Sorry Elon, Full Self-Driving Is Impressive But No Fun!

I have a 2023 Tesla Model 3.  It is my second Tesla and I have enjoyed owning them.  I particularly like the single pedal driving, the acceleration and the handling.  I hope that electric cars will eventually dominate the market, though it seems unlikely that gasoline vehicles will disappear given the challenges of battery range and charging.

Recently Tesla gave me a month of full self-driving capability.  They are clearly making an effort to get more revenue.  After my free month, they offered to let me continue using it for a subscription price of $99/month, or to purchase it for $8000.

 

I was quite excited to experiment with the full self-driving mode.  From a technology point of view this capability is quite impressive.  The military research agency DARPA held a competition (the Grand Challenge) in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in 2004 to spur development of autonomous vehicles.  No one was able to claim the prize that year, but in 2005 several teams successfully completed the course.  In 2012 DARPA altered the competition to be an Urban Challenge, and six teams were able to complete the course.

 

The sophistication of sensors and software and the sheer power of computation necessary to drive autonomously is mind blowing.  The first time I put in a destination and triggered the full self-driving mode it was quite exhilarating to watch and feel the vehicle move on its own - the wheel turning, the engine accelerating and braking, the turn signals going on and off.  It was highly entertaining for about 10 minutes.

 

Then the novelty began to wane and I noticed that the driving mode was quite conservative.  The car never exceeded the speed limit (understandably – who would pay the ticket?) and often went well below the speed limit as it navigated obstacles, other cars, pedestrians, sharp turns, limited visibility and all the other things that humans have to monitor and respond to while driving.

 

I checked the control part of my Tesla monitor and saw that I could choose ‘Chill’, ‘Average’ or ‘Assertive’ as the mode for self-driving.  I switched the mode to Assertive, but didn’t note much of a change other than a bit more acceleration after a stop.

 

I used the automated self-driving mode a few more times during my free month to demonstrate it to friends and visitors, but that was it.  It simply didn’t appeal to me.  I couldn’t imagine using it on a daily basis.  I would go mad from impatience!  It drives like the elderly person that I refuse to believe I will eventually become.

 

I suppose I can see it being useful for long trips when the fatigue of driving would be an incentive, but only if it were completely dependable so that you could do other things.  Otherwise the sacrifice in lost time due to its observance of the speed limit would not be worth the bit of relaxation you might obtain.

 

The technology may evolve over time to become closer to a normal driving experience.  But if you think about it, we humans are impatient creatures and most of us drive a lot more energetically than a self-driving vehicle will ever have permission to emulate.

 

Is this really the future of driving?  Personally, I can’t see it.  I would only use this feature if I were forced to.  It may one day be ideal for the elderly or those with disabilities or some form of Uber/taxi transport.  But as a means for getting from point A to point B on a daily basis I suspect that it would drive most people crazy.

 

Sorry to be such a buzz kill.  The technology is impressive, but the result is not.

 

Tyrannies of the Majority and Minority

I have heard people defend our electoral college process of choosing the president as a way to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority.  And recently, there has been much written about the tyranny of a small radical minority of the republican party, who have been able to stall or derail legislation.  What are the concepts behind these tyrannies and what can be done to limit the wrong that such tyrannies may do?

The USA proclaims itself a democracy.  This means that the people should dictate what the government does. In making decisions, a government either directly polls the people or does so through their representatives.  In general, the majority determines the decision.  The minority of people or representatives who voted against the decision may feel aggrieved, but if a decision must be made then it is only logical to follow the will of the majority. 

 

However, there may be situations where the minority may not only be disappointed but actually harmed or persecuted or significantly disadvantaged by a majority decision.  The challenge for government is to find ways to prevent this from happening while not allowing minority interests to acquire more influence or power than they actually deserve.

 

Where majority rule may err is when it is specifically targeting minority groups.  As long as the issues it addresses apply to all citizens, then it makes perfect sense to go with the majority.

