about the Shelley’s and their book about Victor Frankenstein,
as well as the discussion on pages 142-143 that specifically mention the work of the DSO, DARPA’s DARPA, whose mission brief is social engineering, i.e., engendering enough interest in a specific topic that a critical mass of research and researchers will accrue to allow it to come to eventual fruition.
In this article http://www.unz.com/isteve/douthat-the-cult-deficit/about cults and their role in hijacking “the prestige of science for … anti-scientific purposes in the tradition of Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, and L. Ron Hubbard”, there is a discussion about Bilkderbergers, Peter Thiel, and the Golden Age of science fiction, and “the modern cult of Scientology and the postmodern cult of transgenderism and transhumanism, as exemplified by …Martin/Martine Rothblatt, a founder of satellite radio, and now promoting his/her book Virtually Human…”
“Published in 1970, Firestone’s socialist-feminist manifesto The Dialectic of Sex demands the abolition of gender, the biological family, childhood, and toil. Firestone advocates women seizing control of reproductive technology, employing artificial wombs to separate procreation from body, and creating an egalitarian automated economy based in cybernetics. Firestone’s thought resonates with transhumanism and particularly connects through transsexual inventor and entrepreneur Martine Rothblatt’s 1994 transgender manifesto The Apartheid of Sex. Rothblatt later became a notable figure in the transhumanist movement, making an explicit connection between it and transgenderism.”
“… It doesn’t have anything to do with tolerance but indoctrination; it’s because the satanic elite who are behind so much change see androgyny as the ultimate state of being. According to occultists, only gender-neutrals can rise to godhood. The fallen angels they worship are seen as androgynous, and this is driving the modern transgender program. Of course, this is in direct contradiction to God’s word:
Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them …
This is a long-term goal of the elite, first openly articulated in the work of Saint-Simon (a French social philosopher and reformer) around 1813, which through his disciples led to many of the tenets of Marxism in the mid-nineteenth century. But it really came into its own as an agenda to pursue with the 1893 Parliament of World Religions at the Chicago World’s Fair. This is where the goal of a one-world religion and political system was first embraced openly by organized religion, although the work of Saint-Simon laid the groundwork for the linking of the two areas in modern theory.
On another level, there are plans to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and to destroy the family and the social structure which requires strong families. In order to bring about a new paradigm, a one-world government and pagan religious structure, it’s first necessary to do away with any sense of traditional values. Because of this, it isn’t just the transgender/gay agenda which is being thrust upon us.
But at a deeper level there’s more than just social transformation going on. This is about spiritual transformation….”
“… transhumanism is an insidious philosophy that rejects the nature of humanity and our natural limitations. By rejecting the nature of man, transhumanism also rejects the inherent dignity of every human being in the process.
In Discover Magazine, transhumanist Kyle Munkittrick laid out his “Seven Conditions for Attaining Transhumanism.” One condition is we leave the traditional ideas about humanity behind and reject being biologically human as a prerequisite for personhood. Munkittrick writes, “When African grey parrots, gorillas and dolphins have the same rights as a human toddler, a transhuman-friendly rights system will be in place.”
Another notable pitfall is that human augmentation will likely result in a world where the enhanced superhumans will rule over the un-enhanced. Those who can afford or have access to enhancements will be the elite, and those who do not or cannot be enhanced will be second-class citizens, especially in the transhumanist world, where personhood and rights are based on everything but natural biology.
Political scientist Francis Fukuyama, when discussing transhumanism as his answer to the greatest threat to humanity, believes the “first victim of transhumanism might be equality.”
Fukuyama writes, “If we start transforming ourselves into something superior, what rights will these enhanced creatures claim, and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?”
Transhumanists often insist that a core value of transhumanism is freedom: freedom to choose to do to our bodies what we want. But, in reality, those who are un-enhanced will be coerced into enhancements just to keep up with the elites, a fact that even they will hint at. Kurzweil admits un-enhanced humans will be a rarity because the un-enhanced will be “unable to think fast enough to keep up.”
If these elitist ideas of using science to take the evolution of humanity into our own hands to create a “better human” sound familiar, they should. Transhumanism has its roots in the eugenics movement — the very philosophy that inspired the Holocaust in Germany.
The term “transhumanism” is attributed to Julian Huxley, president of the British Eugenics Society from 1959-1962 and brother of the famous novelist Aldous Huxley. In his 1957 piece “Transhumanism,” Huxley wrote that the human species can “transcend itself” and that when we embrace transhumanism “the human species will be on the threshold of a new kind of existence, as different from ours as ours is from that of Pekin man.”
Even the logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics proudly proclaimed, “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution.” ….”
“The article named “The Transhumanist and Police State Agenda in Pop Music” briefly explored the transhumanist theme of the Black Eyed Peas’ video “Imma Be/Rock that Body”. Vigilant Citizen collaborator LVB expands on this subject and describes the Psychological Warfare techniques used in this video.
The Black Eyed Peas “Imma Be / Rock that Body” video is a masterpiece of high tech computer-generated imagery and state of the art digital music production. It is also one of the most blatant examples of Psychological Warfare and deception that I have ever seen in modern mass media. This article will discuss
1) What Transhumanism actually is.
2) The massive use of Psychological Warfare techniques in this video and all forms of mass media.
3) Analysis of the video, itself – to show you how these psychological concepts, the occult and Transhumanist symbolism and the deceptive storyline are integrated in this video to promote the dangerous agenda of the cult known as Transhumanism.
Transhumanism is the name of a movement that claims to support the use of all forms of technology to improve human beings. It is far more than just a bunch of harmless and misguided techie nerds, dreaming of sci-fi movies and making robots.
It is a highly organized and well-financed movement that is extremely focused on subverting and replacing every aspect of what we are as human beings – including our physical biology, the individuality of our minds and purposes of our lives – and the replacement of all existing religious and spiritual beliefs with a new religion of their own – which is actually not new at all.
For now, let’s just start at the start.
The Elitist Creators of Transhumanism and Eugenics
“The term ‘Transhumanism‘ was coined by biologist Julian Huxley in 1957, who defined it as “man remaining man, but transcending himself, by realizing new possibilities of and for his human nature.”
Julian Huxley was the brother of Aldous Huxley, who you may know was the author of the very famous book, “Brave New World“, which is a vision of the future that most people view as “The New World Order” (along with the book “1984“, by George Orwell) – a depressing future police-state world in which a one world government uses technology, such as surveillance cameras, psychological warfare (propaganda) and brutal military/police forces to control everyone and everything in this dystopian, fictional world.
The founders of Transhumanism, were highly educated and wealthy individuals of primarily British and European descent. These individuals were what we would call people of the elite, ruling class of society, and their views were absolutely elitist, if not outright totalitarian and fascist in nature.
One of the primary concepts of the Transhumanist agenda is “The Hive Mind”.
“Hive Mind : A type of collective consciousness where individuality is stifled; a state of conformity; also written hivemind”.
“A group of people who give the false impression of being a hivemind (1), eg. by mindlessly following orders.”
One of the early Transhumanist elites, along with Julian Huxley, was Sir Charles Galton Darwin, the grandson of Charles Darwin, who founded the theory of evolution.
