http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/should-banks-be-worried-about-apple-pay.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/26/uber-google-lyft-ford-volvo-self-driving-car-lobby
Two links addressing different issues but sharing a fundamental attribute issue regarding technological change and society. Something I have wanted to blog about with an idea and these two links appeared today to induce this blog entry.
Technological advancements and the social changes that came with them have generally been welcomed by society, with a little help from advertising promotion that usually focuses on the words newer and better to push the product that is then readily pulled by the public buying it.
What links the two links? Cars and payment methods have something in common. They changed our society, our social structure. They were promoted and wanted by the public. Technology has been an easy sell. It not only changes the way we live but the nature of our society as a function of the democratic concept of voting with our consumer dollars.
Technology created things with an approach to make technology useful, beneficial to the way we live by making things "people friendly". It was easy to love something designed to serve us.
Maybe there is a tipping point here where society has to be managed to serve the technology?
That is the point of this. Change related to technology will be pushed on society to the benefit of those that are selling it and profiting from it. It will be pushed on society by laws dictating social change.
Putting driverless cars on the road will require some degree of technological compliance in the operation of current cars. A burden will be placed on the ownership of current vehicles to comply with certain requirements dictated by the operation of driverless cars. Current cars already have ODB2 installed except for very old cars. There maybe some degree of retrofit required. Not a change that owners will seek or welcome unless it can be done in the name of public safety and saving lives and property.
Seat belts were a low tech change that had an impact on social attitudes. Done in the name of safety there was a reluctance to wear them until they become the law that legislated social change to wearing them.
Awareness of other people driven cars to driveless cars and vice versa may be a barrier to getting driver less cars on the road on a large scale. It is probable that there must be some legislated change to existing vehicles to have some form of broadcast identification for two way identification as well as some degree of mechanical control of people driven cars to the extent that it can be done by adding dongles to existing OBD2. The big industry players in this situation will simply lobby to get the necessary legislation.
How will the American public react to being forced to comply with a safety requirement that necessitates retrofitting equipment that is mandatory for safe operation of driver less cars on the road? Just how far can the justification that it will save lives go in making this happen? As far as something that is more easily doable right now as having a mandatory device to measure alcholol levels to save lives by prohibiting vehicle operation? Why don't we have that? No profit in it maybe. There is big profit in driver less vehicles.
Payment method is likewise something that technology would change but acceptance of the technology may require more acceptance than society wants to give it and therefore may be legislated by forces that profit from it.
Technology has been an easy sell. Perhaps this is a tipping point for technology where it must become a hard sell for some greater benefit like safety or profit. Likely mostly profit. A hard sell by legislation mandates.
Prohibition was a legislated mandate. Not tech driven but the prime example of forcing social change through legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment