4 ms·
> Flying is one of the human activities that we don't have to do I think this needs to be approached as a matter of degree, not a blanket statement. Some flyin
by hackuser 10y ago
> Flying is one of the human activities that we don't have to do
I think this needs to be approached as a matter of degree, not a blanket statement. Some flying saves lives directly: Medical evacs, the military, etc. Some is worthwhile. The question is, where do we draw the line?
Is it worth it for climate scientists to fly to a conference that will accelerate progress on climate change? Is it worth it for someone to fly to see their elderly parents? To woo someone they are likely to marry, providing a lifetime bond for two people, and possibly making new people? To fly to the Olympics as a spectator? For what purposes is telepresence a sufficient substitute?
I think the threshold should be raised much higher and climate change needs to be addressed as a crisis. Even people who believe the science seem to not quite embrace the changes that need to be made; there is a lack of leadership setting new standards and telling people the hard facts: When is flying worthwhile? This study of this question, and many others like it, should be mature and well-known and not a relatively novel idea on HN.
- harwoodleon 10y agoi agree, the lack of mature debate in public this topic is something concerning. I think it comes down to our own ability to deny that the issue is actually real and pressing. Like a smoker, we act on impulse, then try to defend our logic.
- harwoodleon 10y agoThe blanket statement applies to humans in general, holidays, business trips, not specific cases like rescue and safety. But, even those cases could be argued when looking at the cost overall vs the cost to individuals.
- paulcole 10y agoIf influencing climate change is the main goal, aren't saving lives and making new people two of the worst things to do? If people are the cause of climate change, then fewer people seems like the best solution, no?
- NhanH 10y agoAnd if fewer people is the best solution, then letting climate change to run its course seems like a decent choice too. I don't mean to make a mockery of your comment by any mean, I agree with it. Just wanted to point out that the whole situation is very nuisance. (As in, you can't just point to everyone and claim "don't do this, don't do that, save the planet" -- the science itself is clear)
- J-dawg 10y agoThis is the problem with any suggestion that we voluntarily limit our carbon-emitting activities. If we take the argument to its logical conclusion, we should all stop reproducing altogether. It's the 'dead great-grandfather principle' [0]: "He’s much greener than you, you cannot compete with that. If you move into a smaller apartment, your grandfather is in a very, very small apartment. It’s underground, there’s no lighting, there’s no heating, he doesn’t have any broadband." I don't disagree with you or the parent comment at all, I absolutely believe that we should be limiting our carbon emissions. But at its core this is a philosophical problem as much as a scientific one. To what extent do we have the 'right' to change the climate? Should we have a per-person carbon allowance? A global one child policy? [0] http://www.wired.com/2011/02/transcript-of-reboot-11-speech-by-bruce-sterling-25-6-2009/ http://www.wired.com/2011/02/transcript-of-reboot-11-speech-...
- hackuser 10y ago> To what extent do we have the 'right' to change the climate? It may not be a very novel question. What right do we have to pollute our environment? I can't emit lead from my car, or toxic vapors from my home or workplace. Greenhouse gasses are just more gassous pollutants among many others.