Autonomous Vehicles & Ethics - the A.I. Trolley Problem and Socialism
Doug Hohulin
To Save 1 Billion Lives with AI, Exponential Blueprint Consulting LLC, President/Founder, When the AI System Has to Be Right: Healthcare, AV, Policy, Energy. Co-Author of 2030: A Blueprint for Humanity's Exponential Leap
Prologue
“These forces are trajectories, not destinies. They offer no predictions of where we end up. They tell us simply that in the near future we are headed inevitably in these directions.” - Kevin Kelly (p. 8)
Author’s note, all Kevin Kelly quotes in this blog are from his book: The Inevitable: Understanding the 12 Technological Forces That Will Shape Our Future. If you are interested in understanding the future, being better at your job, starting a new business, inventing new technology or just being inspired, I would highly recommend reading the book.
"It's likely in 20 years that we'll look back on those days when we gave a 17-year-old kid with less than 20 hours of experience control of a 5,000-lb. vehicle speeding along at 65 MPH as a somewhat insane practice."?Peter Diamandis https://www.diamandis.com/blog/upside-of-teslas-autopilot
“A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it.” —?Jean de La Fontaine as quoted by?Master?Oogway or when trying to make a viral video
"AI is a tool and not a person with emotions - Understand how to use AI in the right way or be disappointed or even die"
Tesla Autopilot Road Trip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqnJRo4FQNo
Introduction
“The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
I am working on smart city projects and connected / autonomous vehicles technology. I believe that transportation is about to fundamentally change. The next 10-20 years may be more transformative than at the turn of the 20th century when we went from the horse and buggy age to the automotive age. For more information on the technology being developed, see:
Connected & Self-Driving Cars - Transforming the Transportation Industry and Society?
I am part of a meetup group that discusses issues of science and philosophy. At this month’s meeting, there will be a discussion on Autonomous Vehicles & Ethics and the Trolley Problem related to A.I.
The following links highlight the issue of Autonomous Vehicles & Ethics
“A philosopher is perhaps the last person you’d expect to have a hand in designing your next car, but that’s exactly what one expert on self-driving vehicles has in mind.
Chris Gerdes, a professor at Stanford University, leads a research lab that is experimenting with sophisticated hardware and software for automated driving. But together with?Patrick Lin, a professor of philosophy at Cal Poly, he is also exploring the ethical dilemmas that may arise when vehicle self-driving is deployed in the real world. Gerdes and Lin organized a workshop at Stanford earlier this year that brought together philosophers and engineers to discuss the issue. They implemented different ethical settings in the software that controls automated vehicles and then tested the code in simulations and even in real vehicles. Such settings might, for example, tell a car to prioritize avoiding humans over avoiding parked vehicles, or not to swerve for squirrels.”
At the Autonomous Vehicles & Ethics Workshop Program 14-15 September 2015, they ask the question:
“What is the prime directive? Questions: Should the car obey the law first and foremost—or is the primary goal to avoid collisions, or to minimize net harm, or maximize total utility, or obey a set of conditional ethical rules, or something else? What if the ethical response is illegal, or the legally permissible (or obligatory) response is unethical? Is ethical design the same as functional safety? What are some scenarios to consider here and throughout the workshop, and do edge-cases matter? Is it hyperbole that cars may have to make life-or-death decisions?”
This article: “Should self-driving cars save passengers or pedestrians?” gives additional insight into the topic:
Two quotes are especially interesting:
“In one study, 76% of participants thought it would be more moral for self-driving cars to sacrifice one passenger rather than kill 10 pedestrians.”
“Accordingly, if both self-protective and utilitarian AVs were allowed on the market, few people would be willing to ride in utilitarian AVs, even though they would prefer others to do so,”
This link provides even more articles on the issues: https://ethics.calpoly.edu/publications.htm
The following video is a great overview of the problem and issues to consider:
CodeX | Autonomous Vehicles, Predictability, and Law
“On October 21, 2015, CodeX: The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics welcomed Harry Surden, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, to campus for a discussion on Autonomous Vehicles, Predictability, and Law.”
