If you go to San Francisco, this is what you’ll see:

The city is now filled with Waymo robotaxis. And Waymo is not the only player in town. The looming giant is Tesla and its self-driving cars. These companies are building cars that drive better than most humans.

What will happen in the coming years? The world will be upended. This is the vision of what’s likely to happen.

In the beginning, you’ll take self-driving cars because they’re new and fun: “Look, it’s moving the wheel alone!” It will help that you’ll look at the stats and know that they have fewer accidents than human drivers.

Then, you’ll notice that self-driving cars are more convenient. You don’t need to talk with a human, manage their expectations, fear their driving skills, suffer their eating or smoking… You will start changing your habits, and instead of ordering an Uber or hailing a cab, you’ll default to Waymo or Tesla’s robotaxi.

Then, you’ll notice that they tend to be cheaper! At first, they will be just a bit cheaper. Then, prices will drop more every year. You’ll forget about human cabs.

Then, you’ll take the robotaxi for more and more things—for example to pick up the kids at school during work hours, to go have dinner (in case of drinking), to go downtown (parking is hard), and things like that: It’s so convenient, you won’t even notice.

Trips to the city where in the past you were on the fence between using your car or a cab will become no-brainers: You won’t have to find or pay for a parking spot with a robotaxi!

Then, you’ll start using robotaxis for new purposes, like dropping off and picking up your 12 year old child from extracurriculars—something you’d never imagine doing with a human driver…

One day, you’ll hear from a friend who jettisoned her car.
“How do you commute to work?”
“With robotaxis! I ran the math and it’s actually cheaper!”

Commutes will be the key milestone: They represent a huge number of miles because they happen twice a day, every week day, 40-50 weeks per year. Replacing them will accelerate the takeover of robotaxis. How will that happen?

In the US today, the cost per mile of owning a car is ~$0.65 to $0.70. But that’s just an average. People who live and work in a big city might not use their cars frequently or for long distances, making them much more expensive per mile. They will be the first to replace their daily commute with robotaxis: They will prefer working or watching YouTube during their commute than paying attention to the road. The more people drop their cars, the more robotaxis will be on the streets, and the cheaper they’ll become. Meanwhile, the fewer miles each person travels with their car, the more expensive the car will be per mile.1 As prices per mile of traditional cars increase and those of robotaxis decrease, more and more people will switch their commutes to robotaxis, adding billions of miles per year to robotaxis.

And robotaxis will be more convenient than owned cars too: No upfront payment, no need for parking at home, no need to look for parking at your destination, no need to risk death when you drink, no need to drive your loved ones everywhere…

The car will be relegated to ad hoc situations: Things like long trips, emergencies, big families… The more that’s the case, the more it will be treated like a luxury. Eventually, people will sell their cars or not bother to buy a new one when they break down.

The uptake of self-driving cars might eventually be accelerated through regulation, because these cars are already safer than humans, and will be even more so in the future.

At some point, the cost per mile will be close to that of mass transit options, but comfort will be much higher:

• You don’t need to share the space with others, which is more hygienic and safer
• You can go from any point to any point, rather than going to stations
• You don’t have to wait for buses or trains to come pick you up on a timetable

This means robotaxis will also replace a big chunk of mass transit.

And as costs go down and convenience goes up, people will use more cars than before, in new situations that previously didn’t require a car.

This process will be faster in expensive and high-commute cities like the US’s West Coast or world capitals, and slower in places where driver costs are low and roads harder to navigate, like Vietnam or Africa.2

And this is a massive market. If every person uses a car on average a couple of times a day, that’s 16 billion potential car rides per day, or nearly 6 trillion rides per year. At $1 per ride, that’s nearly $6 trillion! And that’s just passengers. Add the transport of goods, and the potential market goes to the moon—here I’m paying attention to self-driving cars, but trucks will go through the same process.

You can limit this to fewer rides per person, fewer potential customers, and lower prices, it will still be a staggering market.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh

Search for a purely psychological foundation of human unity

Becomes possible only with perception that all

Human life is spiritual in its origin.

 (Allama Muhammad Iqbal)

Spiritual Democracy

The Ultimate Aim of Islam

By, Mirza Iqbal Ashraf

Abstract

According to American poet laureate Walt Whitman (1819-1882) since the notion of spirituality embraces the presence of God in Nature—including human being’s inner as well as outer nature—it can be asserted that Spirituality is a science of God. At the same time, recognizing God in every one’s nature—that we all come from God and every human being is naturally embedded with Divine spiritualty—binding the whole mankind with a common strand of spirituality reflects this notion as a truly democratic concept. We are, therefore, impelled to believe that Spiritual Democracy as a science of God must by necessity begin and end with mankind’s inner as well as outer nature. Above all the dynamism of Spiritual Democracy exposes the deeper historical and spiritual meanings of life related to racial and gender equality, marriage and economic equality, and laying greater emphasis on sociopolitical justice. (Walt Whitman)*

* Spiritual Democracy: North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, 2014

By, Steven Herrmann.

