4 ms·

So what? Yes people are richer, more gifted, more athletic than others. Can't we celebrate an achievement because not everyone can do it? All Olympic athletes h

by GuB-42 5y ago

So what? Yes people are richer, more gifted, more athletic than others. Can't we celebrate an achievement because not everyone can do it? All Olympic athletes have exceptional genetics and most people simply can't stand a chance no matter what they do. And most of them are not poor either, does it undermine the achievement? And it is not that much money. Clearly, it is not for the poor, but it is something achievable for the upper-middle class in North America or Europe, you don't need to be a billionaire for that, not even a millionaire. Yes, flight lessons are expensive, but we are talking ultralights here, not jets, a flight hour is less than $100. As for the the "self-congratulatory copy", that actually makes the accomplishment even better. Really rich parents could have just bought a plane and hire a few guys to plan for everything, register the record, done, the "rich kid" would only do the flying. She actually had to look for sponsors, set up a shop, and actually build something to finance the trip, it may even become profitable. It is not just a trip, she is essentially building a company and a personal brand, and while Zara obviously gets a lot of help, she is still at the center. Very impressive for a 19 year old, even with "rich parents" helping her.

tsol 5y ago
What makes it less impressive is the barrier to entry. What's amazing about being the fastest runner in the world is that most anyone can try, so to be the single fastest runner is a feat no one else the world over can accomplish. Flying an airplane across the world, while cool, is something limited to only wealthier people. Maybe you'd be able to do it, but you just can't afford to try. Not saying there isn't anything to it, it's just that it's something that even trying for is limited to a privileged few. And not to be overly cynical-- but add in concerns about global warming and fuel waste, and well it just can feel like wealthy people entertaining themselves with wasteful activities limited to the wealthy
thomasz 5y ago
> So what? Yes people are richer, more gifted, more athletic than others. Can't we celebrate an achievement because not everyone can do it? Because one of these is not like the others. You can play Soccer with four stones and a can. Consequently, legends have arisen from the working class, sometimes from abject poverty. We can say with certainty that there are not thousands upon thousands of people who could run circles around Cristiano Ronaldo. In a sport that excludes 99% of the world's population, we can only guess.
kqr 5y ago
A flight hour at $100 means probably an expected $5,000 or more to get the license. Then add to that a $150,000 plane, which, even if you timeshare it with five others, bring the total up to $35,000. Add fuel, palm grease, plane maintenance and I wouldn't be surprised if you were approaching at minimum $50,000 which is much money. Then consider you can't work at the same time. Even if you get good sponsorship, it's likely to cost someone with a UL license a few more thousand in lost income. It's a lot of money. This is different from genetics in that genetics is something we are stuck with as biological humans. Wealth differences is entirely a human-constructed social order.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  $5000 for a license is about right. $150k for an ultralight plane is the top end, new. The one Zara is using for her (sponsored) world tour is in that category, but you can get a perfectly good UL plane for a quarter of that price. Fuel is standard car unleaded gas at a rate of ~10L/h, and because UL planes are not certified, maintenance is way cheaper, less palm grease too. Other costs you didn't talk about include insurance, parking, and aerodrome fees, let's say ~$2000/year if you don't timeshare. So, let's say ok for $50000, but that's not a minimum, that's the comfort zone. The main point of UL is to be affordable. I put it on the same level as driving a nice car, like a BMW or a Tesla. I don't live in the US, I don't know the ultralight regulations there, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of the population could afford flying, assuming they can keep a budget. As for the lost income, you can fly on week-ends. Many middle-class people have hobbies that take them a significant amount of time, flying is one of them. Of course, just learning how to fly is not getting you a "youngest woman solo" world record, but that's not lost income. As I said, Zara is building something here, it is work, she may even make money, and if she doesn't, we can certainly consider it an investment for her future. Now, about genetics, it is true that genetics is something intrinsic to all living things and wealth is a construct. But the general idea is that some people are more lucky than others, and we shouldn't dismiss people achievements because it involves some luck, it always does. We could have objections if it only involved luck (ex: winning the lottery), or if it is presented as not involving luck at all (ex: too many "success stories"). But what Zara is doing definitely requires her to do her part and she explicitly acknowledges her luck "I was born into a family of aviators and was lucky to have great role models in my parents and grandparents". So, all good.

by GuB-42 5y ago

tsol 5y ago

What makes it less impressive is the barrier to entry. What's amazing about being the fastest runner in the world is that most anyone can try, so to be the single fastest runner is a feat no one else the world over can accomplish. Flying an airplane across the world, while cool, is something limited to only wealthier people. Maybe you'd be able to do it, but you just can't afford to try. Not saying there isn't anything to it, it's just that it's something that even trying for is limited to a privileged few. And not to be overly cynical-- but add in concerns about global warming and fuel waste, and well it just can feel like wealthy people entertaining themselves with wasteful activities limited to the wealthy

thomasz 5y ago

> So what? Yes people are richer, more gifted, more athletic than others. Can't we celebrate an achievement because not everyone can do it? Because one of these is not like the others. You can play Soccer with four stones and a can. Consequently, legends have arisen from the working class, sometimes from abject poverty. We can say with certainty that there are not thousands upon thousands of people who could run circles around Cristiano Ronaldo. In a sport that excludes 99% of the world's population, we can only guess.

kqr 5y ago

A flight hour at $100 means probably an expected $5,000 or more to get the license. Then add to that a $150,000 plane, which, even if you timeshare it with five others, bring the total up to $35,000. Add fuel, palm grease, plane maintenance and I wouldn't be surprised if you were approaching at minimum $50,000 which is much money. Then consider you can't work at the same time. Even if you get good sponsorship, it's likely to cost someone with a UL license a few more thousand in lost income. It's a lot of money. This is different from genetics in that genetics is something we are stuck with as biological humans. Wealth differences is entirely a human-constructed social order.

GuB-42 5y ago
$5000 for a license is about right. $150k for an ultralight plane is the top end, new. The one Zara is using for her (sponsored) world tour is in that category, but you can get a perfectly good UL plane for a quarter of that price. Fuel is standard car unleaded gas at a rate of ~10L/h, and because UL planes are not certified, maintenance is way cheaper, less palm grease too. Other costs you didn't talk about include insurance, parking, and aerodrome fees, let's say ~$2000/year if you don't timeshare. So, let's say ok for $50000, but that's not a minimum, that's the comfort zone. The main point of UL is to be affordable. I put it on the same level as driving a nice car, like a BMW or a Tesla. I don't live in the US, I don't know the ultralight regulations there, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of the population could afford flying, assuming they can keep a budget. As for the lost income, you can fly on week-ends. Many middle-class people have hobbies that take them a significant amount of time, flying is one of them. Of course, just learning how to fly is not getting you a "youngest woman solo" world record, but that's not lost income. As I said, Zara is building something here, it is work, she may even make money, and if she doesn't, we can certainly consider it an investment for her future. Now, about genetics, it is true that genetics is something intrinsic to all living things and wealth is a construct. But the general idea is that some people are more lucky than others, and we shouldn't dismiss people achievements because it involves some luck, it always does. We could have objections if it only involved luck (ex: winning the lottery), or if it is presented as not involving luck at all (ex: too many "success stories"). But what Zara is doing definitely requires her to do her part and she explicitly acknowledges her luck "I was born into a family of aviators and was lucky to have great role models in my parents and grandparents". So, all good.