So, anyway, here is one of Charles Galton Darwin’s quotes relating to the Hive Mind:
“There might be a drug, which, without other harmful effects, removed the urgency of sexual desire, and so, reproduced in humanity the status of workers in a beehive.”
As I said previously, the founders of Transhumanism had elitist views about what humanity should be. This Human Beehive concept has been envisioned by the ruling elite class throughout history as the ideal society. The ultimate slave race, scientifically designed to conform, obey and serve the needs of the elite – worker bees who do not question or rebel.
Transhumanists envision this Hive Mind as being possible when all people across the world can link their minds together using technology, creating a symbiotic existence through the new superintelligence of this collective Hive Mind. Forget about the needs of the individual – it’s all about the Hive. They refer to this collective, superintelligence as the Singularity.
“‘Lucifer’ is the Latin term originally used by the Romans to refer to the planet Venus when that planet was west of the sun and hence rose before the sun in the morning, thereby being the morning star.”
“According to Extropian philosopher Max More, “Lucifer is the embodiment of reason, of intelligence, of critical thought. He stands against the dogma of God and all other dogmas. He stands for the exploration of new ideas and new perspectives in the pursuit of truth.” He is also the archetypal iconoclast, rebel, and adversary (the word ‘Satan’ is from a Hebrew word, ‘Sathane’, meaning adversary or culminiator; in original Jewish usage [see the book of Job], Satan is the adversary, not of God, but of mankind; i.e., the angel charged by God with the task of proving that mankind is an unworthy creation). In the transtopian context, Lucifer represents ambition, rebellion, rational enlightenment, and the dark side of Transhumanism.”
Metacommunication is a natural human communication process, which is as simple as saying, “I love you”, while you are smiling – communication on two levels. Throw in a hug and there are three levels of communicating this positive message.
All communication consists of (at least) two levels. First, there is the “content level” of what is being said, literally. Second, there is the level that Gregory Bateson calls metacommunication, which is the underlying message or tone of the communication, which can be as simple as a facial expression. We often recognize this as being the “tone” of someone’s voice, or how something is being said. So, you have what is being said, and how it is being said. The tone is actually the “command” portion of communication, because it is designed to instruct or position the receiver (or victim) of the communication to interpret the message in a certain way.
Bateson’s communications theory can help reveal the interaction operating behind the message. Every communication, he claims, has both a report [the actual message] and a command aspect [tone]. While the report conveys information about a state of affairs, the command positions the receiver to adopt a particular attitude towards the report and (leads them to) respond in a certain way. The command element of the message is a metacommunication about the context of the message – the nature of the relationship in which the information is exchanged.
Falsified Metacommunication – Mixed Signals and Deception
The point where this becomes falsified metacommunication in mass media is when they include a primary false message in an advertisement or music video, which is designed not only to sell the product, but also to influence the viewer’s attitudes and beliefs.
Daniel Lerner, who was part of the OSS (the predecessor of the CIA), called this the “Black Level” of Psychological Warfare, because it includes:
“Commissions of falsification (lies) intended to deceive the enemy“.
There are many layers of communication in movies, videos, advertising and news media that we usually don’t even realize on a conscious level, and that is what this part of the article and the BEP video are all about.
The term, falsified metacommunication, was coined by anthropologist Richard Herskowitz. It can be understood, in part, using the simple example of a con-man:
He shakes your hand, smiles at you and tells you nice things…as he steals your money.
It is a strategy of deliberately distracting you from his real purpose or goal by using friendly, charming deception. It is saying one thing, as a way of distracting the victim with deception to make them feel comfortable with the situation, in order to do another thing – to achieve the real goal, which is stealing your money.
For example, say there is a magazine ad with a very beautiful female model, but off to the side you can see the makeup artist standing there putting makeup on another model, who looks like she just woke up. They are letting you in on the joke, the artificial nature and deceptive elements of the ad. This makes you realize that you get it, you think that you understand the illusion, and that makes you feel clever, like an insider, and this feeling gives you a sense of reward and ego boost because you feel smart and cool.
This process has the typical effect of getting people to relax and let their guard down a little bit, which leaves them more open to the actual intent of what the ad is trying to do – to sell you some crap that you probably don’t need – and ideas that you may not agree with. This brings us to another tool of manipulation and control in communication, known as a double bind….”
“… The politicization of everything naturally leads to the enforcement of everything. Debates become bitter because the stakes are higher, and we cannot simply agree to disagree.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple made this point in a 2005 interview when he described political correctness as “communism writ small.”
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better,” Dalrymple said, adding:
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control…..”
Journal of Evolution and Technology – Vol. 24 Issue 2 – May 2014 – pgs 1-16
“…. 47 per cent of people surveyed in the 2007 Interests and Beliefs Survey of the Members of the World Transhumanist Association identified as “left,” though not strictly Marxist (Hughes 2008)….”
“… Proto-transhumanists such as molecular biologist J.D. Bernal and geneticist/evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane were Marxists, Bernal being a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, while Haldane was an external supporter of the Party. Riccardo Campa, chair of the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti (AIT), expresses “only conditional confidence” in the power of markets and asserts that if “market mechanisms do not deliver, we should have to consider socializing what are, from the transhumanist point of view, the key sectors” (Campa 2008)…..”
It is clear that transhumanism and Marxism have some fundamental philosophical similarities. This comparison is admittedly composed of broad strokes and the extent to which the two fields differ is not here emphasized. I hope, however, to have contributed generally to the furtherance of a dialogue between the two fields, and particularly, to the socializing of transhumanism.
“Gender-bending” chemicals mimicking the female hormone oestrogen can disrupt the development of baby boys, suggests the first evidence linking certain chemicals in everyday plastics to effects in humans.
The chemicals implicated are phthalates, which make plastics more pliable in many cosmetics, toys, baby-feeding bottles and paints and can leak into water and food.
All previous studies suggesting these chemicals blunt the influence of the male hormone testosterone on healthy development of males have been in animals. “This research highlights the need for tougher controls of gender-bending chemicals,” says Gwynne Lyons, toxics adviser to the WWF, UK. Otherwise, “wildlife and baby boys will be the losers”.
The incriminating findings came from a study of 85 baby boys born to women exposed to everyday levels of phthalates during pregnancy. It was carried out by Shanna Swan at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, New York, U.S., and colleagues.
As an index of feminisation, she measured the “anogenital distance” (AGD) between the anus and to the base of the penis. She also measured the volume of each boy’s penis. Earlier studies have shown that the AGD is twice in boys what it is in girls, mainly because in boys the hormone testosterone extends the length of the perineum separating the anus from the testicles.
In animals, AGD is reduced by phthalates – which mimic oestrogen – which keep testosterone from doing its normal job. At higher doses, animals develop more serious abnormalities such as undescended testicles and misplaced openings to the urethra on the penis – a group of symptoms called “phthalate syndrome” in animals.
When Swan’s team measured concentrations of nine phthalate metabolites in the urine of pregnant women, they found that four were linked with shorter AGD in sons born to women showing high exposure levels.
Although none of the boys developed abnormal genitals, the quarter of mothers who were exposed to the highest concentrations of phthalates were much more likely to have had boys with short AGDs compared with the quarter of mothers who had the lowest exposures to the chemicals.
