
Ask HN: Isn't VR an indirect competitor for the self driving car? - cxhartmann
What&#x27;s the benefit of streamlining the process of moving our carcasses when our senses can eventually travel for free at the speed of light? Yeah we need a distribution network to move inanimate objects, or for the occasional vacation, but for us consumers&#x2F;workers don&#x27;t we primarily drive today to connect our senses anyway.  #firstworldcommuteproblems
======
shrineOfLies
By asking this question, you're essentially making a huge assumption. Firstly,
Do humans drive to work to only connect their senses? When you say we
"primarily drive to connect our senses anyways", you're diluting the purpose
of the entire exercise of "working" to "connecting our senses". Which is
false.

Consider the profession of driving. There will always be a need for "drivers",
not just humans, for transporting goods, services etc. Is driving an exercise
of just connecting our senses? No. It also involves performing actions based
on inputs from these senses. Why would anyone want to create VR based drivers?
It makes no sense, because self driving cars are already possible. Self
driving cars have already won the competition in this case. This is the one
scenario where VR and self driving cars compete.

Now consider the profession of software development. Here, let's say VR made
it such that you wouldn't have a need to drive to work. Then, you wouldn't
drive to work, but you'd still need to get places - for which a car (maybe
self driving) is still required. In this case, again, self driving cars and VR
are not competing. One has made removed the need for the other for a very
specific purpose. This is not competition.

I think your question is asked with a very narrow minded view of "working".
You're probably a software engineer. AMIRITE?

~~~
insoluble
> but you'd still need to get places

Or places could come to you. Nearly all labour is likely to become replaced by
robotics eventually. The human body could be seen as being there only to
transport the mind; but when the mind gets its _information_ and _stimulation_
virtually, and when the mind's physical will is fulfilled by robots, there is
no longer a need for the body to relocate.

------
hightechlowlife
It's a very novel way to look at it, but I think you're right. Constructed
reality by its very design replaces the use of actual reality. We've seen this
trend with the internet and I can only imagine it will continue.

People are driving less, interacting less, working from home more, and using
screens more. I'm fairly confident this isn't going to change when you make
staying at home even more convenient and pleasurable. It should naturally
accelerate.

Take a look at this graph:

[http://blog.sgws.org/files/2012/04/MediaUseGraph.jpg](http://blog.sgws.org/files/2012/04/MediaUseGraph.jpg)

In fact, if you want to enter the rabbit hole of tech pessimism, read this
report from 2010:

[http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whywaldor...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whywaldorfworks.org%2F06_Global%2Fdocuments%2FEURO-
ScreenMedia.pdf&embedded=true)

It isn't pretty.

------
thomas-b
It's definitely an interesting way to look at how VR and robotics could affect
us depending on the direction we take with it. I'm sensing a whole lot of
Wall-E in that.