In this video, Harry Surden discussed the theory of mind and the challenge of how the A.I. in an autonomous vehicle (A.V.) can let the person know that the A.V. “sees him” and it is ok to enter the cross walk. With V2X technology, an A.V. can communicate with another A.V. to let the A.V. know its “state of mind” but how does the A.V. communicate to a person to let him/her know it is ok to get in front of the A.V.?
In Harry Surden’s talk, he mentioned that when elevators were first introduced, people were scared to get into them. Maybe that is why there were human elevator operators for so long to get people comfortable with the technology. Somewhat related to this: Google has a human in the driver seat of an A.V. even as the A.V. is doing all the driving.
Today, if an elevator door is about to close, people stick their hands in a closing elevator door even though the elevator has the power to rip their hand off if it does not sense the arm in the door. We have come a long way with humans being comfortable with technology.??It is important for technology to “see you.”??I See You [Theme from Avatar] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YDz-ftqr1g
Author’s note: I am a boater and all boats have a red light on the port (left) side of the boat and a green light on the right (starboard). As a captain, if you see a boat and you see a red light on the boat, the other boat has the right of way. If you see a green light, you have the right of way. Of course, not all boaters follow the rules – especially if alcohol is involved. A good captain tries to determine the state of mind of the other captain to make the right decision to minimize accidents.??
Autonomous Vehicles (A.V.) could include lights in the front of the car that give an indication of their “A.V. state of mind” and if the light is red, this gives indication that the A.V. is not recognizing a person is in front of them and hence the person should not step in front of the A.V. If it is green, this indicates the A.V. has “recognized” a person in front of them and the person can enter the cross walk. A.V. could also include a speaker that can provide an audible warning to a person if the car senses danger.
Here is an example of visual and acoustics vehicle to human interaction. Mercedes-Benz F 015 is working of such interaction. Here a link to video showing this in action.
Author’s note: when I lived and worked in Spain in the 1990s, I saw 220 volts bare wire from time to time. My piso / flat / apartment had light switches that you could see (and touch if you were not careful) the bare wire behind a plastic plate. I had a roommate – who would later become a lawyer - say: “America is safe because they had a good legal system.” I would not put my hand in a Spanish elevator in 1991 to keep it from closing.?https://elevation.wikia.com/wiki/Elevator_incidents
Author’s note: In my piso in Spain, the light switch (with the bare 220V wires) for the bathrooms were in the hallway and not inside the bathroom. I asked a Spanish coworker, “Why have the light switch outside of the bathroom?” He said the light switches are on the outside so you are not electrocuted when your hands are wet. My thought is why not design a light switch that does not electrocute you even if your hands are wet?
The Shark in the Lake Concern
I like to boat and surf in a lake in Kansas. Sometimes when a friend’s children comes out to boat, the children are afraid of the fish in the water. They are sometimes afraid there will be a shark in the water. When they express this fear (thanks to Hollywood), I think to myself: it is not the sharks that you need to worry about but the snakes – because occasionally I do see snakes in the water. I doubt the kids or the parents would appreciate this humor and so I do not express it.
The risk of a shark (or snake) hurting a person in the US is extremely low but yet, we fear and think about them more than we should (i.e. shark week). I think the A.I. trolley problem is like the shark problem.??Instead of focusing on the autonomous trolley switch problem and how to program “ethics” into A.V., we should focus on how to reduce the cause of a majority of accidents - human error. Also, technologies need to focus on making safer A.V. in general.
Author’s note: I do not like snakes that are not between me and a cage or someone else – same with sharks when I scuba dive. A friend of mine who studied snakes in college said there are no poisonous water snakes in Kansas but my guess is sometimes poisonous land snakes go into the water for a swim. To be fair, in all my 15 years of boating, snakes have never bothered me. I am sure my boat has bothered some of them.