 

One of the primary means for preventing tyranny or oppression is to establish a basic set of rights that even the majority may not violate.  Another way to protect minority groups is to have a judicial branch that evaluates laws and decisions on the basis of fairness and reasonableness.

 

To call the electoral college process a way to prevent the tyranny of the majority doesn’t make sense.  There is absolutely no reason why the majority should not choose the president.  The choice is impacting all citizens equally, and no minority is being specifically disadvantaged.  It is simply nonsensical to say that a minority of citizens should hold sway over the choice for president.

There is also the potential for the tyranny of the minority in government.  Powerful or wealthy special interest groups that represent a minority can play an outsize role in determining policies.  Also, small groups within the legislature can use various ploys to advance their minority views. 

 

There are safeguards built into our governing process that attempt to mitigate the potential for tyranny of the majority – filibusters, super-majorities, lobbying and PAC activities, and various other arcane practices.  But these seem to now be more likely to contribute to a tyranny of the minority.  For example, most of the country would like stricter gun control but a minority interest group prevents that.  The same is true for reproductive freedoms.

 

Alas, governing is a messy process and there is no perfect way to balance everyone’s interests.  This is one of the reasons that a constitution and form of government should evolve and not be set in stone.  As our society and the world change, so must also the way that we govern ourselves.  

Is The Decline of Religious Affiliation and Attendance a Problem?

In developed countries the decline of religious affiliation and attendance has been rapid over the last forty years.  When polled, an ever-increasing number of people describe their religious affiliation as ‘none’, and even those who still acknowledge some affiliation rarely darken the doorstep of a church or synagogue. In the USA only 30% of respondents say they attend church at least once a month.  In Europe it is much less – fewer than 10% in both France and Germany and all of Scandinavia.

There are numerous reasons for this decline according to studies.  Here are some of them:

• Trend away from doctrinal belief toward agnosticism and atheism
• Scientific and religious conflicts
• Church and priest/minister scandals
• Perception of hypocrisy in organized religion
• A decrease in existential insecurity
• Competing interests and activities
• Church-going has less cultural and professional relevance

The trend away from organized religion is lamented by religious authorities and by conservatives in the US.  Some argue that many of society’s problems – drugs, suicide, crime, sexual predation, etc. – are exacerbated by the decreasing role that religion plays in US culture.

 

This essay is meant to address two questions:  One, whether religion does indeed play a critical role in upholding morality and ethics in a society, and two, whether there are positive aspects of religious life – e.g. community, philanthropy, spirituality – that can be cultivated without the negative aspects of organized religion.

 

Societal problems such as drugs, suicide and crime plagued society long before the downward decline of religion.  In western Europe and Scandinavia, where there is almost no church attendance, these problems are not nearly as pronounced today as they are in the USA.  If religious practice were essential to moral and ethical development then it seems that Europe would have seen its problems escalate dramatically in recent decades, but that is not the case.

 

Moral and ethical values can clearly be taught independently from religious doctrine.  A social conscience and moral compass are to a great extent developed in childhood within a family.  Whether that instruction is associated with God, or with a general love and respect for humanity does not appear to make any difference in the outcome. It is my own observation both within my extended family and in society in general that moral and ethical individuals are equally distributed across religious and non-religious environments.

 

The forces that have the potential to prey on moral and ethical behavior – egotism, greed, lust, excessive ambition to name a few – are just as likely to seduce a religious person as an agnostic.  Anti-social and pathological behaviors are equal opportunity assailants.  Thus, it is my conclusion that formal religion is in no way a necessary pre-condition for a moral and ethical society.

 

There are, however, many positive historical attributes of religion that are perhaps more difficult to cultivate in a society where there is no common thread of cultural connection.  Churches, synagogues and mosques are places where community is created, where philanthropic projects are launched and where spiritual solace is nurtured.  Can society replace formal religious structures, generally burdened by a host of negatives – rigid doctrine, exclusivity, political intrigue, anti-science tendencies – with other forms of human interaction that offer similar salutary benefits without the negative baggage?

