|
Star Man posted:What about my parents' children? Or yours? We are all paying for their sins. There can be no forgiveness
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
MiddleOne posted:There are actually very few good reasons for 99% of humanity to travel cross-continent on more than an annual basis. I see. What are those reasons, in your opinion?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:We are all paying for their FTFY
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Ol Standard Retard posted:lmao if you think it'll take that long. Talking about mass death is different than talking about "billions", Like every single person in Africa and south america and oceania and the middle east could all die and still be less than 2 billion. And like if you are talking over a long time stuff could slowly tick up to 2 billion total deaths from all over the world then sure, but not in the next handful of decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I see. What are those reasons, in your opinion? This is not the trolley problem is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This is not the trolley problem is what I'm saying. Come on, if you're going to make bombastic statements, have the balls to stand behind them. Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering what reasons are deemed important enough by Something Awful Forums poster MiddleOne to warrant annual air travel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:14
|
|
|
Buddy if you're not making an argument I'm not dancing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:16
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Buddy if you're not making an argument I'm not dancing. I am not asking you to dance. I'm asking you to defend an argument you made: MiddleOne posted:As far as low-hanging fruits go in the world economy beef, lamb, consumer air-travel, the air-transport of goods and international tourism are probably what should be focused on for most of the world. They are almost exclusively unnecessary luxuries which generate enormous amounts of emissions which cannot be said for a lot of other forms of consumption. MiddleOne posted:There are actually very few good reasons for 99% of humanity to travel cross-continent on more than an annual basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
I'll repeat myself, this is not the trolley problem. There's always going be a few hypothetical exceptions were there will in fact be a need for crossing the planet in less than 24-hours but the vast majority of air-travel is not of that nature. I don't see any point in making a list of such hypothetical exceptions because any legislation targeting air-travel is going to do so either trough ether price control (taxation) or quantity control (rationing). It's not about decreasing any one particular reason for air-travel, it's about stopping it's growth (and it's growing very rapidly at the moment due to ever-increasing efficiency and demand) and then cutting the total quantity of air-travel severely. Again, are you going to make an argument?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
The future dystopia where 1/3rd of the world is uninhabitable and the future dystopia where all borders are closed and no one may travel both sound pretty much equally awful. Like I guess more people die in one than the other but I'm not sure I'm on board with the end goal of maximizing human biomass by stripping life down to absolute necessities of weird isolated island city states.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:54
|
|
|
Trains and boats are not going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Besides, I'm sure I'm not the only one who is wondering what reasons are deemed important enough by Something Awful Forums poster MiddleOne to warrant annual air travel. Can you justify your existence at all in terms of resourced devoted to you in general? Can anyone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:As far as low-hanging fruits go in the world economy beef, lamb, consumer air-travel, the air-transport of goods and international tourism are probably what should be focused on for most of the world. They are almost exclusively unnecessary luxuries which generate enormous amounts of emissions which cannot be said for a lot of other forms of consumption. I kinda agree with Thug Lessons that the myopic focus on GDP is both as counter-productive as it is in-efficient. Creating an economy not built around growth would require world-wide economic reform in more extensive ways than the posters of this thread imagine. Taking away the things I listed above just means telling people to stop being entitled babies. We're going to have to tackle the economic side of things eventually (because low-hanging fruit is not decreasing emissions enough) but it shouldn't be the priority. The things I listed are electoral poison but they are things that could actually be accomplished, they don't even necessitate that all the world do it consecutively to be effective which cannot be said for a lot of other environmental reforms. Tackling the economic side of things should absolutely be the number #1 priority. As we (and developing nations) maintain, or attempt to achieve, a luxurious first world lifestyle through hyper-consumerism, decadent travel, and carnivorous diets. We further and further acclimate ourselves to this lifestyle, and it further and further becomes harder to give up. And all these bells and whistles like electronics, luxurious housing materials, vehicles, air travel, resorts, clothing, food are all provided by corporations, and at this point, typically large multinational firms. In addition to that, we continue to liberalize our energy system, especially with the advent of renewable. High tech manufacturing of renewables is done almost exclusively by the large corporations, or China. And for many states, they will have no control over the design, manufacturing, maintenance, and parts for the energy system. When climate change gets worse, these corporations will have complete control of how we handle the crisis. And history has repeatedly shown that capital will desperately protect itself. Capital will not suddenly have a deep moment of altruism and start sacrificing its resources to supply goods for nations hit hard by climate change. It