And although all the boys had genitals classified as “normal”, 21% of the boys with short AGDs had incomplete testicular descent, compared with 8% of other boys. And on average, the smaller the AGD, the smaller the penis.
Swan believes that at higher exposures, boys may suffer from testicular dysgenesis syndrome – the human collection of more serious abnormalities which corresponds to “phthalate syndrome”.
“We’re not exactly seeing testicular dysgenesis syndrome, but a cluster of endpoints consistent with it,” said Swan on at an international conference on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in San Diego, U.S.
“If you see this, you’re very likely to see every other aspect of masculinisation changed too,” says Fred vom Saal, professor of reproductive biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.
Vom Saal says this could include behavioural changes like those seen in animals, including an aversion to “rough-and-tumble” play and a reduction in aggressiveness.
Environmentalists say the results strengthen the case for a ban or restriction on some phthalates in baby toys, as has been proposed in Europe and California.
But phthalate manufacturers maintain that the chemicals have been thoroughly tested and are “safe”. They are also critical of aspects of the study. David Cadogan, director of the European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates, points out that just one urine sample was taken from each pregnant woman, which cannot rule out drastic variations in exposure over time.
Also, he says that all AGD measurements should have been taken in babies exactly the same age, not in babies ranging from three to 24 months in age as in the study. The disparity in ages meant that complicated mathematical analyses had to be applied which may have made it more difficult to distinguish genuine differences in AGD from differences accounted for by age or weight.
Swan’s results will appear in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
I recently bought a Nissan Altima. My wife and I are getting older, and comfort and ease of ingress/egress is more of an issue given my hip arthritis. She rode in a friend’s Nissan (who has had two of them and swears by them) and presto change-o we bypassed the Subaru Forester and got out of the Honda CR-V, which was too unstable on the highway by my standards (I was used to smaller, wider, more ground-hugging road cars) and from which she had hip discomfort getting in and out.
So we now drive a car that dings, bings and whistles whenever we drive.
The dings, bings and whistles, as near as I can gather, are the vehicle’s poorly-timed and frail attempts to define the driving lane and let us know that we are about to wander. They let us know that something or someone is in one of our blind spots, behind us qwhen we shift into reverse, and so on. There was only minimal introduction and instruction by the rookie salesman at the dealership owned by a former NASCAR and stock car racer. The manual that comes with the car is typically massive, bland, poorly-written technical writing. The Honda I was used to was an all-wheel-drive-all-the-time model; the Nissan is a front-wheel drive car.
The blind spot warning devices flash lights on the door posts briefly (instead of in a HUD display on the windshield where the driver’s eyes are supposed to be trained). They usually ding just about the time my fellow motorist has overtaken me fast enough to actually be nosing ahead of me; “look, idiot, you’re being passed”. The car does not yet announce — though I’m quite certain many of my fellow drivers have that version — “prepare to qualify”.
The version of the car we bought does not yet come with autonomous braking, steering or parking. Good thing… I’ve gone down the path of automotive autonomy just about as far as I care to go. I may revert and invest in a re-conditioned vehicle from the 70’s before they disappear or are outlawed. The mailman just brought an invitation to subscribe to Hemmings Motor News and I may just take them up on it. I’ve been frustrated with years of NHTSA design anomalies that have taken away any kind of reasonable utilization of cabin space in fear that those things I choose to bring with me might become flying objects in a crash; the space has been taken over by airbags which are continuously being recalled anyway. The Japanese used to have a good feeling for driver ergonomics; the old phrase from the British angle of automotive journalism was about controls “falling readily to hand”. Nothing is where it should be anymore; I spend more time taking my eyes off the road to figure out where the thing is in the first place. I have begun to train my wife, who usually loses herself in a book as soon as we are underway, does not take well to the tasks, to be a kind of co-driver in the vein of late 50’s automotive rallies. She handles the radio, the heat, the air conditioning, the GPS navigation system, drinks, snacks, etc. I handle the road, the idiots who drive on it, the weather conditions, and my own inexorably-advancing age.
The future is barreling down the outside lane of society faster than that cross-town hipster blaring merengue from inside his modified low-rider Honda Civic, or any of the dozens of people in town who are late and think I am in their way.
The powers that be are quite convinced we don’t know how to drive, or at least they are quite convinced that they need to convince us that we don’t know how to drive.
Watching any of the current spate of car ads or insurance ads about driving will tell you that they are gently herding us into giving up the freedom and control of driving one’s own car.
This form of social engineering mimics “the nanny state” and “the surveillance state” in that it is sold through the gentle pushing of the idea that you are at risk, that you need to be saved, and that you can cede your safety to the concerns to the state which, after all, only has your best interests and those of society at stake.
Many of you may know my driving record. I don’t profess to be among the best. I do profess to enjoying it.
My parents wouldn’t let me near a car. As a teenager, I learned how to drive a stick working for a lawn mowing company cross-town; I got the ’39 three-speed Ford pickup truck and learned how to grind coffee. I had the experience of driving a Sunbeam Tiger when I worked at a public golf course. When I got to college, I got my license and my boss in the restaurant let me drive his Mustang. I drove from the Dunkin Donuts in the center of North Adams to the traffic circle interchange with the Interstate in Greenfield in 42 minutes. Try that one on for size some time.
The first car I owned was a 1968 British Ford Cortina GT. It died by dashboard fire and I got by with a used ’62 Mercedes-Benz 220S sedan with four-on-the-column and a very leaky radiator; I used to hand the gear shift stick to my passenger on the way up from third to fourth gear. It had a Blaupunkt radio with AM and FM and shortwave for those who were assigned to the local U-Boat fleet. When it died (I’d already worked for the fire department by then), I got myself a 1970 fire-engine-red Mustang GT with a Cleveland 351 with a four-barrel carb and a Hurst four-on-the-floor that could top out at 135 mph. Downtown Amherst, Mass. to downtown Manhattan in two hours flat. I gave that up for a 1974 Fiat X1/9. By then I was a veteran ambulance driver.
[I wonder if they are going to make ambulances autonomous and driverless and put robots in them to take care of the ill and injured.]
I was deeply into readingRoad&Track, and Car and Driver, and I remember Brock Yates’ suggestions that there be a class of drivers who were superbly skilled and trained and could be designated and recognized with a Master’s Drivers License.
At Car and Driver, we were convinced that the automobile, as we knew and loved it, was as dead as the passenger pigeon. Ralph Nader was at full cry, ringing his tocsin of automobile doom into the brains of the public, convincing them that the lump of chrome and iron in the driveway was as lethal as a dose of Strontium 90 or a blast from a Viet Cong AK-47.
“Hoping to make drunk driving a literal impossibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rolled out a prototype drunkenness-detection system for cars that would disallow vehicle operation if the driver is above the legal limit. Working with auto-industry members, NHTSA has been working on DADSS—Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety—and presented its ideas for stopping drunk-driving accidents before they happen before Congress and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Drunk driving is of course dangerous, illegal, and just plain stupid. Helpfully, then, NHTSA is working to make its in-car drunk-detection tech as seamless and unobtrusive as possible….”
“Autonomous cars are coming, and it’s time for everyone to just accept it.
