By Jason Lim
The Economist's special report, "Self-driving cars will profoundly change the way people live," explores the different foreseen and unforeseen consequences of self-driving cars to the way we live. It provides fascinating insights into how our everyday lives will change because cars will now be able to drive themselves.
Most obviously, death and injuries from vehicle accidents will fall dramatically. Another obvious benefit will be all the time we can save. By the way, parking spaces will be gone as well since AVs don't need to stay still when the owners are doing something else. In fact, car owners might be a thing of the past as well since AVs can be at your beck and call whenever and wherever you need them. Why own a metal box with wheels when you can just use it whenever you need it?
Less obvious but much more intriguing is the concept of AVs as a socioeconomic platform. "Toyota's e-Palette vehicles are boxes on wheels in different sizes that can be kitted out as mobile shops, offices or beauty salons."
But I hate it. I hate these AVs already.
And not because of the risks that the Economist article pays lip service to. It mentions the obvious risks such as privacy (AV companies will know exactly where you go, how often you go, and when you go). It brings up other less obvious risks like segregation based on your political leanings or socioeconomic status _ if authorities can control how you travel, they can also control how you don't travel.
No, none of these. I hate it because AVs take away a critical component of my masculine identity. Growing up, cars were never just a means to get from one place to another. Cars signified independence, power, risk-taking, and other attributes that enhanced one's self-identity as a happening dude. Cars were a status symbol that greatly increased your coolness factor among the guys and desirability with the ladies. It's no accident that "parking" was used as euphemism for making out with a girl. With AVs (and knowing that some random stranger or AI is watching you all the time), how do you get to second base with your first girlfriend?
Now cars as we know them will be gone, to be replaced with functionary platforms? "Hey girl, do you want a ride in my latest moving, functionary platform?" Just doesn't ring the same. Worse, more than half of Bruce Springsteen's hits wouldn't exist without cars. "Born to Run" would be renamed "Born to Uber" and "Thunder Road" would be "Electrically self-charging vehicular infrastructure."
While most of these concerns are tongue-in-cheek, it does point to the real issue of socio-cultural factors in technology adoption. Technology could be the latest and the greatest, but people won't use it if it requires too great a psychological leap or if there is a cultural gap that frames the technology in unintended ways. Especially, if the technology negatively impacts the social status and perceived autonomy of individuals within certain cultural contexts, it will face resistance since it's now perceived as a threat.
This is especially true for autonomous vehicles. Cars are not gender neutral, and many coming-of-age social rituals for young men are based on cars. In that sense, AVs are more than boring; it's emasculating. And with the rate at which men are driving rhinos, tigers, and other animals to extinction because of some imagined benefits to their virility from these animal parts, I don't see men going quietly into the AV sunset and giving up their vehicular agency any time soon.
So, I hereby announce the establishment of Men Against Self-Driving Cars (MASC). Anyone want to join?
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006.
 |
Most obviously, death and injuries from vehicle accidents will fall dramatically. Another obvious benefit will be all the time we can save. By the way, parking spaces will be gone as well since AVs don't need to stay still when the owners are doing something else. In fact, car owners might be a thing of the past as well since AVs can be at your beck and call whenever and wherever you need them. Why own a metal box with wheels when you can just use it whenever you need it?
Less obvious but much more intriguing is the concept of AVs as a socioeconomic platform. "Toyota's e-Palette vehicles are boxes on wheels in different sizes that can be kitted out as mobile shops, offices or beauty salons."
But I hate it. I hate these AVs already.
And not because of the risks that the Economist article pays lip service to. It mentions the obvious risks such as privacy (AV companies will know exactly where you go, how often you go, and when you go). It brings up other less obvious risks like segregation based on your political leanings or socioeconomic status _ if authorities can control how you travel, they can also control how you don't travel.
No, none of these. I hate it because AVs take away a critical component of my masculine identity. Growing up, cars were never just a means to get from one place to another. Cars signified independence, power, risk-taking, and other attributes that enhanced one's self-identity as a happening dude. Cars were a status symbol that greatly increased your coolness factor among the guys and desirability with the ladies. It's no accident that "parking" was used as euphemism for making out with a girl. With AVs (and knowing that some random stranger or AI is watching you all the time), how do you get to second base with your first girlfriend?
Now cars as we know them will be gone, to be replaced with functionary platforms? "Hey girl, do you want a ride in my latest moving, functionary platform?" Just doesn't ring the same. Worse, more than half of Bruce Springsteen's hits wouldn't exist without cars. "Born to Run" would be renamed "Born to Uber" and "Thunder Road" would be "Electrically self-charging vehicular infrastructure."
While most of these concerns are tongue-in-cheek, it does point to the real issue of socio-cultural factors in technology adoption. Technology could be the latest and the greatest, but people won't use it if it requires too great a psychological leap or if there is a cultural gap that frames the technology in unintended ways. Especially, if the technology negatively impacts the social status and perceived autonomy of individuals within certain cultural contexts, it will face resistance since it's now perceived as a threat.
This is especially true for autonomous vehicles. Cars are not gender neutral, and many coming-of-age social rituals for young men are based on cars. In that sense, AVs are more than boring; it's emasculating. And with the rate at which men are driving rhinos, tigers, and other animals to extinction because of some imagined benefits to their virility from these animal parts, I don't see men going quietly into the AV sunset and giving up their vehicular agency any time soon.
So, I hereby announce the establishment of Men Against Self-Driving Cars (MASC). Anyone want to join?
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture. He has been writing for The Korea Times since 2006.
![[INTERVIEW] Yoon Kye-sang enjoys returning to rom-com with 'Kiss Sixth Sense'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/8f2478bc998d4f1487a60b6e2b68d91a.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![Divided America reacts to Roe v. Wade overturn [PHOTOS]](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/newsV2/images/ROE_WADE0001_be207508dec46.JPG/dims/resize/268/optimize)
