5 ms·

It is 2% of mostly completely needless carbon emissions which are produced exclusively by the richest 1% of Earths population. Considering the distribution of b

by jnxx 6y ago

It is 2% of mostly completely needless carbon emissions which are produced exclusively by the richest 1% of Earths population. Considering the distribution of benefits for very few and costs for all, it is an entirely predatory technology. If the airline industry goes completely bust, I am sorry for the people who worked there, and all in to give them another meaningful job, but at the same time it would be a very good thing for humanity as a whole.

logicchains 6y ago
>It is 2% of mostly completely needless carbon emissions which are produced exclusively by the richest 1% of Earths population. This is completely untrue. One of the biggest sources of airline travel is Chinese domestic tourism, far from the richest 1%. >but at the same time it would be a very good thing for humanity as a whole How incredibly arrogant of you to think you speak for all of humanity. Clearly a huge number of humans value air travel, due to their extensive use of it, please explain to me how you know better than all of them about what's good for them?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- NationalPark 6y ago
  Surely it's even more arrogant to assume that individual preferences and a market that doesn't price externalities will somehow avoid the existential threat of climate change. Or do you not "believe" in that?
cwhiz 6y ago
Legitimately, have you ever been on a commercial flight? It’s not full of rich people cramped into tiny seats, I’ll tell you that much.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  If you have been on a commercial flight in the past 3 years you are very likely (50%+ chance) in the 5% of the richest people on Earth. If you are just on hackernews you are very likely (50%+ chance) in the 5% of the richest people on Earth. If you make $33,500 a year, you are among the richest 5% in the world. [0] The threshold for an individual to enter the global top 10% in 2012 was about PPP$15,600 per capita household income, or PPP$62,000 for a family of four. [1] The threshold for an individual to enter the global top 1% in 2012 is about PPP$50,000 per capita household income, or PPP$200,000 for a family of four. [1] [0] http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/ http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/ [1] http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    That’s a fairly ludicrous comparison and one I’m quite certain OP was not referencing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ulfw 6y ago
Never heard such a dumb statement. As if "only the richest 1%" could afford a Ryan Air or Southwest or Air Asia flight. Please.
- lm28469 6y ago
  Worldwide it's not far from 1%, if you make more than ~30k a year you're already top 5%. Also, the flight is "cheap", the actual vacation is much more expensive than the ticket itself.
viraptor 6y ago
> at the same time it would be a very good thing for humanity as a whole. In some ways half of us dying would be good for humanity as a whole. Let's try to balance the humanity with the individual benefit a bit. Otherwise we'll get to absurd conclusions.
Leherenn 6y ago
Tourism is a big thing in a lot of countries though, especially rather poor countries, so it's not only the richest befitting.
- tripzilch 6y ago
  I can easily imagine holidays where you spend 3x on the plane ticket than what you'd spend in said poor country.
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Even if it's 10x, if it goes away, it's 0 spent on the destination country.
bassman9000 6y ago
There's far more people that make a living from the industry other than the airlines. I am sorry for the people who worked there, and all in to give them another meaningful job You can't. Some want that job. Some can't get other, e.g. countries living off tourism. It's a big, global industry feeding millions. Easy to say working on a computer.
- lm28469 6y ago
  > Some can't get other, e.g. countries living off tourism. You mean countries like Greece which destroyed their local industries, and eco systems, in favor of tourism and can't go back ? People have been warning about these things for decades. If you build your entire economy on a flimsy and unsustainable business model you'll lose at some point. It doesn't really matter if it feeds millions or not, the unsustainability will make it crash sooner or later, the longer you let it go the harder it'll be.

by jnxx 6y ago

logicchains 6y ago

>It is 2% of mostly completely needless carbon emissions which are produced exclusively by the richest 1% of Earths population. This is completely untrue. One of the biggest sources of airline travel is Chinese domestic tourism, far from the richest 1%. >but at the same time it would be a very good thing for humanity as a whole How incredibly arrogant of you to think you speak for all of humanity. Clearly a huge number of humans value air travel, due to their extensive use of it, please explain to me how you know better than all of them about what's good for them?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NationalPark 6y ago
Surely it's even more arrogant to assume that individual preferences and a market that doesn't price externalities will somehow avoid the existential threat of climate change. Or do you not "believe" in that?

cwhiz 6y ago

Legitimately, have you ever been on a commercial flight? It’s not full of rich people cramped into tiny seats, I’ll tell you that much.

Isinlor 6y ago
If you have been on a commercial flight in the past 3 years you are very likely (50%+ chance) in the 5% of the richest people on Earth. If you are just on hackernews you are very likely (50%+ chance) in the 5% of the richest people on Earth. If you make $33,500 a year, you are among the richest 5% in the world. [0] The threshold for an individual to enter the global top 10% in 2012 was about PPP$15,600 per capita household income, or PPP$62,000 for a family of four. [1] The threshold for an individual to enter the global top 1% in 2012 is about PPP$50,000 per capita household income, or PPP$200,000 for a family of four. [1] [0] http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/ http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/ [1] http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/771271476908686029/Segal.pdf
- cwhiz 6y ago
  That’s a fairly ludicrous comparison and one I’m quite certain OP was not referencing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ulfw 6y ago

Never heard such a dumb statement. As if "only the richest 1%" could afford a Ryan Air or Southwest or Air Asia flight. Please.

lm28469 6y ago
Worldwide it's not far from 1%, if you make more than ~30k a year you're already top 5%. Also, the flight is "cheap", the actual vacation is much more expensive than the ticket itself.

viraptor 6y ago

> at the same time it would be a very good thing for humanity as a whole. In some ways half of us dying would be good for humanity as a whole. Let's try to balance the humanity with the individual benefit a bit. Otherwise we'll get to absurd conclusions.

Leherenn 6y ago

Tourism is a big thing in a lot of countries though, especially rather poor countries, so it's not only the richest befitting.

tripzilch 6y ago
I can easily imagine holidays where you spend 3x on the plane ticket than what you'd spend in said poor country.
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Even if it's 10x, if it goes away, it's 0 spent on the destination country.

bassman9000 6y ago

There's far more people that make a living from the industry other than the airlines. I am sorry for the people who worked there, and all in to give them another meaningful job You can't. Some want that job. Some can't get other, e.g. countries living off tourism. It's a big, global industry feeding millions. Easy to say working on a computer.

lm28469 6y ago
> Some can't get other, e.g. countries living off tourism. You mean countries like Greece which destroyed their local industries, and eco systems, in favor of tourism and can't go back ? People have been warning about these things for decades. If you build your entire economy on a flimsy and unsustainable business model you'll lose at some point. It doesn't really matter if it feeds millions or not, the unsustainability will make it crash sooner or later, the longer you let it go the harder it'll be.