 

Human beings are social, and it is not much of a stretch to imagine a world where people come together in myriad organized and ad hoc ways to effect positive things.  From a philanthropical standpoint, organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, the Nature Conservancy and hundreds of others are completely secular, allowing anyone and everyone to address and actively participate in important issues and needs without relying on a religiously affiliated group.

 

There are also numerous means to create community without relying on a common religious belief or doctrine.  With modest effort people can find groups that address their own interests, hobbies or passions and establish very strong relationships and emotional support within those groups.

 

The more intangible subject of spiritual succor and solace might seem more difficult to recreate in non-religious ways.  But music, art, dance, meditation, yoga and many other activities have spiritual elements, and seeking out one’s own spiritual needs rather than subscribing to a formal religious prescription may end up being a healthier practice in the long run. Yes, it is also a more abstract pursuit (though all of spirituality is, after all, an abstraction), and it can lend itself to silly and even dangerous cults and other bizarre practices.  But spirituality is ultimately a very personal odyssey, and it is not really radical to advocate for a less corporate means of cultivating one’s spiritual life.

 

The decline of formal religion is not universal.  Many parts of the developing world are actually seeing an increase in religious fervor and indoctrination.  The accumulating dark clouds on the horizon of human affairs may cause some to retreat from more innovative approaches and return to the security of traditional religious fare.  Moreover, there are still many people even in the developed world who will never consider other paths to community and spirituality than their chosen religion.  But in my analysis, I find no danger in the rapid decline of religious affiliation and attendance.  We are, after all, an evolving species and our future has always depended on innovation and new ways of thinking.  

 

 

Road Rage and the Inevitability of Human Conflict

I am an impatient driver – not one of my better qualities.  The other day I sped up to pass a car on the right side and when I changed back into his lane the driver flipped me the bird.  As he drove behind me, I could see him yelling something and gesticulating furiously.  I hadn’t endangered anyone and he didn’t have to slow down.  In fact, he sped up when he saw that I was going to pass him.  He was just angry on principle, or perhaps because he has a lot of anger in him – a classic case of road rage.

Road rage is ubiquitous.  What does it tell us about people?  Much of the time road rage erupts after seemingly innocuous driving maneuvers.  For example, if one pulls out in front of another car and causes that driver to have to slow down a bit.  Or if one cuts in front of a car with less space than that driver feels is necessary.  Or even if one is driving slowly and another car wants to get by.  Most of the time road rage is not sparked by an unsafe or dangerous situation.  The reaction is generally wildly disproportionate to the cause.  

 

Why do we human beings get so angry in these situations?  There is an anonymity in driving that perhaps contributes to the often apoplectic behavior of a road rager.  With no one to moderate or judge our behavior, perhaps we feel free to liberate our inner demons.  Living under control in society and within a family may bottle up our frustrations and regrets.  In theory, driving alone in a car may be the perfect time to let loose and use the catharsis of road rage to purge our psyche.

 

But road rage doesn’t just occur when people are alone in their cars, and I would bet that only a minority of people are actually seized by the incandescent raving that one frequently sees on the roads.  No, I believe that road rage is an expression of a scarred human being, one who has some profound anger and frustration that lurks just below the surface, needing only the slightest perceived offense to gush forth.

 

But sadly, although a minority, the road rage people comprise enough of the human race to ensure the propagation of human conflict.  These are the same people who see every slight as a provocation to fight, who perceive signs of disrespect everywhere, whose first instinct in any conflict or disagreement is to lash out and go to battle.

 

None of us is psychologically untainted.  We all have our neuroses, fears, pet peeves, insecurities and deep-seated psychic idiosyncrasies.  But most of us don’t lose our minds when someone cuts in front of us and makes us slow down a bit.  Those who do are the first to escalate conflict, to rapturously call out the dogs of war.  It is the challenge of humanity to minimize the impact of the road rage contingent, recognize the signs of their damaged souls and keep them away from positions of leadership or authority.  Human conflict may be inevitable, but it can be contained.

