenario lately, and somehow arriving at the conclusion that if an unlikely bad thing is possible, then we shouldn't embrace the new thing. Another argument is that since things haven't worked out in the past, they won't work in the future.

Here are some equivalent arguments:

Sometimes toasters burn people and cause fires - Ban toasters
Sometimes people wreck their cars on icy roads - Ban driving on icy roads
Some people don't use cruise control - remove the option for all people
Solar energy has historically has not been economically viable - solar energy will never be economically viable

The thing is, successful things have always failed... until they succeeded.

7.5 Billion people in the world. Headed for 11 for sure. At least. And every one of them wants to get where they are going.. And eat... Can people in spoiled countries please try to wake up and see the big picture past their front porch.

When you're at the front of the 'pack' you seldom worry about those at the rear, the stragglers for a reason: "out of sight, out of mind." :confused:

What exactly are you proposing?

Technology has improved living conditions for the poorest, too. I foresee a future where starvation drops to near zero, and nearly everyone has access to clean water.

In fact, environmental quality has generally improved as time goes on.

Autonomous vehicles stand to benefit the poor the greatest since it vastly reduces transportation cost and time.

Most everyone lives better than kings of 200 years ago.

Finally, the overpopulation "problem" will have the opposite underpopulation problem in the near future. Estimates do show population peaking about 2100, but then declining from there.

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conten...-1950-2100.png

Japan already suffers the problem of declining population:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...e_1872.svg.png

World food supply per capita over the years:

https://ourworldindata.org/wp-conten...rld-Region.png

How about the history of world poverty?

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/i/...simplified.png

That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned for those still suffering, but it's clear that despite a growing population, a larger percentage of people are living better lives.

Cheap solar energy will lead to more fresh water from desalination. More water leads to more and better agriculture and more food.
The biggest cause of misery in the world is man's inhumanity to man. War is the biggest thing we have to stop. Even areas where people are starving it is war that is the underlying cause.

Pretty much the other way around. Climate change and starvation caused the war in Syria. Inequity of distribution of wealth is also a major cause in most other areas of conflict. Along with strict adherence to age old religions.

I ask again, what are you proposing?

The bloodiest war in US history was the result of states rights vs human rights.

WWI and WWII were the result of fascism.

The Syrian war is the result of the Arab Spring, and the resulting violent opposition by al-Assad. That is a political climate change, but has nothing to do with a change in weather.

Wealth isn't much dependant on weather anyhow. Rather, free commerce in a relatively uncorrupt political environment is the most important factor in creating wealth.

Religion caused the war in Syria. Alawites against Sunni. Prior to 2001 Syria was a rich oil producing nation. Then came the civil war, which in turn let in ISIS. As for Climate Change, Syria is mainly an arid plateau, dry and hot. It always has been. Climate change has made no difference. Not since before the Pharaohs.

"A severe drought, worsened by a warming climate, drove Syrian farmers to abandon their crops and flock to cities, helping trigger a civil war".
.
Climate Change Helped Spark Syrian War, Study Says
.
Starving masses went to their president. "Give us food." He answered "I never liked you anyway, hurry up and die". Syrian war.
.
Most other current conflicts/ terrorism are over religion/ jealousy-redistribution of wealth.

Are there other wars that some scientists partially attribute to climate change?

The researcher himself goes on to say

Droughts don't cause war; only people cause war.

The Origins and Diffusion of Patrism in Saharasia, c.4000 BCE: Evidence for a Worldwide, Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern in Human Behavior*
by James DeMeo, Ph.D.**

Prior to Saharasia there wasn't any war.

Also according to the Electric Universe theory, Solar and cosmic radiation affect human health, mental well-being and even cognition.

Fascism was the result of WWI*, but WWII was a battle between the fascist and the Bolshevists. The commies won. But they were stopped** before they rolled all the way to the Atlantic.

Edit:
*and the Treaty of Versailles
**by Churchill and FDR (then FDR was poisoned and Truman dropped The Bomb)

I don't buy it. If there were no war, and pro-social matriarchy was the norm, then population would be exploding.

War has existed since the first 2 males encountered each other.

Native American tribes would war against other tribes. It's human behavior to form tribes and compete against other tribes. I don't find it surprising that a man shoots other men playing baseball because of a difference in politics, or that a man runs through a crowd of people with his car. I'm surprised it doesn't happen much more often, considering how easily we are given in to emotion.

War is not only brought about by desperation, but because that's what we do. The popularity of violent video games is evidence of the appeal to be violent.

...and when I asked my grandfather if he enjoyed prosecution or defense more, he replied "it's a lot more fun to tear down your opponent's case than to build your own".

I think you're missing the point I was trying to make. It's not that the self-driving car on demand wouldn't work for a certain segment of the population (at least once the bugs are worked out); it's that it'd be an incremental change, not a disruptive one. To the user, it's no different than calling a cab. Maybe a bit cheaper or quicker, maybe causing unemployment among former cab drivers, but it doesn't fundamentally change things.

In internet terms it's the difference between having an internet (disruptive), and doubling my speed while cutting my monthly bill in half: doesn't really change things, just saves me a few bucks.

There's no reason there couldn't be 4WD/offroad EVs. The problem is that if someone calls for one from a remote location (assuming they can even get a cell signal), it is likely to take hours to get there.

The other problem is the same as I see with many acquaintances who buy fancy 4WD pickups and SUVs, yet never drive them off pavement (or carry significant loads) because they're afraid of scratching the paint. (Of course that's not everyone: some friends have a neighbor who drives his Tesla down the steep dirt road to their place, fords a stream, then climbs another steep bit of dirt to his cabin.)

Cain and Able?

Most people reject Saharasia because it validates Wilhelm Reich. He who's books were burnt (six tons!) and he died in prison.

If tribal life were 'red in tooth and claw' how did city-states arise in the first place? There would have to have been an era when cooperation was the norm. The theory is that for 6000 years radiating waves of misery have diffused through the cultures of the world. The final blow was the steamship and the final population were in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trobriand_Islands

Loan your Tesla model 3 out for ride sharing autonomously whenever you aren't using it to make money without even being there.
.
Tesla Model 3: do design features point to self-driving car-sharing service?
.

I wouldn't, but there again, I wouldn't rent my house out on AirBnB either.

I loan my car out for free all the time. Wouldn't mind making a profit.

Oh, long before that. Chimpanzees have wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

Would you realistically be able to charge enough to recoup the depreciation? Not to mention the risk of someone trashing the rich guy's Tesla.

Uber and Lyft drivers seem to think they are making money. And now you don't even have to be there. Just send your car all by itself.

They are probably driving cars that are a lot cheaper than a Tesla :-)

And not being there means you have no control over what happens to the car in your absence.