It might seem odd to have to state such a thing so plainly, but denial is a powerful drug. And enthusiasts tend to be heavy users. Yet technology and progress are irrepressible, so here we are. For people that love to drive, the idea of an automated car is an affront to everything they hold dear. But the truth is inescapable. If you consider building-block technologies like stability control, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, and steer-by-wire, this shouldn’t even really be surprising.
The first time I ever experienced a car that could drive itself was three years ago. I was at General Motor’s Milford Proving Grounds in a heavily modified Cadillac SRX equipped with an early version of Super Cruise, some form of which will be in the new CT6. I conducted the interview from the driver’s seat as the car competently looped around the track, in its own lane, at 60 mph (you can watch the video here). After that, it was clear: This is the future.
And it should be. Maybe not all of it, but part of it. There are a lot of logical reasons for having cars with the ability to drive themselves and communicate with each other and even infrastructure: lives will be saved, boring parts of tedious drives can be offloaded, our vehicles and roads will operate more efficiently, people who can’t currently drive will suddenly be mobile. These are just some of the positives, and there are many more, plenty of which we can’t even predict. That is the hard truth.
SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN FOR ENTHUSIASTS? THE PEOPLE WHO STILL THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW ENGINE RPMS AND GET A THRILL OUT OF INTENTIONALLY KICKING OUT THE ASS END? THE HONEST ANSWER IS THAT WE DON’T KNOW YET.
But before semiautonomous cars, which still require drivers, and fully autonomous cars are available on any sort of mass scale, there is much to figure out. These systems still can’t handle the more nuanced decisions human drivers make, and insurance and liability are looming questions. Not to mention real-world technological limitations. My Super Cruise test drive was actually our second attempt. A heavy snowfall had caused the first ride to be canceled because the SRX’s camera was unable to register the lines on the road and center the car in the lane. That was awhile ago, and severe weather remains a challenge (though machine groupthink through connected cars, better GPS, and highly accurate maps will help). Lastly, there’s the inevitable learning curve of people understanding how these technologies work, as demonstrated by Model S owners already having near accidents.
So what does this all mean for enthusiasts? The people who still think it is important to know engine RPMs and get a thrill out of intentionally kicking out the ass end? The honest answer is that we don’t know yet. Nobody does. Despite all of the sensational stories and headlines prognosticating the death of driving, it’s hard to imagine a country where people won’t at least have the option to drive themselves. Even if it’s on designated roads or it means paying a higher insurance premium. Likely, we’ll end up having a mix of cars with semiautonomous abilities and fully autonomous vehicles serving varied purposes.
Then again, maybe in 100 years people will look back and think: Who in the world thought it was a good idea to let all those distracted, careless humans hurtle around in 2-ton death machines?
It’s really hard to say.
Here’s what we do know: Road & Track will always celebrate the analog joys of driving. That much will never change. But the fact of the matter is that the very act of driving and how we will all experience it will morph into something new over the coming decades. It already is. For that reason, it’s as important to understand this shift as any other automotive innovation. To ignore it, to stuff your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet, does nothing.
There’s no stopping progress. Let’s just all hope that in the future there will still be room to have some fun.”
“Autonomous driving—what the high-minded call artificial intelligence and what we call real brainlessness—may not be as vile as we originally feared. One DeLorean DMC-12 directed by a Stanford University engineering crew can perform perfect opposite-lock, tire-cooking, hands-off donuts at will for as long as the rubber lasts. Lead professor Chris Gerdes explained the rationale underlying this class project, timed to coincide with the fictional arrival on October 21, 2015, of the time-traveling Back to the Future DeLorean: “When we no longer have a human driver in the loop, we think that the automated vehicle should be able to harness the full range of vehicle operating capabilities to avoid collisions, even if this means going sideways a bit to stay on the road.” In other words, loading $60,000 worth of navigation gear, two powerful electric motors, and shrewd software into a 30-year-old sports car may have just fried Google’s autonomous eggs.
While on-demand drifting will likely remain in your dreams for the time being, cars programmed to perform other feats are now commonplace. Anti-lock brakes and stability control have been mandatory for years. Lots of cars sound an alarm, shake the seat, and/or nudge the steering wheel when you leave your lane without signaling. Adaptive cruise control that automatically maintains a safe distance from the car ahead is also widely available. Ten manufacturers recently committed to making automatic emergency braking standard across their entire lineups.
Brainless driving is closing in on us like a meteorite because of its potential to avoid accidents. Sadly, we are a nation of mediocre drivers, distracted on our daily journeys by dining, child rearing, makeup applying, and incessant texting. Driver’s ed. is a shadow of its former self, and few of us are able to use the accident-avoidance capabilities built into every new car. Our driving errors cause crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
To gauge progress on the path to brainlessness, we’ve gathered the four luxury cars that have done the most to purge human frailties from the acts of cruising, braking, and steering.
As usual, our test regimen is a balanced mix of on-road evaluations and proving- grounds tests. Other than noting which car can and which can’t steer you snugly against a curb, we skipped automatic-parking maneuvers. All these cars and many others on the market keep watchful eyes on your blind spots, a second form of artificial intelligence we’re taking for granted here. To verify that adaptive cruise control works to maintain a safe interval between your car and the one immediately ahead when an intruder barges into your lane, we used a foam-filled Volkswagen Golf decoy owned by Bosch to supplement our over-the-road observations. Our main focus was automatic lane keeping: how well these four early semi-autonomous cars guide you safely and securely while relying on their electronic wits instead of the driver’s hands, eyes, and judgment. Using a 50-mile mix of freeway stretches, rural two-lanes, and city streets, we tabulated exactly how many guidance interruptions were caused by broken lane marks, inconsistent pavement patches, intersections, and exit and entrance ramps. We also noted when a car lost the lane-keeping sense for no apparent reason. Then we ranked the four contenders according to the number of control lapses each test car experienced.
So cinch up nice and tight, because there’s going to be a lot of near misses.”
When my kids arrived and work become more prominent in my life, I gave up a love affair with cars and started to drive computers. I had my first Macintosh in the late 80’s, one of those cute little slanted colored cubes whose presumptive posture outperformed DEC stand-ups using LP-sized floppies for routine and simple tasks in the office, thus driving my superiors from the Boston high-tech world stark raving angry. Later versions put my kids through high school and college. I did re-invent myself when my son leased himself a brand-new Pontiac Trans-Am but drove himself right out of the car by ignoring the mileage restrictions and costs. I ended up owning it and driving it for nine years. I’m not sure I’ve ever been in a finer car on an Interstate highway, but I’m sure the Beemer folks would argue that point. But look here, and ponder the possibilities:
The Vehicle Performance Guidance section, aimed at the industry itself, outlines best practices for the safe pre-deployment design, development and testing of highly automated vehicles prior to commercial sale or operation on public roads. With the guidance, the U.S. Department of Transportation establishes its expectations of industry by providing reasonable practices and procedures manufacturers, suppliers and other entities should follow in the short term to test and deploy the vehicles. The policy asks automakers and tech companies to be able to prove that their semiautonomous and autonomous vehicles could meet a 15-point list of safety expectations before taking to the roads. They’re asked to document how they’re addressing issues like privacy, digital security, human-machine interface and ethical considerations—like whether to program a vehicle to hit another vehicle or a pedestrian in the event of a crash.