will shut borders. It will ignore suffering. It will maintain status quo. We need to seriously consider the implications of relinquishing so much control to capital in the hopes it'll solve climate change crisis. Because it's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Trains and boats are not going anywhere. Not very helpful for people in Alaska and Hawaii to start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The future dystopia where 1/3rd of the world is uninhabitable and the future dystopia where all borders are closed and no one may travel both sound pretty much equally awful. The first one sounds a lot worse to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Not very helpful for people in Alaska and Hawaii to start. Boats sure are so I have no idea what your argument is, unless you think a maximum of 5h travel time to major metropolitan centers is a human right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The future dystopia where 1/3rd of the world is uninhabitable and the future dystopia where all borders are closed and no one may travel both sound pretty much equally awful. Really? Because the second one wouldn't be meaningfully different from right now for most people, assuming that international commerce was still functional. I'm not at all trying to make an argument in favor of anything here, but it's really silly to decide that a third of the Earth being uninhabitable is equally bad to people no longer really traveling for leisure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:Boats sure are so I have no idea what your argument is, unless you think a maximum of 5h travel time to major metropolitan centers is a human right. There is no current service like that. Also a lot of communities in Alaska are only accessible by air most of the year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Only the rich will have a good stable future. The rest of us...well...I hope you like being a climate refugee
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Going from "air travel should be only for absolute necessity" to "all borders are closed" is quite a jump You can go wherever you want just don't take a jet that shits out emissions
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Not very helpful for people in Alaska and Hawaii to start. Brother if you're just now coming around to the fact that a lot of uninhabitable parts of the planet are about to get even more uninhabitable I would direct you to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
There's a lot of stuff that needs to be decarbonized before air travel. It will probably have to be scaled down eventually but it's a small emissions source compared to electricity and (land) transport so we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Really? Because the second one wouldn't be meaningfully different from right now for most people, assuming that international commerce was still functional. I'm not at all trying to make an argument in favor of anything here, but it's really silly to decide that a third of the Earth being uninhabitable is equally bad to people no longer really traveling for leisure. Only 18% of americans have never been on a plane their whole life. You can say that doesn't apply to third world poor people but you can make up all sorts of terrible ultra draconian laws that wouldn't affect poor third worlders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Going from "air travel should be only for absolute necessity" to "all borders are closed" is quite a jump Can I take a car that shits out emissions? Would it be better if all 350 passengers drove from LA to NY instead of flying? (I actually have no idea.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:There's a lot of stuff that needs to be decarbonized before air travel. It will probably have to be scaled down eventually but it's a small emissions source compared to electricity and (land) transport so we can cross that bridge when we come to it. First off, that all depends on what economy we decide to look at and you know that as well as I do. Lets take my own country, in Sweden air-travel matched car-emissions in loving 2014. Secondly, changing land transports takes decades of infrastructure reform and in the case of the US literally moving populations around. By comparison, changing air travel could be done over-night as it is for the most part just a luxury, not a core component of literally every part of the economy. Also, it's not about de-carbonizing flight, it's about ending it altogether until the climate crisis, and the lack of clean energy that underpins it, has been resolved. Until we have infinite clean energy millions of individuals traveling hundreds of miles across the globe several times a year will never be sustainable. Changing the fuel source doesn't change the fact that the base problem is loving Newtonian. enraged_camel posted:Can I take a car that shits out emissions? Would it be better if all 350 passengers drove from LA to NY instead of flying? (I actually have no idea.) Cars are on average slightly less efficient than flights (though this is in flux as both cars and planes get more efficient every year), but that is of course assuming that you're driving alone and aren't carpooling. The catch is that no one is even approaching the kinds of miles they're ready to fly when they jump into the car for a vacation trip. To jump back to Sweden, no significant part of the population would ever think to take a car to Thailand, and yet many do fly there come Christmas. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:de-carbonizing flight, it's about ending it altogether What does that even mean? Is the goal to reduce emissions or is the goal to lash up and punish "luxuries" abstractly and use carbon as a lie to justify it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What does that even mean? Is the goal to reduce emissions or is the goal to lash up and punish "luxuries" abstractly and use carbon as a lie to justify it? Try reading the entire sentence dimwit. quote:Also, it's not about de-carbonizing flight, it's about ending it altogether until the climate crisis, and the lack of clean energy that underpins it, has been resolved. The climate crisis is all about finding a balance between clean energy forms and consumption. You need to approach the equation from both sides to have any meaningful chance of reaching a solution in time. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Only 18% of americans have never been on a plane their whole life. You can say that doesn't apply to third world poor people but you can make up all sorts of terrible ultra draconian laws that wouldn't affect poor third worlders. And about two thirds have never left the US, but that doesn't change the fact that a third of a first world country not being able to easily go on an overseas vacation isn't really comparable to even mildly bad outcomes that involve land becoming literally uninhabitable. If you're going to bitch at people for being hyperbolic about the consequences of climate change don't turn around and do the same thing about luxuries that don't really matter all that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:And about two thirds have never left the US So what? Banning international but not domestic flight sounds even more closed borders authoritarian hellworld. Most people in the US use planes. Also america's weird isolationist thing where no one travels or speaks multiple languages isn't exactly a good thing. More people having a broader view of what the world is beyond movies is probably not a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So what? Banning international but not domestic flight sounds even more closed borders authoritarian hellworld. Most people in the US use planes. At the expense of the literal planet?  Also, there are boats and will continue to be boats. Anyone who wants to see the world is going to have no trouble doing so, it's just not going be as convenient as it currently is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:At the expense of the literal planet? You're talking to someone who's bragged about flying to every nation in the world so he can take pictures of cats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
how privileged do you have to be to equate international travel being harder with "closed borders authoritarian hellworld"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're talking to someone who's bragged about flying to every nation in the world so he can take pictures of cats. Every continent so far, I'm working on every risk board region now. But yeah, ban literally every luxury before you prohibitively restrict travel to only rich boat goers. If someone does not have the resources fine, but anyone that chooses to spend thousands of dollars to "explore" Nirn over actually seeing the actual world they actually live in should be ashamed. It should be basically mandatory at a minimum that everyone who conceivably could visit at least one other first world and one other third world country in their life, if nothing else. A couple vacations won't magically make everyone a perfect paragon expert in anything, but it's near criminal to hunker down and declare whatever town you happen to be born in the whole universe and only experiance anything outside it by watching some dumb movies. It is nearly a responsibility of any person that lives on this earth to see as much of the variety of ways things exist as their situation makes feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:You're talking to someone who's bragged about flying to every nation in the world so he can take pictures of cats. People like this literally do not deserve to live
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
self unaware posted:how privileged do you have to be to equate international travel being harder with "closed borders authoritarian hellworld" International travel is already too hard. The US is wildly too insulated. Americans are wildly too far from seeing other types of people and ways of life. We are already in the bad world where various factors make travel harder for people than it should be. Give everyone a state mandated 10 days off a year to go to the sweden so it becomes impossible for the news to claim migrants have made that a warzone with No Go zones and have anyone say "yeah, that sounds plausible"or whatever, not some lame "let's all aspire to become Jerome Webster from the huddling place" future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Air travel is a perfect example of one of those first world commodities that people in other regions want to do a whole lot more of as they make it to the middle class. The only reason it's not one of the primary emissions drivers is because it's mostly done by a small fraction of entitled crybabies for now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:International travel is already too hard. The US is wildly too insulated. Americans are wildly too far from seeing other types of people and ways of life. We are already in the bad world where various factors make travel harder for people than it should be. Give everyone a state mandated 10 days off a year to go to the sweden so it becomes impossible for the news to claim migrants have made that a warzone with No Go zones and have anyone say "yeah, that sounds plausible"or whatever, not some lame "let's all aspire to become Jerome Webster from the huddling place" future. Are you going to mandate that when the masses of tourists arrive in these countries that they don't bunker down in isolated tourist traps? Because I seriously doubt that most tourists are seeing the 'real' Mexico, for example, when they head over to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Take a train idiot
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Air travel is a perfect example of one of those first world commodities that people in other regions want to do a whole lot more of as they make it to the middle class. good, if everyone wants to do it then we better get busy shifting either the technology to make it cleaner or everything else out of the way to accommodate for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:good, if everyone wants to do it then we better get busy shifting either the technology to make it cleaner or everything else out of the way to accommodate for it. do you minimize distance traveled as you cross continents or do you regularly go back to a home? Trains? There's probably a lot you could do to mitigate impact while living your lifestyle, but you're too buttmad to consider any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:54
|
|