6 ms·

As someone who used to love flying and relied on it for income, family, etc, but stopped as I learned how much it polluted, pleasantly surprised to find how muc

by spodek 7y ago

As someone who used to love flying and relied on it for income, family, etc, but stopped as I learned how much it polluted, pleasantly surprised to find how much my life improved without it, I read articles on the cruise industry as applying to flying. Ticket costs don't cover the costs of cleaning their environmental damage. Few people could afford it if they had to pay for that damage. In the case of contributing to pandemics, flying spreads viruses incredibly effectively. Boats trap a few thousand people at a time. Flights bring the virus to population centers of tens of millions in hours. For the time being, people associate flying with seeing loved ones and making money, so they associate not flying with never seeing their moms or losing their jobs. Experience shows the opposite. The more people fly, the more dispersed their families, so the less they see loved ones. Flying forces companies to fly people everywhere. I predict the vitriol people are starting to show for cruises will eventually make it to flying, however hard to conceive today.

ses1984 7y ago
>The more people fly, the more dispersed their families, so the less they see loved ones. Are you suggesting there is a causative relationship between flying and having a dispersed family?
- leetcrew 7y ago
  is this controversial? the existence of cheap cross-country flights makes it much easier for people to move to the best location for their profession and fly back home to see everyone for easter and christmas (or whatever your big two holidays are).
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    People moved across oceans and continents for careers back when those moves took months. Being able to go back and see family is a perk that's moved its way down the income latter with the advent of cheap air travel but I don't think it's making or breaking anyone's decision to relocate or at least not in numbers large enough to matter. People will move far away for their careers regardless but if the cheap long distance transportation exists then people will use it. The people who are working in one city and taking a flight back home every weekend are statistically nonexistent. The people who moved across the country and take a plane back a couple times a year to celebrate as major holiday or something are far more numerous but those people would have still moved without the cheap airfare.
    - munificent 7y ago
      You make such a confident-sounding blanket generalization across all human behavior that goes counter to everything I have ever experienced that I don't even know how to reply to this comment. Do you honestly not believe that people take ease of access to their loved ones when deciding where to work? I've had countless conversations with people talking about how they chose jobs to be closer to family. Transportation lets you convert the spatial metric of "closer" to a measure of time and cost instead. If flights double in price, that means seeing family half as often, which can easily make the difference between choosing job A over job B.
      - JAlexoid 7y ago
        We have millenia of proof to the contrary, to your anecdotal evidence. People move away primarily for economic benefits. No single mass migration in history of humanity has ever happened "because people wanted to be close to their family". If you want anecdotes: I know hundreds of people that have moved away from their families and only a few that moved back after being elsewhere. (Literally about half of my graduation year at university have moved away) Most people I know, that moved, see their family back "home" only once or twice per year (summer vacation + winter holidays).
  - mandevil 7y ago
    And yet Europeans roared across the Atlantic in the millions when it took >1 month to sail. Europeans colonized Australia and New Zealand, even further away (~250 days), and only about half the total number of people on board the First Fleet were convicts, the rest went along because it was their job or their choice.
    - smacktoward 7y ago
      None of those were casual journeys the way a flight home for Christmas is. For colonists, it was generally the one long-distance trip they would make in their entire lives. In the glory days of the great trans-Atlantic liners, the only people who used them regularly were the very rich.
      - JAlexoid 7y ago
        Casual journeys are still an expensive thing to do. Do you think a median family in US can afford a short trip to Miami, planned even a month in advance?
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      This doesn't refute the concept that now people may choose to live somewhere in part due to its transportation options.
      - JAlexoid 7y ago
        I mean.... Sure. I hate NYC and yet I recognise that it's the best location for fast travel to Europe... I travel back home about 2 times per year, though. But implying that travel accessibility is the primary reason is absurd. If I had a good job offer from a company in LA - I would still take it. Even though my travel time to my mother would double(11 to 22 hours)