The Model State Policy section seeks to reinforce that the traditional role of the states in areas like vehicle licensing and registration, traffic laws and enforcement, and motor vehicle insurance and liability regimes will continue when it comes to autonomous vehicle policy. NHTSA meanwhile will be responsible for federal motor vehicle safety standards, recalls and other enforcement measures, educating the public on safety and writing performance guidelines for industry.
NHTSA notes that it may be necessary for states to clarify the definition of “driver” in regulatory language, which could entail combing through multitudes of policies and state codes. The agency has already clarified for federal purposes that a car’s software can be considered a “driver.”
The insurance and liability issues could prove thorny for states as well. While some automakers have said they’ll take responsibility for any traffic crashes caused by their software, others have not.
NHTSA notes they will continue to exercise their existing regulatory authority through interpretations, exemptions, notice-and-comment rulemaking and enforcement authority. The agency can also identify safety defects and recall vehicles or equipment that pose an unreasonable risk to safety.
But the agency also indicates that existing regulatory tools may not be sufficient to ensure highly automated vehicles are introduced safely and to realize the full promise of the new technologies, so additional regulatory tools may be needed to quickly address the latest developments. Congress could be asked to consider new oversight powers for USDOT to approve vehicle designs before they come to market, give cease-and-desist orders in cases of imminent danger or require software changes for vehicles already on the road, for example.
Next up for the policy is a 60-day public comment period (read the process for submission here), which could yield significant changes. The policy is expected to be supplemented by a related report from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators later this year.
But as autonomous vehicle legal expert Bryant Walker Smith noted this week, none of this is intended to provide the final word on these issues by any means. “I would also expect that this guidance will be the starting point for more thoughtful legislative discussions—not only at the state level but also, for the first time, at the federal level,” he wrote in a blog post. “It will be interesting to see which developers carry the DOT’s implicit requests for new authorities and resources to Congress. The model state policy does not bind states, and some may well decide not to follow it. The performance guidance likewise does not bind developers of automated driving systems, but I would expect few of these developers to deviate from it. This soft guidance could become even more influential if states incorporate it in legislation, if … (NHTSA) considers it in the course of exemption or enforcement decisions, or if courts look to it to understand how a reasonable developer should act. In other words, DOT is establishing expectations.”
DOT officials also made it clear this week they plan to update these guidelines annually.
Furthermore, the guidelines call for states not to just dive in head first but to take a coordinated approach by identifying a lead agency on automated driving regulation and setting up a task force with representatives from offices of information technology, transportation, law enforcement and other relevant areas.
So while the NHTSA guidance has been greatly anticipated, it only kicks off a series of what are likely to be lengthy and complex conversations that will evolve in the years to come just as the technologies do that they will address.
Autonomous vehicles will be on the agenda at the CSG 2016 National Conference in Colonial Williamsburg. On Friday, December 9, the CSG Transportation & Infrastructure Public Policy Committee will convene for a session entitled “Realizing the Future: Changes for Transportation on the Horizon.” Among the speakers will be Chris Hendrickson, Professor Emeritus in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh and director of the university’s Traffic 21 Institute. In 2014, Hendrickson was the lead author on “Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: 2040 Vision,” a report prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation that assessed the implications of the vehicles on the management and operation of the state’s transportation system including in areas like design and investment decisions, workforce training and driver licensing. We’ll also get a briefing on what the NHTSA guidance means for states and hear from the automotive industry about all the innovations that are on the way. Also on the agenda for the transportation committee: Virginia Transportation Secretary Aubrey Layne will talk about how his state improved the processes by which it selects transportation projects and chooses which ones to tackle as public-private partnerships. And we’ll hear about what a new President and Congress could mean for transportation in 2017 and beyond. You can check out the preliminary agenda for the full CSG National Conference here and register for the meeting here.
Autonomous vehicles and other emerging technologies bringing rapid changes to communities also will be among the issues discussed during Capital Ideas II, a two-day conference the organization Transportation for America will host in Sacramento November 16-17. CSG is pleased to be a promotional partner for the event, which will offer attendees a highly interactive curriculum of model state legislation, campaign tactics, innovative policies and peer-to-peer collaboration designed to help them advance successful state transportation policy and funding proposals. Just in time to get a jump on the 2017 state legislative sessions, Capital Ideas II (no affiliation with CSG’s magazine Capitol Ideas) will also examine how state departments of transportation are instituting reforms and how California and other states are leading the way in policy innovation. The latest tentative agenda for the conference is available on the T4America website. Registration is available here. For an idea of what the first Capital Ideas was like in 2014, you can read my coverage of the event here, here and here.
“… For months, federal regulators have been preparing to unveil regulations for testing fully automated cars, which garnered attention after a fatal crash involving a Tesla Motors Inc. car that was operating with its automated driving system activated. Rules were expected in July, but became embroiled in debate after the crash.”
“… Author Will Oremus cites a passage from a recent RAND study that envisions a couple of intriguing/worrying future scenarios:
“Imagine a law enforcement officer interacting with a vehicle that has sensors connected to the Internet. With the appropriate judicial clearances, an officer could ask the vehicle to identify its occupants and location histories. … Or, if the vehicle is unmanned but capable of autonomous movement and in an undesirable location (for example, parked illegally or in the immediate vicinity of an emergency), an officer could direct the vehicle to move to a new location (with the vehicle’s intelligent agents recognizing “officer” and “directions to move”) and automatically notify its owner and occupants.”
Situations like these raise countless questions about autonomous cars and the right to privacy. For example, do police need a warrant to search an autonomous car’s hard drive? The scenario is similar to that posed by “black box” recorders found on most modern vehicles, which can be accessed by law enforcement under certain conditions — but then again, maybe not. And if not, can police access all the data on the hard drive, or just some of it? Can they access it remotely, while the car is in use?
Throw in wearable devices, smartphones that connect to the internet via in-car routers, and many other always-on, always-connected technologies, and you see the problem. The minutiae of our lives are recorded via our constant interaction with apps and websites, email and social networks. If the police suspect someone of wrongdoing, why shouldn’t they be allowed to access that information in the interest of public safety?
Thankfully, part of the RAND study — which was commissioned by the National Institute of Justice — involved discussing these matters with a panel of experts in the fields of criminal justice and technology. The experts’ #1 priority at the moment involves creating a system of policies and procedures for dealing with autonomous cars. (If only they’d do the same for license plate readers.) Least important to them? Creating ways for police to take control of autonomous vehicles…..”
“… According to data fromStatisticBrain.com, there about 41 million speeding tickets issued each year on average. At an average fine of $152 per ticket, that equates to about $6.2 Billion in revenue nationwide from Traffic Tickets alone.
Having a fully autonomous car, as they’ve been reported, will effectively reduce the need for speeding tickets to ever be used again…..”
Vehicle makers might bear a greater share of liability as vehicles become more autonomous. Thus, the authors suggest, policymakers and manufacturers may want to seek risk-limiting measures that could include, for example, capping the liability exposure of manufacturers if they comply with government standards.
Citing the obstacles Uber and other ridesharing firms have faced with taxis and regulators, the report suggests that “negatively affected stakeholders”—including taxi and truck drivers, insurers, and personal-injury and traffic litigation lawyers—”may exert significant pressure on public-policy makers to protect their interests.”