The Cause of Accidents
The cause of auto accidents are highlighted in the following article:
HUMAN ERROR ACCOUNTS FOR 90% OF ROAD ACCIDENTS
Some key highlights:
“Road danger is a man-made crisis, with human error accounting for over 90 percent of accidents, said Bob Joop Goos, chairman of the International Organisation for Road Accident Prevention. …
“Ninety percent of our road accidents are related to bad driving behaviour — driving recklessly and speeding under the influence of alcohol, changing lanes without signalling, driving on the hard shoulder and passing through red lights. I can count 55 behaviours that control driving. If we can influence these, we can modify driver’s behaviour,” Lt Gen Dahi Khalfan, Commander-in-chief of the Dubai Police”
“Global Figures
?
Author’s note: The $3T number is higher than the entire GDP of the auto industry as shown below. Of course, auto accidents increase the GDP of Health, Insurance and Auto industry but that is not a good thing. Reminds me of Robert F. Kennedy speech that challenges the measuring of Gross Domestic Product. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY
In Chetan Sharma’s research paper: MOBILE 4TH WAVE: EVOLUTION OF THE NEXT TRILLION DOLLARS, he highlights the value of the top industries:
?
According to The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), most fatal accidents in the US are the result of speeding (27%), alcohol (32%) and male drivers (71%) in addition to poor planning, neglect, inattention to detail, stupidity, and lack of training – I guess you can call all this human error – except being male.?Technology should be about to help with all of these risk factors – except being male.
The CDC provides data on the causes of hospital visits and fatality.
They show the 10 Leading Causes of Nonfatal Injury, United States 2014, All Races, Both Sexes, Disposition: All Cases
Unintentional MV-Occupant 2,412,109 with the number one issue being Unintentional Fall 9,163,980.
Author’s note, being a surfer and snow skier, I have thoughts on how to minimize falling.
On June 30th 2016, Tesla Motors posted the following blog.
“We learned yesterday evening that NHTSA is opening a preliminary evaluation into the performance of Autopilot during a recent fatal crash that occurred in a Model S. This is the first known fatality in just over 130 million miles where Autopilot was activated. Among all vehicles in the US, there is a fatality every 94 million miles. Worldwide, there is a fatality approximately every 60 million miles.”
This tragedy highlights the need to continue to be focused on safety. If V2X technology was in place, this accident may not have happened.
Author’s note, this video is an example of abusing a safety feature. It is all fun and games until you get your head ripped off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sepgMNBUJY4??This video is another example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6wLTFuJYQs Flag football is much safer.
Levels of vehicle automation
NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels:
“No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle, and motive power – at all times.
Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.
Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation.
Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles.”
Video Cameras and Monitor Technologies
Kevin Kelly (p. 253) has a list that “tallies the kind of tracking an average person might encounter on an ordinary day in the United States.” A few of these items in the list that could lower vehicular human error are:
In the next few years, there will be a video record of most of the vehicular accidents and driving in general. I believe this will have a profound impact on insurance and minimizing accidents. At the very least, it will identify the bad or drunk drivers.
The near future of autonomous cars and other technologies to improve safety
I believe that over the next 5 to 10 years the following trajectories will take place in driving:
The question is how will we be using self-driving cars? A few examples:
Rush Hour by Fernando Livschitz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRPK1rBl_rI&list=PLG8LXbsNgfBqet-CyckRFmzzqVj0Z1leh&index=4
Autopilot on the Tesla X is so effective!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sepgMNBUJY4?Author’s note: given the recent accident, this video is not so funny.