  - ses1984 7y ago
    I hope I'm not being pedantic when I point out that the existence of cheap flights isn't the same thing as taking them. I will accept that the existence of cheap flights causes more air travel. I will not accept without evidence that the act of traveling via air leads people to having more dispersed families.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      I don't think anyone is implying that you as an individual flying causes your family to spread out. although if you spend most of the year traveling, your relatives might start to wonder what the point of living near your primary residence is. I can see how you might interpret the wording from the original post as saying that, but it doesn't really make sense that way. the point is that, when it's affordable and normal to fly great distances on a yearly/monthly basis, it causes people to spread out a lot more. then you end up with a chicken-egg scenario where people "need" cheap flights to see their spread out families, but the cheap flights also enable them to spread out further while still seeing each other.
      - ses1984 7y ago
        I think it's not that simple. Flying to see your family is always more costly than being close to your family, even when flights are "cheap". What causes people to want to move? What causes people to be ok paying the cost?
        leetcrew 7y ago
        choosing where to live is always a tradeoff between many competing factors: proximity to family, intrinsic appeal of a particular area, job opportunities for you and your partner, the list goes on. odds are, you didn't happen to be born in the optimal location for your desired career. if you can get paid $20k more on the other side of the country and a flight home costs $200, you might find it pretty tempting to move. if the flight cost $2000 or you had to drive for three days to get home, it would be a lot less appealing for people who value seeing their family. I don't understand how it's so hard to see that cheap flights make a big difference at the margin.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Could be: I had a parent just move as they transitioned to a retirement, fixed-income budget and needed to live somewhere with a lower cost of living. A big factor in the choosing where to settle was ease of travel back to where other family is located. They ultimately chose somewhere very close to a large airport that had frequent low-cost (sub $100) round trip tickets back back & forth.
- jdm2212 7y ago
  My wife and I are planning where we'll settle down based on where there are direct flights to see our parents, so, yes, people do that.
paulcole 7y ago
Whether you go on a cruise or not, it’s essentially impossible to live a modern life and not have a net negative effect on the environment. The marginal damage done by existing plus going on cruise vs. just existing is infinitesimal.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The juicy question is how much damage is one entitled to?
  - paulcole 7y ago
    As much as we want. Let’s just be honest about the fact that hardly anyone cares as much as they claim to.
    - easyat 7y ago
      Really? Believing that your entitled to externalize as much damage onto the world as you feel like is psychopathic
      - paulcole 7y ago
        Look around bud. How many people do you think are taking significant steps to minimize the damage they do? We act like eating a little less meat or buying a Tesla is the equivalent of a the Nobel Peace Prize but it’s just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let’s get real and enjoy this ride while it lasts.
        lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I don’t know why you’re being downvoted because very few people take the steps that actually reduce environmental damage such as not flying anywhere, living in small residences in dense urban areas, and dramatically reducing driving. Which to me clearly show the truth of your comment. You can swap out all the plastic bags for cloth bags and buy a Tesla and spend an hour sorting your trash every week, but taking that flight for a honeymoon to Tahiti or living in a suburb and driving everywhere negates all of it and more.
Kilonzus 7y ago
I'm curious because I'd also like to take steps to lower my carbon footprint. How do you travel for vacations? Do you only take local ones? And also how about people that you want to see in other areas of the country/world?
- spodek 7y ago
  I try to address those questions in my TEDx talks: http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-the-environment-and-how-to-get-it-right-went-live http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-ge... This Inc. article describes some of my early results: https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.html https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.ht... The answer no one wants to hear is that no words can convey what one learns from just committing. I'm in my fifth year and I haven't been able to convey to anyone the mindset shift. It's like trying to describe hearing Beethoven's ninth in Carnegie Hall, except bigger and better. What words can you use?