The report says policymakers “may need to develop mitigation strategies to soften the blow on the stakeholders that suffer the greatest disruption.”
“… No battle plan, they say, survives the first contact with the enemy. And in this case, the enemy is us — the messy, chaotic, mentally ill, undocumented, angry, frustrated, overworked, underpaid, teeming masses of humanity. No sane person can think that autonomous cars can survive in that environment. It’s them or us in a fight to the death for control of the American road.
I’m not such a narcissistic egomaniac that I don’t realize that many, many intelligent people have pondered this question before today and likely come to conclusions that are better-informed but substantially similar to what I’ve described above. So you don’t have to worry about autonomous cars sharing the roads with human drivers and being subject to all of the hazards we’ve discussed. Rather, you can rest assured that our right to drive will simply disappear whenever it suits our West Coast tech elite. If we’re lucky, this unilateral takeover will only happen in places where population density and wealth make it easy, like San Francisco.
If we’re unlucky, however, the new order will simply be imposed upon us nationwide, the same way that Mr. Clinton imposed urban-focused gun control on rural towns where nobody’s committed a violent crime since before the Taft administration. If that day comes and the “Red Barchetta” scenario becomes law, you can rest assured that any power you have to vote or protest against the situation will have been thoroughly neutralized well ahead of time. You can, however, always pick up a rock.”
John Bonnefon, a psychological scientist working at France’s National Center for Scientific Research, told me there is no historical precedent that applies to the study of self-driving ethics. ‘It is the very first time that we may massively and daily engage with an object that is programmed to kill us in specific circumstances. Trains do not self-destruct, no more than planes or elevators do. We may be afraid of plane crashes, but we know at least that they are due to mistakes or ill intent. In other words, we are used to self-destruction being a bug, not a feature.’
Perhaps there could be an emergency switch that lets the driver take back control. But then the vehicle isn’t really autonomous at all, is it?. Perhaps the real ethical problem was removing the driver’s autonomy in the first place…
Max, in the comments section, says,
“There’s no way to create “ethical software” good enough to replace human judgment…”
Yves Smith says “the hype regularly exceeds reality”.
Subgenius, in those same comments, asks
“Can the image data be accurately and rapidly processed to a greater degree of accuracy than can be achieved by the human visual cortex?”
“… Part of the problem is that so little energy is focused on properly training drivers. In most states, obtaining a driver’s license is a mere formality. Being more accretive with driver’s education, higher standards on driving tests and renewals, and strict enforcement of the rules of the road, basically washing out those who have no business being behind the wheel, would do a great deal to improve driver safety.”
Which brings us full circle to Brock Yates, whose “plan floated years ago was an anathema to politicians and the general public, who viewed driving an automobile on highways as a supreme act of egalitarianism. Nowhere on earth was the constitutional mandate that “all men are created equal” more relevant than on the open road. This, regardless if the driver were a half-blind octogenarian doddering along the streets of Boca Raton or an Indianapolis champion running on an empty interstate.
Still, the notion that driving skills are directly related to physical and mental capacity does pertain, regardless of politically correct dogma. Perhaps the idea of drivers’ licenses tiered to aptitude behind the wheel ought to be reexamined.
For openers, vehicular capability in terms of tires, brakes, suspensions, etc., has been elevated to amazing heights in recent decades, permitting even the cheapest Kia or Hyundai to safely exceed posted 65-to-75-mph interstate limits.
Second, it has been proved to the point of tedium, based on statistics from the German autobahns, that vastly higher speeds can be safely maintained, presuming elemental laws (sobriety, lane discipline, etc.) are rigidly enforced.
Moreover, tiered licenses, based on experience and training, exist in virtually every other form of transportation. Pilots are licensed for everything from puddle jumpers to multiengine jets. Boaters in many states need licensing that escalates as the vessels get larger. Truckers, chauffeurs, taxi drivers, police officers, and others use special operators’ licenses, yet the vast motoring public trundles out onto the highway each day by the tens of millions with no special qualifications. In the context of blind jurisprudence, each man or woman is essentially as qualified as the next. Other than restricted licenses for drivers 15 or 16 years of age, depending on the state, there are no differences in the licenses being issued to a paroled felon, an outpatient psychopath, a drunk, or a healthy, socially responsible average citizen….”
What Brock was talking about, what my own driving experience has told me, is that you can’t discount, excerpt out, or disregard the human factor. Recently my wife and I “piloted” our new autonomy-in-training Nissan to a town about 25 miles away for dinner and a movie. The route was going to take us cross-country. While she waited for the new bank manager-in-training to figure out how to get a routine task done (it took about 45 minutes), I went out to program the vehicle’s navigation system for the addresses of both the restaurant and the movie theater. I don’t need those devices; I have a pretty good map in my head. Ever read up about the tests that London cabbies have to pass?
When I was a probationary firefighter, much of my classroom training was spent looking at street maps with all the names removed and answering rapid-fire questions. “The call is for a fire at such-and-such address; find it on the map.” “You have a medical emergency here; it’s 2:30 PM. What route will you take?” “Nope, not that way. School just let out and tehre’s school busses cluttering up the intersections here, here and here.”
In the late 60’s, I foresaw a dashboard vehicle navigation systems — GPS was still a closely-guarded miltiary secret back then — by envisioning an in-dash microfiche HUD projection system to assist ambulance drivers in situations when time was of the essence and making a wrong turn could mean life and death. Most vehicles do not yet have HUD displays, and using a GPS-based navigation system is still fraught with problems.
I could have gotten to the town wiht the restaurant and theater on my own by driving the lengths of the rectangle on Interstate highways, but I like back roads and the navigation system — not yet voice-activated-or-responsive so it has to handled by the front-seat passanger if you wish to drive safely — thought a cross-country approach made sense too. Halfway there, it took me in circles twice because it could not clearly see (or dictate) the route through a Y-intersection linked into a rotary. I had to turn it off — my wife calls hers Hentrietta and is used to screaming at it— and turn onto a road with which I was already familiar. I found my own way to the town, and then my wife — who’d been to the restaurant with friends — got me the rest of the way.
If you want further examples of this phenomenon of the human mind in the machine, consider seeing the movie we saw after dinner:
New rules of the road for robot cars coming out of Washington this week could lead to the eventual extinction of one of the defining archetypes of the past century: the human driver.
While banning people from driving may seem like something from a Kurt Vonnegut short story, it’s the logical endgame of a technology that could dramatically reduce — or even eliminate — the 1.25 million road deaths a year globally. Human error is the cause of 94 percent of roadway fatalities, U.S. safety regulators say, and robot drivers never get drunk, sleepy or distracted.
Autonomous cars already have “superhuman intelligence” that allows them to see around corners and avoid crashes, said Danny Shapiro, senior director of automotive at Nvidia Corp., a maker of high-speed processors for self-driving cars.
“Long term, these vehicles will drive better than any human possibly can,” Shapiro said. “We’re not there yet, but we will get there sooner than we believe.”
Regulators are accelerating the shift with new rules that will provide a path for going fully driverless by removing the requirement that a human serve as a backup. Earlier this year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recognized Google’s self-driving software as the “driver” in its fully autonomous test vehicles, eliminating the need for a person to be present.