Olli Self-Driving Electric Bus By IBM’s Watson And Local Motors – “which has a top speed of about 12 mph”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ObmmxunFNg
领英推荐
Benefits of Self Driving Cars
Along with safety, self-driving cars will let you spend the time commuting on other activities and you will have even more time as self-driving cars go the speed limit! A good article on this topic is:
How to spend the extra hour your self-driving car gives you
There may be an effort to restrict self-driving cars but I think this will be short lived. As Kevin Kelly has stated:
“Banning the inevitable usually backfires. Prohibition is at best temporary, and in the long counterproductive. A vigilant, eyes-wide-open embrace works much better. …
We can’t stop artificial intelligences and robots from improving, creating new businesses, and taking our current jobs. It may be against our initial impulse, but we should embrace the perpetual remixing of these technologies. Only by working with these technologies, rather than trying to thwart them, can we gain the best of what they have to offer. I don’t mean to keep our hands off. We need to manage these emerging inventions to prevent actual (versus hypothetical) harms, both by legal and technological means. We need to civilize and tame new inventions in their particulars. But we can do that only with deep engagement, firsthand experience, and a vigilant acceptance. We can and should regulate Uber-like taxi services, as an example, but we can’t and shouldn’t.”
IWPC and A.V. Technology Workshops and V2X Qualcomm Webinars
IWPC has hosted a number of 2-3 day workshops on A.V. technology where Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Audi, and other car companies have presented. Here are links to a few of the workshops.
Towards Autonomous Vehicles: Active Safety, Perception and Connectivity
Internet of Things - Exploring Market Drivers, Sensor Technology Innovation, and Future Network Architecture Demands for Vertical Market Use-Cases
Trends in Automotive Radar and Impact on System Architecture
Scalable Active Sensor Architectures - Technologies for Automotive Applications from NCAP to Highly Automated Driving
Here is a link of all the automakers that are part of this group
Qualcomm just gave a Webinar on V2X technology.
The path to 5G: Paving the road to tomorrow’s autonomous vehicles
“According to World Health Organization figures, road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people aged 15–29 years. More than 1.2 million people die each year worldwide as a result of traffic crashes. Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) technologies, starting with 802.11p and evolving to Cellular V2X (C-V2X), can help bring safer roads, more efficient travel, reduced air pollution, and better driving experiences.
V2X will serve as the foundation for the safe, connected vehicle of the future, giving vehicles the ability to "talk" to each other, pedestrians, roadway infrastructure, and the cloud. It’s no wonder that the MIT Technology Review put V2X on its 2015 10 Breakthrough Technologies list, stating: “Car-to-car communication should also have a bigger impact than the advanced vehicle automation technologies that have been more widely heralded.”
The Role of 5G & Cellular V2X in Enabling Tomorrow's Autonomous Vehicle
As you can see, there are a lot of dedicated engineers and technologists and business people working to make a safer world.
Difficult cases make bad law
Tim Ferris interviewed Malcolm Gladwell where he made the comment “Difficult cases make bad law”. I think is relevant to the Autonomous Vehicles & Ethics discussion and A.I. trolley problem. The ultimate goal of A.V. should be reducing overall accidents and improving safety. Focusing on rare cases will distract from this ultimate goal.
#168: Dissecting the Success of Malcolm Gladwell
“Why does Malcolm believe in the legal maxim of “Difficult cases make bad law?” [1:36:07]”
“Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. made a utilitarian argument for this in his judgment of Northern Securities Co. v. United States (1904): “Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance... but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
This video highlights that the rare case will discourage self-driving technology introduction that will hurt more people than it will help.
The social dilemma of self-driving cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBkQQ6czRJI
“Robust intelligence may be a liability - self-driving car to be inhumanly focused”
Kevin Kelly wrote (p. 42-43) a key passage that is relevant to this discussion.
“In the next 10 years, 99 percent of the artificial intelligence that you will interact with, directly or indirectly, will be nerdly narrow, supersmart specialists. In fact, robust intelligence may be a liability— especially if by “intelligence” we mean our peculiar self-awareness, all our frantic loops of introspection and messy currents of self-consciousness.
We want our self-driving car to be inhumanly focused on the road, not obsessing over an argument it had with the garage. …. What we want instead of conscious intelligence is artificial smartness. As AIs develop, we might have to engineer ways to prevent consciousness in them. Our most premium AI services will likely be advertised as consciousness-free.
