[ExI] saving lives

[William Flynn Wallace]

Texting while driving seems to be a prime example of adding biggish harm
externalities. Adding anti-text systems to cars on the other hand might
make it harder to call for help or break the rules when it is really
necessary.

Anders

Just to make this clear, if it isn't, the block on texting would come from
the phone carrier, not the car itself.  Apple owns the technology, and
could sell it to ATT and so on.

If there is an emergency, people can just call - no reason to need to
text.  And I can't see why voice-to-text could not be used - just keep
their hands on the wheel.

bill w

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> I think J.S. Mill got it right: society has a right to intervene when some
> activity is causing harm to others. Not lightly, and not without checks
> that it does work.
>
> Texting while driving seems to be a prime example of adding biggish harm
> externalities. Adding anti-text systems to cars on the other hand might
> make it harder to call for help or break the rules when it is really
> necessary. It is likely easier to use the logging functions of phones and
> phone systems to double the penalty if something goes bad, or automatically
> add a fine for messages sent by the driver, or something soft like that.
>
> Saving lives is not enough of a motivation: banning sick people from going
> to work or banning extreme sports would save a measurable number of lives
> per year, but make society less flexible and limit "experiments in living".
> We may still want to add soft pressures in terms of torts, insurance and
> safety regulations to keep people from causing too much harm.
>
> This is why I am somewhat worried about "algocracy", when we move societal
> decisions onto algorithms. Most algorithms are not very flexible, and hence
> limit how humans may act - especially since we internalize what we are
> allowed/able to do.
>
>
>
> On 2016-09-25 20:58, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
>
> Just what are our limits on interference with our private lives?  Today in
> the NYT, an article says that the technology exists to cut off texting
> while driving.
>
> Should they?  No question it would save lives of drivers, pedestrians,
> dogs and cats, and so on.
>
> Just another tromping on libertarians' rights to be let alone?  Actually,
> I agree with this one.  Drivers have a safe alternative:  they can talk.
> Or perhaps they can find a carrier who doesn't block texting.  I would not
> favor a law.  Parents could then have some control over the smartphone they
> paid for.
>
> On the other hand, to put it in the proper perspective, it would prevent
> many people from making the Darwin list of stupid deaths, and thus prevent
> cleaning up the genetic pool.
>
> bill w
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Anders Sandberg
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Oxford Martin School
> Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160926/69cfe58b/attachment.html>