 As a cultural movement, Islam rejects the old static view of the universe, and reaches a dynamic view, based on emotional system of unification, rejecting the blood-relationship as a basis of human unity, recognizing the worth of the individual. Considering blood relationship is earth-rootedness, the search for a purely psychological foundation of human unity becomes possible only with the perception that all human life is spiritual in its origin. . . It demands loyalty to God, not to thrones. Since God is the ultimate spiritual basis of all life, loyalty to God virtually amounts to man’s loyalty to his own ideal nature. Humanity needs three things today—a spiritual interpretation of the universe, spiritual emancipation of the individual, and basic principles of a universal import, directing the evolution of human society on a spiritual basis. . . Islam is non-territorial in its character, and its aim is to furnish a model for the final combination of humanity by drawing its adherents from a variety of mutually repellent races, and then transforming this atomic aggregate into a people possessing a self-consciousness of their own—a collective will in heterogeneous mass. . . Let the Muslim of today appreciate his position, reconstruct his social life in the light of ultimate principles, and evolve, out of the hitherto partially revealed purpose of Islam, that spiritual democracy is the ultimate aim of Islam. (Allama Muhammad Iqbal)*

*The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lahore, Pakistan 1940:

By Allama Muhammad Iqbal, the poet philosopher of the East.

Full 18 pages artical can be read  at:

https://independent.academia.edu/MirzaAshraf

Sometimes it feels like white Christians are the only religious voting bloc with true sway in America. Conservative evangelicals in particular have a great deal of power in the Republican Party, thanks to their tight embrace of Donald Trump. I often hear people talk about how Democrats can win back some white Christian support, as if that should be the party’s priority in the coming years.

But with Democrats searching for their future, they’d be foolish to ignore a large and growing religious group that is already in their corner: the Nones.

Now nearly 30 percent of the population, the Nones include atheists, agnostics and people who say they’re no faith in particular. According to new data from the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonpartisan polling organization, 72 percent of the religiously unaffiliated voted for Kamala Harris. Melissa Deckman, the chief executive of P.R.R.I., shared a more granular breakdown of unaffiliated voters with me over email: 82 percent of atheists, 80 percent of agnostics and 64 percent of those who said they had no particular faith voted for Harris.

“When placed into context with our other findings from the 2024 post-election survey,” Deckman wrote, “we can see how distinct the unaffiliated are. They are almost three times as likely to report voting for Harris than Trump, and only Black Protestants reported voting for Harris at higher rates.”

full article

posted by f.sheikh

While genocide is a clear cause of the democrats’ defeat, economic issues are usually mentioned. What lingers behind the significance of the “it’s the economy” narrative?

This claim, which focuses on genocide, is controversial, as numerous other analysts assert that “the economy” was the decisive factor in the elections, based on polls. Nevertheless, we may gain further insight by consulting the views of an expert in the field:

“John Della Volpe is the director of polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics. The Washington Post referred to John as one of the world’s leading authorities on global sentiment, opinion, and influence, especially among young Americans and in the age of digital and social media .”

Della Volpe writes about the U.S. election results:

“…Ms. Harris’s campaign needed to shift about one percentage point of voters across Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to secure the presidency, but instead struggled in college towns like Ann Arbor, Mich., and other blue places.

… When young Americans voiced deep moral concerns about Gaza and the humanitarian crisis unfolding there, they received carefully calibrated statements rather than genuine engagement with their pain. I believe this issue contributed to lower enthusiasm and turnout in battleground states in 2024 compared to 2020 .”

“One percentage point of voters.” Let that sink in! The citation above is from an abridged version of a New York Times opinion piece, now accessible only via a paywall .

Polls are not necessarily objective; they are often part of the mainstream media narrative surrounding elections and their outcomes. What implications does the question of “the economy”
have for the voter? Such a poll is inherently biased. Does it consider that the economy is inextricably linked to the accumulated U.S. multi-trillion military objectives around the globe, and therefore not an abstract soundbite up in the air, thus instead linked to imperialism? No.

The narrative of “it’s the economy,” as detached from its external manifestation of massive military and related expenditures, is so pervasive in popular consciousness that a spontaneous response of “the economy” is understood to refer to that relatively abstract and emasculated view based exclusively on domestic considerations such as inflation.

Given the above, if the issue of genocide played a decisive role in tipping the scales against Kamala Harris, one might wonder why it was not more prominently reflected in polling data. The pervasive narrative in the United States and the West is so omnipresent and airtight against even mentioning “Palestine” or “Gaza” that it becomes insidious. This narrative conflates pro-Palestine sentiments with anti-Zionism and antisemitism, creating an environment where voters might hesitate to provide such answers in surveys that could identify them. The fear of retaliation is a genuine concern in this highly charged atmosphere. However, as the Director of Polling at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics has shown, in the anonymity of the voting cycle, many individuals who might have supported the Democratic candidate opted either to abstain or to vote for the anti-genocide Green Party, ultimately contributing to Harris’s defeat.

Full Article

posted by f.sheikh