We are notoriously bad at statistical thinking, so we are making intelligences with very good statistical skills, in order that they don’t think like us. One of the advantages of having AIs drive our cars is that they won’t drive like humans, with our easily distracted minds.”
Author’s note: while I have expertise in V2X communication and sensor technology, my understanding of A.I. programing, artificial neural network and machine learning is limited. As noted above, how machines will drive cars will be very different from how humans drive cars. There will not be an if/then/else programing statement about what is in the way and when to “drive off the cliff” or “run into people or things.” The artificial neural network will optimize for safety.??I believe that the safest technology and road systems will be when humans, computers, artificial neural networks and machine learning will be working together to optimize for safety.
Elbert Hubbard, “One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man” especially that leverages the power of a machine or computer! For more insight into this, please read the books:
?
For more info on sensors see the following webinar: “Sensors for drones and robots: market opportunities and technology revolution - Pierre Cambou, Senior Analyst, Yole Développement.??Drones and robots have slowly evolved beyond their military and industrial core markets and are emerging into mainstream applications. Join us for the webcast, and understand this trend ahead of the curve, learn about the key importance of sensors for drones and robots, to be able to spot the opportunities in terms of market and technologies.” https://i-micronews.com/events/webcast/eventdetail/191/-/sensors-for-drones-and-robots.html
Different Views on Socialism
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - popularized by Karl Marx
I found the article: How America Hates Socialism without Knowing Why – Evonomics interesting:
Specifically, this charts gives a perspective of how different countries view socialism by considering the tax revenue (% of GDP) vs social trust by country.
Depending on your background, you may view socialism as good, bad or neutral. Most people are glad the government supports the police, fire department, public safety, a basic safety net for the poor and road system to list of few things that most people want government to do. The challenge for socialism is that throughout history, extreme socialism has caused many problems. The French, Russian and Chinese revolution are great examples of socialism failing.
Author’s note: I understand that the reader could point out historical examples of the problems of extreme capitalism and greed that has caused many problems in the world. In all things, there is balance as we try to make the world a better place. “In philosophy, especially that of Aristotle, the golden mean is the desirable middle between two extremes, one of excess and the other of deficiency. For example, in the Aristotelian view, courage is a virtue, but if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness, and, in deficiency, cowardice.” Wikipedia
I am reading the book, The Fall and Rise of China by Professor Richard Baum University of California, Los Angeles. This book reminded me of what happens sometimes when an outside force tries to change the system for the better.
Consider Mao Zedong’s policies of:
These highlighted the failures of extreme socialism.
To balance this, consider the section from Robert Heinlein in the book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This is an interesting perspective of how to form a government.
"Gospodin President! Question of information! You said 'no involuntary taxation'--Then how do you expect us to pay for things? Tanstaafl!"
"Goodness me, sir, that's your problem. I can think several ways. Voluntary contributions just as churches support themselves... government-sponsored lotteries to which no one need subscribe... or perhaps you Congressmen should dig down into your own pouches and pay for whatever is needed; that would be one way to keep government down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be. If indeed there are any. I would be satisfied to have the Golden Rule be the only law; I see no need for any other, nor for any method of enforcing it. But if you really believe that your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it? Comrades, I beg you--do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is so worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
The Autonomous Trolley Problem and Socialism
These thoughts on socialism and forced taxation started me thinking that the Trolley problem and socialism is somewhat the same problem.?Given that most people will say it is better to intervene in some way that would kill 1 to let 5 live, Judith Jarvis Thomson gives another perspective:?
“Now consider a second hypothetical case. This time you are to imagine yourself to be a surgeon, a truly great surgeon. Among other things you do, you transplant organs, and you are such a great surgeon that the organs you transplant always take. At the moment you have five patients who need organs. Two need one lung each, two need a kidney each, and the fifth needs a heart. If they do not get those organs today, they will all die; if you find organs for them today, you can transplant the organs and they will all live. But where to find the lungs, the kidneys, and the heart?
