XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Bernard Peek  wrote   
   > J. Clarke wrote   
      
   >>> Perfect application for a pod system. If your fridge forgets to order   
   >>> the milk you can just order it online. It should be delivered in less   
   >>> time than it takes to drive to the store.   
      
   >> Since it takes me zero time to drive to the store that I am passing on   
   >> the way from work, how will this help?  And how much will the individual   
   >> pod delivery add to the cost?   
      
   > That's certainly true now. With a pod system in place   
      
   I doubt it ever will be myself. We might well see robot cars   
   used but I doubt anyone will bother to spend the immense   
   cost to get a pod system going when robot cars can do it   
   fine and don't need any infrastructure at all.   
      
   > that local store probably won't be there, there wouldn't be enough trade   
   > to justify it.   
      
   Bet there will be.   
      
   We still have market stalls, essentially because they   
   have some advantages over supermarkets and shops.   
      
   > As to cost, the closest we have ti it right now is the postal system. So   
   > my best guess is that a pod delivery will probably cost about the same as   
   > posting a letter.   
      
   That's not going to happen given the immense   
   infrastructure cost involved with a pod system   
   that is in addition to what is already in place   
   for cars.   
      
   > Having all of your weekly groceries delivered in one shipment might cost   
   > twice that.   
      
   Its got to cost a lot more than twice the cost of posting a letter,   
   because of the immense cost of the infrastructure required.   
      
   >>>>> Hell, we already have   
   >>>>> approximations of this with companies like Amazon.  The main thing   
   >>>>> stopping progress on improved logistics are the dopes who keep   
   >>>>> thinking   
   >>>>> they need to drive everywhere in cars to do things manually.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The thing that is stopping progress is shipping charges.  It's cheaper   
   >>>> for me to go a half mile out of the way on the way home than it is for   
   >>>> the grocer to deliver.   
   >>>   
   >>> Of course if the grocer used self-driving vehicles delivery charges   
   >>> would be a lot less.   
   >>   
   >> Why would delivery charges be a lot less?  The gas to get from the store   
   >> to my house and back costs more than the milk.   
   >>   
   >>>>>> When I can park the plane in the lower level of a   
   >>>>>>> multilevel underground parking garage get back to me.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That one might be possible if a flying car can be a normal   
   >>>>>> car too. The cost of getting the wings stowed well enough   
   >>>>>> so it can operate like a normal car in the highest density   
   >>>>>> situations like a parking garage would be a real challenge tho.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Again, such a future is a fool's dream.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The flying cars currently in development in Israel can be parked in a   
   >>>> typical garage., so it's hardly a "fools dream".   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Like I said, if I work on the   
   >>>>> 20th floor, it makes no sense for me to have a flying car that forces   
   >>>>> me   
   >>>>> land it and park some distance away, walk to my building, and then get   
   >>>>> in an elevator to get me back up into the sky.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The car doesn't force you to do that, the building does.  You really   
   >>>> think that they're going to tear down the Empire State Building and   
   >>>> replace it with something that accomodates flying cars just for your   
   >>>> convenience?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> That's stupid thinking   
   >>>>> that fails to actually do the world building exercises that create a   
   >>>>> believable future.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, the "stupid thinking" is thinking that a city can be rebuilt   
   >>>> overnight at no cost to accommodate a change in transportation.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's true, which is why I have difficulty seeing the transition state   
   >>> between what we have now and what is technically possible with even   
   >>> today's technology.   
   >>   
   >> That's because you see "either/or", not "in combination with".  You see   
   >> "all cars are self-driving or no cars are self-driving" when the reality   
   >> is that self-driving cars for a long time will share the road with   
   >> regular cars and if they can't survive in that environment then they   
   >> will not be marketable.  You see "all cars are flying cars or no cars   
   >> are flying cars" and when the reality will be that some wealthy people   
   >> will have flying cars that share facilities with regular cars and that   
   >> the number will gradually increase as economies of scale come into play.   
   >>   
   >> Everything that is technologically possible is not beneficial or   
   >> desirable you know.  It is technologically possible to turn the entire   
   >> planet into a radioactive wasteland for example.  Just because we _can_   
   >> do something doesn't mean that we _should_.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)