Ask HN: What is something you believe that nearly no one agrees with you on?

Morality matters, and the lack of it is destroying the planet, the economy, and our families.

very interesting.

I would like to see this 'science', that's not voiced argumentatively, just would be of interest. However I posit that consciousness is more than an illusion. I won't type my spaghetti argument here but it is essentially the famous 'I think, therefore I am'. I would agree with you on the irrationality of religion and faith. I choose to be a 'believer' not on purely logical grounds but because of the other benefits it provides to me. Unlike you I feel that intrinsically my 'self' and other people's 'selves' are important and equal. My faith based beliefs provide a foundation for principles that support that conjecture. Essentially my beliefs are not based on the scientific method or on the physical properties of the universe. They are not however 'utterly devoid' of meaning, significance, or benefit.

btw, this s/b a reply to a previous comment as this doesn't answer the question posed.

The great war of the future will not be between nations or religions, but between city folk and rural folk.

The temptation for abuse seems too great to me. You have to tell a third party (or multiple - the government, law enforcement, your employer, your insurer possibly, or anyone who signs up for the inevitable Google app which plots your driving history) where you want to go and now they not only know who you are, but where you're going and where you've been. Someone else has complete control over the software which determines whether or not you get there (assuming these cars don't have some sort of manual override).

Yes, currently large aircraft operate more or less the same way (and everything is fine until something happens and the pilot realizes they don't actually know how to fly a plane because they've never had to). But people won't be taking planes to the store, or to work (for the most part) or the voting booth or to the hospital or police station or an AA meeting. The intersection of surveillance with physical restriction seems too much. I've got nothing against the technology, I just don't want to see it in widespread adoption. I don't want people in general to become trained to ask permission from black boxes to take them where they want to go.

Though I readily concede I probably seem like someone railing against the evils of the Web in the 90s, since a lot of people on HN think they're brilliant and probably a few actually work on them. It just seems very Orwellian to me.