This week, technology industry veterans proposed a ban on human drivers on a 150-mile (241-kilometer) stretch of Interstate 5 from Seattle to Vancouver. Within five years, human driving could be outlawed in congested city centers like London, on college campuses and at airports, said Kristin Schondorf, executive director of automotive transportation at consultant EY.
The first driver-free zones will be well-defined and digitally mapped, giving autonomous cars long-range vision and a 360-degree view of their surroundings, Schondorf said. The I-5 proposal would start with self-driving vehicles using car-pool lanes and expand over a decade to robot rides taking over the road during peak driving times.
“In city centers, you don’t even want non-automated vehicles; they would just ruin the whole point of why you have a smart city,” said Schondorf, a former engineer at Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV. “It makes it a dumb city.”
Autonomous vehicles could cost America 5 million jobs. What should we do about it?Los Angeles Times. The hype here reminds me of electric batteries for cars circa 1992. The vision of the future then was that all-electrical cars were coming soon, starting with local delivery fleets like Fedex and bus services, since the 100 mile per charge limit wouldn’t be a problem (they could go back to their garages and charge overnight). Did this happen? No. And the other impediment, charging stations for passenger cars, is no closer to reality than in 1992 (and there were other too-cute-by-half fixes, like charging stations that would swap in charged batteries for depleted ones so as to minimize driver downtime). The short problem here is we don’t have the infrastructure (as in roads) that autonomous cars require and we aren’t getting them any time soon.
**** **** ****
Zack Kanter over at Quartz thinks driverless vehicles will kill millions of jobs, all within ten years. And he’s wrong.
Ok, ready? I should probably start out by saying I have a few pre-existing biases. The first is that I normally love Quartz and what they do, and the second is that I don’t have an enormous amount of respect for people who generally try to predict what will happen a decade from now, if not further out. Mostly because if they’re wrong, no one will remember, so no one will call them out on it, and if they’re right (which they rarely are), the one doing the predicting will be the one doing the trumpeting. And even if they are wrong, most people tend to remember the prediction nostalgically as if it was a big joke, like the flying cars of Back to the Future Part II, or the guy who dismissed the Internet as a bunch of hooey in Newsweek.
But I will boldly dismiss the prediction that autonomous cars will completely change our world in just 10 short years as a bunch of hooey….
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday signed a bill that for the first time allows testing on public roads of self-driving vehicles with no steering wheels, brake pedals or accelerators. A human driver as backup is not required, but the vehicles will be limited to speeds of less than 35 mph.
The legislation applies only to a pilot project by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority at an autonomous-vehicle testing facility at the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, and at a San Ramon business park containing public roads.
At the “GoMentum Station” in the former naval facility, Honda has been testing self-driving cars, and the firm Otto Motors, a division of a Canadian robotics company, has been working on autonomous trucks. The Transportation Authority has said Google and Apple have expressed interest in using the facility.
While the technological feasibility of autonomous vehicles is being demonstrated by Google, Audi, Volvo, Bosch, and Continental, important obstacles such as high costs and the lack of a legislative framework remain in place. On the other hand, the multiple benefits of autonomous vehicles in terms of safety, cost savings, and efficiency, as well as positive impact on the economy and society as a whole, are driving research and development efforts globally. With ADAS-type features already being implemented on a wide scale, the next step for autonomous vehicles will materialize in the next decade. Fully autonomous, self-driving, robotic vehicles will start appearing between 10 and 15 years from now. The disruptive effects of autonomous driving are only just being discovered and its transformative impact on the auto industry and society as a whole will be huge with car sharing and declining vehicle ownership being two of the main exponents.
This study covers autonomous vehicle classification and types, use cases and applications, technology, main players and initiatives, impact and benefits, and remaining challenges and issues. Comparisons, analogies, and lessons to be learnt from other industries such as aviation and rail are briefly described. The report also provides forecasts for autonomous vehicle shipments and technology value per type and region for the next 20 years.
Table of Contents
1. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES TYPES AND CLASSIFICATION
1.2. NHTSA Classification
1.3. Freescale’s View on Autonomous Driving Evolution
1.4. ABI Research Classification
2. SPECIFIC AUTONOMOUS DRIVING USE CASES
2.1. Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)
2.2. Drive Trains or Platoons
2.3. Automated or Self-parking
3. USER SEGMENTS FOR AUTONOMOUS DRIVING
3.1. Teenage and Young Drivers
3.2. Elderly and Impaired Persons
3.3. Large Families
3.5. Public and Private Transportation
3.6. Delivery Fleets
4. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES
4.2. Machine Vision
4.5. Digital Maps
4.6. Location Technologies
4.9. Wi-Fi Direct
4.10. Computing Platform
4.11. Software Algorithms
4.12. Electronically Controllable Electric Power Steering, Throttle, and Brakes
4.13. HMI and Driver Monitoring Systems (DMS)
4.14. Autonomous Vehicle Technologies Diagram
5. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ECOSYSTEM
5.11. University of Oxford
5.12. Dutch Automated Vehicle Initiative (DAVI)
5.15. AutoNOMOS Labs
6. BENEFITS AND IMPACT OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES
6.4. Convenience and Efficiency
6.5. Infotainment, Driver Distraction, Smartphone Integration, and HMI
6.6. Vehicle Ownership Decline: Car Sharing and Crowdsourcing
6.7. Public and Private Transportation
6.8. Insurance Telematics
6.10. Economic Impact
6.11. Impact on Society
7. AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
7.1. Legal Framework and Liabilities
7.4. V2X Penetration
7.5. User Awareness and Acceptance
7.7. Mixed Environments
7.8. Cost and Pricing
7.9. Aftermarket Solutions
8. AUTOMATION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES
8.3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
1Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Region, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
2Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
3Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, World Market, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
4Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, North America, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
5Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Europe, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
6Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Asia-Pacific, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
7Autonomous Vehicle OEM Shipments by Type, Rest of the World, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
8Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, North America, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
9Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Europe, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
10Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Asia-Pacific, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
11Autonomous Vehicle OEM Technology Value by Type, Rest of the World, Forecast: 2012 to 2032
In this case, I speak specifically of the advent of a “dirty bomb” incident, likely as a false flag of some sort.
The signs and symptoms are:
a radical uptick in the mention of such an event on the myriad of police/crime/homeland security oriented TV shows (count how many of them there are);
the increasing number of drills being run on TV shows and perhaps in the real world;
the increasing mention that security of nuclear installations (power plants, bomb-holding facilities and the like) gets, with the notable obvious inclusion of events and locales in Europe and especially in Belgium;
the increasing mention that the “enemy du jour” — in this case ISIS/ISIL — wants to acquire nuclear materials for the creation of a “dirty bomb”;
recent changes in the footing of military organizations’ abilities and structure; etc.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News:
The brothers behind this week’s Brussels bombings also spied on a top nuclear researcher and hoped to build a so-called “dirty bomb,” an expert involved in a probe into ISIS threats told NBC News on Thursday. Khalid and Ibrahim El Bakraoui were responsible for planting a hidden camera outside the Belgian researcher’s house, according to Claude Moniquet, a French former intelligence official who was hired to investigate potential plots targeting Europe’s nuclear sector. This camera produced more than 10 hours of film showing the comings and goings of senior researcher at a Belgian nuclear center and his family. “The terrorist cell … naively believed they could use him to penetrate a lab to obtain nuclear material to make a dirty bomb,” Moniquet, CEO of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center privacy consultancy said. The researcher worked at a center which stored a “significant portion of the world’s supply of radioisotopes,” according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, D.C. These isotopes are used in hospitals and factories around the world but can also be used to make a so-called “dirty bomb” — a device that could spread radioactive material across a wide area.