by spodek 7y ago

ses1984 7y ago

>The more people fly, the more dispersed their families, so the less they see loved ones. Are you suggesting there is a causative relationship between flying and having a dispersed family?

leetcrew 7y ago
is this controversial? the existence of cheap cross-country flights makes it much easier for people to move to the best location for their profession and fly back home to see everyone for easter and christmas (or whatever your big two holidays are).
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  People moved across oceans and continents for careers back when those moves took months. Being able to go back and see family is a perk that's moved its way down the income latter with the advent of cheap air travel but I don't think it's making or breaking anyone's decision to relocate or at least not in numbers large enough to matter. People will move far away for their careers regardless but if the cheap long distance transportation exists then people will use it. The people who are working in one city and taking a flight back home every weekend are statistically nonexistent. The people who moved across the country and take a plane back a couple times a year to celebrate as major holiday or something are far more numerous but those people would have still moved without the cheap airfare.
  - munificent 7y ago
    You make such a confident-sounding blanket generalization across all human behavior that goes counter to everything I have ever experienced that I don't even know how to reply to this comment. Do you honestly not believe that people take ease of access to their loved ones when deciding where to work? I've had countless conversations with people talking about how they chose jobs to be closer to family. Transportation lets you convert the spatial metric of "closer" to a measure of time and cost instead. If flights double in price, that means seeing family half as often, which can easily make the difference between choosing job A over job B.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      We have millenia of proof to the contrary, to your anecdotal evidence. People move away primarily for economic benefits. No single mass migration in history of humanity has ever happened "because people wanted to be close to their family". If you want anecdotes: I know hundreds of people that have moved away from their families and only a few that moved back after being elsewhere. (Literally about half of my graduation year at university have moved away) Most people I know, that moved, see their family back "home" only once or twice per year (summer vacation + winter holidays).
- mandevil 7y ago
  And yet Europeans roared across the Atlantic in the millions when it took >1 month to sail. Europeans colonized Australia and New Zealand, even further away (~250 days), and only about half the total number of people on board the First Fleet were convicts, the rest went along because it was their job or their choice.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    None of those were casual journeys the way a flight home for Christmas is. For colonists, it was generally the one long-distance trip they would make in their entire lives. In the glory days of the great trans-Atlantic liners, the only people who used them regularly were the very rich.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      Casual journeys are still an expensive thing to do. Do you think a median family in US can afford a short trip to Miami, planned even a month in advance?
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    This doesn't refute the concept that now people may choose to live somewhere in part due to its transportation options.
    - JAlexoid 7y ago
      I mean.... Sure. I hate NYC and yet I recognise that it's the best location for fast travel to Europe... I travel back home about 2 times per year, though. But implying that travel accessibility is the primary reason is absurd. If I had a good job offer from a company in LA - I would still take it. Even though my travel time to my mother would double(11 to 22 hours)
- ses1984 7y ago
  I hope I'm not being pedantic when I point out that the existence of cheap flights isn't the same thing as taking them. I will accept that the existence of cheap flights causes more air travel. I will not accept without evidence that the act of traveling via air leads people to having more dispersed families.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I don't think anyone is implying that you as an individual flying causes your family to spread out. although if you spend most of the year traveling, your relatives might start to wonder what the point of living near your primary residence is. I can see how you might interpret the wording from the original post as saying that, but it doesn't really make sense that way. the point is that, when it's affordable and normal to fly great distances on a yearly/monthly basis, it causes people to spread out a lot more. then you end up with a chicken-egg scenario where people "need" cheap flights to see their spread out families, but the cheap flights also enable them to spread out further while still seeing each other.
    - ses1984 7y ago
      I think it's not that simple. Flying to see your family is always more costly than being close to your family, even when flights are "cheap". What causes people to want to move? What causes people to be ok paying the cost?
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        choosing where to live is always a tradeoff between many competing factors: proximity to family, intrinsic appeal of a particular area, job opportunities for you and your partner, the list goes on. odds are, you didn't happen to be born in the optimal location for your desired career. if you can get paid $20k more on the other side of the country and a flight home costs $200, you might find it pretty tempting to move. if the flight cost $2000 or you had to drive for three days to get home, it would be a lot less appealing for people who value seeing their family. I don't understand how it's so hard to see that cheap flights make a big difference at the margin.
ineedasername 7y ago
Could be: I had a parent just move as they transitioned to a retirement, fixed-income budget and needed to live somewhere with a lower cost of living. A big factor in the choosing where to settle was ease of travel back to where other family is located. They ultimately chose somewhere very close to a large airport that had frequent low-cost (sub $100) round trip tickets back back & forth.
jdm2212 7y ago
My wife and I are planning where we'll settle down based on where there are direct flights to see our parents, so, yes, people do that.

paulcole 7y ago

Whether you go on a cruise or not, it’s essentially impossible to live a modern life and not have a net negative effect on the environment. The marginal damage done by existing plus going on cruise vs. just existing is infinitesimal.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
The juicy question is how much damage is one entitled to?
- paulcole 7y ago
  As much as we want. Let’s just be honest about the fact that hardly anyone cares as much as they claim to.
  - easyat 7y ago
    Really? Believing that your entitled to externalize as much damage onto the world as you feel like is psychopathic
    - paulcole 7y ago
      Look around bud. How many people do you think are taking significant steps to minimize the damage they do? We act like eating a little less meat or buying a Tesla is the equivalent of a the Nobel Peace Prize but it’s just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Let’s get real and enjoy this ride while it lasts.
      - lotsofpulp 7y ago
        I don’t know why you’re being downvoted because very few people take the steps that actually reduce environmental damage such as not flying anywhere, living in small residences in dense urban areas, and dramatically reducing driving. Which to me clearly show the truth of your comment. You can swap out all the plastic bags for cloth bags and buy a Tesla and spend an hour sorting your trash every week, but taking that flight for a honeymoon to Tahiti or living in a suburb and driving everywhere negates all of it and more.

Kilonzus 7y ago

I'm curious because I'd also like to take steps to lower my carbon footprint. How do you travel for vacations? Do you only take local ones? And also how about people that you want to see in other areas of the country/world?

spodek 7y ago
I try to address those questions in my TEDx talks: http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-the-environment-and-how-to-get-it-right-went-live http://joshuaspodek.com/my-second-tedx-talk-what-everyone-ge... This Inc. article describes some of my early results: https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.html https://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.ht... The answer no one wants to hear is that no words can convey what one learns from just committing. I'm in my fifth year and I haven't been able to convey to anyone the mindset shift. It's like trying to describe hearing Beethoven's ninth in Carnegie Hall, except bigger and better. What words can you use?