Does Israel Expose the Hypocrisy at the Root of Most Liberalism?

Jewish people have long been the bedrock of American liberalism.  With their long history of persecution and their intellectual heft, Jews were the perfect vanguard of social and political efforts to create a more equitable world.  They formed a strong bond with the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed.  They were at the forefront of communist and socialist theory, the development of worker unions, the fight for civil rights, gay rights, abortion rights and other liberal crusades.

But when it came to finally achieving their own homeland in Palestine after the horrors of the holocaust, the Jewish diaspora found it impossible to reconcile the obvious injustice of their seizure of land from the resident population with their own fervent desire for a Jewish state.  So they did what human beings always do when confronted by their own hypocrisy – they rationalized.  On the subject of Israel, many Jews simply abandon their liberalism.

 

The Jews are not alone.  Most of us liberals are hypocritical to some extent.  We argue and fight for social justice until a housing project is planned for our neighborhood.  We celebrate public education but send our children to private academies.  We call for equal opportunity but do not hesitate to pull strings to get or give jobs.  We criticize income and wealth inequality but feverishly protect our bloated salaries and tax loopholes.  We lament the homeless problem but move our offices and homes as far away from them as possible to minimize our discomfort.

 

Lest I appear to be hypercritical of liberalism and supportive of conservative accusations of hypocrisy, let me say that at least liberals have recognized the injustices in this world, even if they often do not have the courage of their convictions.  Conservatives, on the other hand, perform logical and analytical gymnastics to avoid even confronting those injustices.  They lash out in deep-seated guilt with accusations of class warfare and naivete.  

 

Human beings are understandably selfish creatures.  Evolution will surely have bred into us both a tribal or communal need as well as the primal urge to look out for number one.  When blessed with good fortune, very few among us will willingly sacrifice to even the playing field.  We are passionate in our battles over abstract concepts and goals, but far less resolute when the practical realities of our ideals begin to threaten our own comfort or position.

 

The tribal instinct that nature has imbued us with is typically quite narrow, limited to our family or group of friends.  By the time warriors confront death and sacrifice on the battlefield, it is their comrades they will fight for, not the nation or the ideal.

 

There are of course Jews who wish to have the Palestinians share all of Palestine with them (the true meaning of ‘from the river to the sea’) and commit themselves to that cause, just as there are many liberals who are ready to make substantial sacrifices of their time and treasure for the ideals they have embraced intellectually.  But most of us are only willing to move incrementally and cautiously toward a more just world, rarely jeopardizing our own good fortune and status.  

 

Does that make most of us liberals hypocrites?  Perhaps, but we are only human and we live in a complex and broken world that does not lend itself to simple solutions.  We must all recognize the lurking hypocrisy and strive to do better.

The Voting Gap and Why Increased Wealth and Income Taxes Will Never Occur

Supposedly Jesus said ‘the poor will always be with us’.  If he did indeed say that (direct quotes that are written down 60-100 years after the fact are somewhat suspect) it is unlikely that he meant that they will remain poor because of voting disparities.  But today’s income and wealth disparities can at least partly be attributed to exactly that.

In the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections 67% percent of people with incomes over $100k voted, as compared to only 33% of people with incomes under $20k, who make up about 21% of the population.  This is an enormous difference.  If one makes the reasonable assumption that poor people will tend to vote quite heavily for candidates who will work toward higher taxes and more infrastructure to support the middle and lower classes, then this disparity in voting has a dramatic impact on our sociopolitical situation.

 

The situation is slightly better for presidential elections, but there is still a wide disparity in voter turnout as one goes up the income axis.  The graphs below show different estimates of voter turnout for several past presidential elections.

There has always been a strong distrust of true democracy in our country by more conservative groups. Initially, only white male property owners could vote.  Over time the vote was extended to all white males, then to black and white males, then finally to females.  But with each extension efforts were made to limit voting by groups with lower income and/or less education or based on racial codes.