Keep in mind the patterns of attack and timing that have been prevalent in the past among the usual suspects/location for false flag eventuality; drills are an obvious sign, as are subtle or sudden evacuation of localities, shifts in business practices, and the like.
Keep in mind that the most devastating impact of a dirty bombis not the explosion, nor even the radiation, as awful and potentially deadly as they seem, but the economic impact and induction of chaos that must stem from the required extensive, expensive clean-up and their impact on the economy of the affected area.
Keep in mind the use of such events for purposes of ‘punishment’, social engineering, or political herding.
Keep in mind the political season we are in and the calendar of forthcoming political events.
Here are five mentions of the topic within the last week (note that a search at Google News using the phrase <dirty bomb> returned over 800,000 such items):
Last year, “Israel built and exploded so-called “dirty bombs,” explosives laced with nuclear material, to examine how such explosions would affect the country if it were to be attacked by the crude radioactive weapons….”
Speaking of sound, I don’t ordinarily post stuff that comes in from Huffington Post but this seemed pretty interesting in light of what I know (and it’s not much) about how sound works inside the body/mind/spiritual unit. (Perhaps someone would like to write a guest post on the topic of cosmic sound, pitch, frequency, brain waves, and the fact that our brain appears to have cellular-level receptors and transmitters.)
about the work of Alvaro Pascual-Leone about whom I’ve read and written briefly within the topics of neuroplasticity and Norman Doidge, M.D.
Being a student of communication, I remember Henry David Thoreau commenting about the fact that a telegraph line had just connected Texas to Maine and pre-supposed that this meant that Texas had something to communicate about with the people in Maine.
Actually, extra-sensory mind-to-mind communication (and why ideas jump to mind?) has been proven for some time; I first read about it in the introduction to a book based on a Smithsonian lecture series edited by Karen Nesbitt Shanor, Ph.D. entitled “The Emerging Mind” and published by Renaissance Books in 1999. Drs. Marilyn Schlitz and William Braud demonstrated that, through our thoughts, we can affect the blood pressure, heart rate and electrical conduction of the skin of another person at a different location.
Dr. Roger D. Nelson, when he was at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (PEAR), showed that people were able to communicate complex information (such as images of buildings and sculptures) to other people thousands of miles away. The proof that such information could be communicated mentally from one person to another was interesting enough but what really astounded the audience in the Smithsonian seminar in 1994 where the results were first announced was that, in a large number of cases, the receivers got the information up to three days before it was sent out.
As you can see, it came to me by way of another member of Kenny’s Neighborhood.
I could see right away that it would challenge a number of people who are fixated on affixing blame for 9/11 on a certain Mideastern nation and its minions, and sure enough “anonymous” seems to have taken the bait. When I posted the article, I scanned it rapidlyy to see what it had to say and I found it worthy of reading and, last night, finally found the time in the middle of my real estate games, to read it in full. I suggest to everyone that they take the time to digest the article slowly. I think anonymous missed some key points. I leap a copy on my desktop and did some “color font” highlighting of what I thought were four key points.
1) “Why in the world are ‘we’ so worried about appearing credible to those who have no intention of believing anything other than what they wish to believe?”
2) “Enough ‘truth’, omission, scapegoats, blind alleys, false leads, backtracking and ideological red herrings has been seeded into the official cover-up to keep EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle endlessly chasing their tails.”
3) “Better to have the disaffected corralled in the cattle shoot (chute?) snipping at one another rather than out in the streets directly confronting authority or taking incremental steps towards slowly withdrawing from the enslaving system.”
4) “As long as we remain mesmerized by the symptoms of the disease we remain effectively disabled from dealing with the root cause of our illness. Mission Accomplished!
It is time to wake up and head deeper down the rabbit hole. Contrary to popular belief ‘our’ collective problems will not be solved unless and until our inner dysfunction and insanity are confronted and recognized.”
The antidote, says “cognitive dissonance”, is to stop quibbling and to keep moving forward.
What constitutes moving forward?
Loving, creating, building something different than what is currently operative…
In America, telling the truth is a treasonous act. The inverse of that is that selling misinformation in a republic and an open society is behavior that brings rewards from the centers of control. Without appropriate social agreement or understanding, we are simply telling lies to one another. That’s the way it works in dysfunctional relationships. We then have what amounts to a Potemkin village, a maskirovka, in which purposeful deception is allowed and fraud and corruption are actively promoted as the way of transaction.
Is Hawaiian Beer the Next Big Thing? says the headline on the mega-media home page, with the Today show icon, that streams hot and cold running distraction and propaganda available for you (after requisite warm-up time) as soon as you snap the “on” button into the more interactive mode. Information overload…. Like walking into the Barnes & Noble store, outlet for the NWO system of print machinery, complete with Starbucks cafe. I passed on the coffee and, for the most part, just browsed; I spent some time flicking through Masha Gessen’s book on Putin. I thought to myself, well, the woman did at least spend some time in Russia. I didn’t buy the book (I’m living on a retirement pension) but I was able to identify this review at the guardian.com. And here is NPR’s treatment of the book.
The T-shirt I wore to B&N reads “I’m Ready for Oligarchy”, a parody of the Hillary Clinton campaign slogan, so enormous wealth is a necessity if one wants to have power. If you are willing to be a spokesperson or a political agent for those who have enormous wealth, they’ll throw some of it your way. Inflation and several millennia have gotten us beyond pieces of silver.
I gather that Putin would be amused by all this and simultaneously is a man who takes, perhaps after some thought, action. One of the things I gleaned from the Gessen book is that he called the author right after she left Russia for Prague. Her call-from-the-kremlin came as she drove past Kafka’s grave.
But I digressed, again. I was talking about Hawaiian beer. I’d been in Barnes and Noble looking for something and killing time waiting for the realtor to finish showing the house. I found what I was looking for, and decided that several of the author’s works about whom I had a sudden curiosity could and would wait until I sampled some of his earlier and lesser works but which had a direct bearing on the main focus (already nesting and briefly sampled in digital online free format). The only clue I’m going to give you is that the topical focus is on happiness, death, life, God and government.
Now, about that Hawaiian beer…. The article talks about micro-brews on the islands that have a unique “terroir” for having used locally-grown lemongrass, or uses taro root, and “mango and pineapple flavors playing off the gentle malt backbone”. I’ve never been to the islands. The article does say that a few of the brews make it into production long enough to get distributed on the mainland. But Honolulu is 3,335 miles from Boston, and there are 22 craft breweries in operation within an hour’s drive from my house. The local supermarket sells carbonated mineral water under the own label bottled in the Italian Alps. Spring water is bottled less than two miles from my house.
I’m enough of a Taoist to ask:
Why in hell anyone would consider undertaking the shipment of flavored water for more than 70 miles?