3 ms·
The problem is that limiting access to those with the greatest means (factoring in leisure time as well as money) is horribly elitist. This is similar to a conv
by notacoward 8y ago
The problem is that limiting access to those with the greatest means (factoring in leisure time as well as money) is horribly elitist. This is similar to a conversation about teleportation that I've had several times with my wife and more recently my daughter.
"Sure, it would be great if we could teleport to some unspoiled natural place without having to deal with the hassle of regular travel and hiking for hours/days to get there. Maybe we could even maintain a place there, so we could visit whenever we want. But wait, if everybody else did that then it wouldn't be unspoiled any more. So maybe if teleportation cost a lot ... but not so much that we ourselves were excluded, naturally. But we're not elitist scum, are we? Oh well, let's keep walking."
I totally understand the urge, I feel it myself, but my aversion to being or becoming part of a new aristocracy is even stronger. The only fair way to keep places unspoiled would be to issue licenses via a lottery. Non-transferable licenses, or else you might as well just sell directly to the rich. Other than that, this is just an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of giving people freedom (and the means) to travel where they will.