 

Those who remain suspicious of truly universal suffrage argue that lower education levels or a lack of civic responsibility in the lower classes precludes them making thoughtful election choices.  Whether this is a sincere argument or a subterfuge to mask a basic political strategy of limiting voting by lower income groups is of course an interesting question. 

 

Why is there such a large disparity in voter turnout?  The right would argue that it is because these lower income voters are less conscientious citizens who lack the motivation and discipline to vote.  The left would argue that there are enormous obstacles to voting when one is poor – transportation, absence from work (elections are held on workdays), registration hurdles, etc.- and that these obstacles are purposely placed by those who fear a larger voter turnout.

 

One of the great failures of the left in the last 30 years has been its inability to strengthen the middle and lower classes when in power.  This has led to the flight of many of those voters to the populist politics of the republican party and Trump, aided in part by the culture wars that have been waged by the right.  This has also led to apathy among some groups of voters, who do not see any hope for change and thus lose interest in the election process.

 

Whatever the reason for the voter turnout gap, I would argue that the only way for a more egalitarian society to emerge without revolution is for voters at the lower end of the scale to be mobilized.  I am not optimistic that this will occur simply because the history of voting in the USA does not give any compelling reason to believe things will change.  If a way could be found to make people aware of the impact that a change in voter turnout could have, then perhaps lower income voters would respond.  But that type of analysis is difficult to get across (shades of Ross Perot and his charts and graphs!).  Still, it would be worth a try.  Slinging mud is definitely not working!

History Repeats Itself in Palestine

There is nothing new under the sun in the way of tragic human conflict.  What is happening today in Gaza and throughout former Palestine is similar to so many events in the past.   There is little hope for reconciliation and the violence and heartache will likely continue for many years to come.

One sad parallel is the colonization of the USA.  People yearning to escape persecution or economic hardship (and also plenty of opportunists) come to a new land.  There are people already inhabiting the land, but the new people believe it is their right to take at least some of the land because the current occupants are ‘under-utilizing’ it.

 

The new people assuage their consciences (when their consciences are in distress at all) by making agreements that allow the other people to continue to use some of the land.  The former occupants react with anger and unmitigated hatred, attacking the new settlements, and in some cases, committing rape, torture and mutilation.  The new people, whose military might and resources are vastly superior to those of the former occupants, respond with a bloodlust that knows no bounds, vowing to exterminate their enemies, whom they no longer regard as human.  They justify further encroachments on the land and wipe out whole villages indiscriminately.

 

Sound familiar?  The use of the word colonization in referring to the current situation in Gaza and the West Bank has been condemned by Israel and much of the United States, but I don’t see how one can interpret the events in any other way.  The Zionists who established the state of Israel were well aware of the conflict they were creating and expected to eventually claim all of Palestine.  

 

In the wake of the horror of WW2, the tragedy of the Palestinians being forced to give up their land for a persecuted and traumatized Jewish diaspora didn’t seem particularly harsh to Western sensibilities, especially when compared to the long history of rapacious Western colonization.  But it was still unjust and tragic.

 

I don’t see a long-term solution of any kind.  Israel has severely damaged its moral status in the world, even if it still can count on military and diplomatic cover from the USA.  The disproportionate killing of 30,000 Gazans, most of whom are women and children, will no doubt create ten new recruits for every Hamas fighter and leader they have eliminated.  Israel will have less peace rather than more.

 

Hamas accomplished its goal – putting the Palestinian question back into the public eye and probably killing the trend toward Israeli/Arab détente in Saudi Arabia and other gulf states – but in doing so they may have made the fate of the Palestinian people even more precarious than it was before.  And sadly, the October 7^thattacks seem to have unified the Jewish population in refusing to consider future diplomatic overtures and sharing of the land. 

 

The tragic dynamic of human conflict is that violence begets more violence and hatred is long-lived.  Justifications of the Israeli and Palestinian causes and arguments about who is right and who is wrong become moot and there is little hope of avoiding a bitter future of attacks and reprisals.  I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I am.