The time is almost up when a report is brought to you that a young man who has just come into your clinic for his yearly check-up has exactly the right blood-type, and is in excellent health. Lo, you have a possible donor. All you need do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them.
You ask, but he says, "Sorry. I deeply sympathize, but no." Would it be morally permissible for you to operate anyway? Everybody to whom I have put this second hypothetical case says, No, it would not be morally permissible for you to proceed.”
Socialism - if it is voluntary- is a good thing but if it is forced (i.e. push the “fat guy” off the tower so 5 can live), is not good and can lead to the China of Mao Zedong.?
I think of how the people in the book of Acts were helping each other:
“All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts.”
And later in 2nd Corinthians, where Paul wrote: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
So, in terms of the Trolley problem, I would say that if you want to be a "cheerful giver" and through your body on the switch to save someone, that is fine. But, do not push someone against their will or do something that will cause someone harm even at the expense of helping a group of people.
My recommendation to solving the autonomous "trolley problem"
Just like I wrote earlier: “why not design a light switch that does not electrocute you even if your hands are wet?”
My solution to the autonomous "trolley problem" is develop road systems and self-driving cars that do not kill people. Plan and develop systems that minimize the accidents in the first place.??This may mean slowing down traffic to reduce accidents and using data analytics to find the drunk or bad drivers to identify actions before they cause accidents. Design cars that are safer, use V2X / DSRC technology to alert the cars and pedestrians of potential danger.
This as an engineering problem not a psychology problem if proper engineering is done. Just need to fund more engineers! By voluntary means of course!
Epilogue
“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin to shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-centered" society.?When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”?- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
“The people will take a certain amount of reform, then they want a rest. But the reforms stay. People don't really want change, any change at all ... . But we progress, as we must-if we are to go out to the stars.” - Robert Heinlein Double Star
I am excited for what the future holds. A future of abundance where instead of government taking away from one group and giving to another, there is a sense of sharing where people freely and without coercion give of their time, talent and treasures to make the world a better place.
Kevin Kelly provided some interesting insight into socialism and social technology in his chapter: sharing
"Nearly every day another startup proudly heralds a new way to harness community action. These developments suggest a steady move toward a sort of digital “social-ism” uniquely tuned for a networked world.?
We’re not talking about your grandfather’s political socialism. In fact, there is a long list of past movements this new socialism is not. It is not class warfare. It is not anti-American; indeed, digital socialism may be the newest American innovation. While old-school political socialism was an arm of the state, digital socialism is socialism without the state. This new brand of socialism currently operates in the realm of culture and economics, rather than government— for now."
"What they have in common is the verb “to share.” In fact, some futurists have called this economic aspect of the new socialism the “sharing economy” because the primary currency in this realm is sharing."
Digital socialism is voluntary.?These books talk about the digital sharing that the future may hold:
I especially like Byron Reese’s book in the?chapter: The End of Ignorance Surprise! We share. Where he writes:
“The miracle is this: The more we share, the more we have. –Leonard Nimoy
Overall, I am really proud of what we are building the Internet to do. It reflects well on us. We are building the Internet to connect with each other better, to share information, to collaborate, to offer mutual support, and so on. I know the list of nefarious uses of the Internet— but on balance, we are building it for good purposes. One aspect of Internet use that has surprised me is how willing we are to expend time and energy for strangers with no hope of anything in return— no money, no fame, no glory, no nothing. You see it all over the Internet. You post some problem that you have— personal, technical, culinary, whatever— and people will give you advice. They will take time to write a great big forum post just for you, a total stranger they will never meet.?
The Internet is full of sites that offer good to humanity and yield no profit for the people working on them. The Open Directory Project— where fifty thousand editors try to organize the web into a directory of sites for no reward at all— comes instantly to mind. Of course, Wikipedia is another textbook example where people toil for no payment, and anonymously as well. All they gain is a sense of contributing.”
So I say, may each of us contribute to a better world as a "cheerful givers"! … and also fund engineers to make a safer road system!