3 ms·

What's wrong with not traveling? Oh no, I won't be able to spend the money I don't have to impress people that do not care about me in the slightest via Instag

What's wrong with not traveling? Oh no, I won't be able to spend the money I don't have to impress people that do not care about me in the slightest via Instagram. Oh no, I won't be able to attend that conference that's 100% recorded and available in video format where I see the material and the presenter in better detail than in person with the ability of replaying, pausing and resuming at any time I want, where 90% of the time the content talked about is an abridged version of what can be learned from a used book, free online documentation or a PDF I can buy for a few dollars. Oh no, I won't be able to visit some random distant place while there are plenty of nearby places that are just as nice. Oh no, I won't be able to visit some snobby establishment that sells overrated products such as fermented fruit juice that I don't even really like that much and can't even distinguish from a boxed product sold at 1/100th of the price at my local grocery store. Surely in 2 generations where everyone is living in a ruined planet eating diseased vermin people will care about my pointless traveling. I am such an important person! I am surely more important than the environment that sustains the life of everyone in the planet that's why I am so entitled to such things.

probably_wrong 4y ago
You should consider giving travel a try, though. When done right, it has so many benefits that I cannot recommend it enough. Among them: it gives you a better perspective on life, it gives you a better understanding of what is there to improve in your own community that you didn't notice before because "we have always done it this way", and it tends to make people less judgemental and/or racist. People won't care about droughts in Africa they see on TV, but if you could bring them there and see it with their own eyes I can guarantee you they would.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  > it has so many benefits ... but that's true of everything that we could ever consider banning in the name of combatting climate change.
- BlargMcLarg 4y ago
  The majority of benefits you mention are absolutely not applicable to the majority of travelers, specifically those only visiting countries for a short time in areas designed for tourists. Also doesn't take into account repeat tourists (e.g. masses in North/West Europe going south by plane every summer). There's a humongous difference between your average Ibiza tourist and someone visiting Asia to study the culture. From experience, the majority is far closer to the former than the latter.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  When done in a purposeful way, sure. But for 99% of the people it's like: - "white sand good. clear water good. sun good." - "yum, food." - "tee hee. disney."
_djo_ 4y ago
Not all travel is frivolous, and demonising ordinary people as if they’re doing it for no reason is unhelpful. There are those who move to new countries and have an entirely reasonable desire to still see their families from time to time. For business deals and diplomacy, meeting in person remains a far more effective way of building rapport and good working relationships than anything tech can provide just yet. And travel for tourism, while arguably unnecessary, does contribute to producing more educated & empathetic segments of the population who are more likely to see themselves as part of the world rather than identifying only with their tiny corner of it. It’s a difficult one to quantify, but something we’d notice if it ended. There are also parts of the world that would become much poorer if not for tourism. I’m all for finding ways to reduce the need for travel, asking people to travel less where possible, and of course pouring investment into decarbonising aviation. We’re at the point where it’s one of the necessary actions society needs to accept. But don’t pretend these are not very real and in many cases very painful sacrifices we’re asking people to make.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  You can mention all reasons you want. But travel has to adapt to the needs of a healthy environment and not the other way around. If that means you have to travel on a donkey for 5 years to make it to a really important conference then so be it. If that's too much then do it online.
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.
    - 29athrowaway 4y ago
      No, you miss the point. My point is attacking the central belief in this civilization, which is that human convenience is more important than everything else. What is more important: a) the extinction of a mammalian species, or b) a few people not being able to see their family? To me the response is very clear: a) If a) is more important then if 2% of humanity cannot see their family that's OK. It's the cost of sharing the planet with other species that also need to survive. I don't care if a few million people cry at night, that's better than a species going extinct. Extinction is forever. In perspective, none of the stuff you mention really matters. Your convenience is not as important because there's 8 billion of you. You are not as special as you think.

probably_wrong 4y ago

You should consider giving travel a try, though. When done right, it has so many benefits that I cannot recommend it enough. Among them: it gives you a better perspective on life, it gives you a better understanding of what is there to improve in your own community that you didn't notice before because "we have always done it this way", and it tends to make people less judgemental and/or racist. People won't care about droughts in Africa they see on TV, but if you could bring them there and see it with their own eyes I can guarantee you they would.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> it has so many benefits ... but that's true of everything that we could ever consider banning in the name of combatting climate change.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
The majority of benefits you mention are absolutely not applicable to the majority of travelers, specifically those only visiting countries for a short time in areas designed for tourists. Also doesn't take into account repeat tourists (e.g. masses in North/West Europe going south by plane every summer). There's a humongous difference between your average Ibiza tourist and someone visiting Asia to study the culture. From experience, the majority is far closer to the former than the latter.
29athrowaway 4y ago
When done in a purposeful way, sure. But for 99% of the people it's like: - "white sand good. clear water good. sun good." - "yum, food." - "tee hee. disney."

_djo_ 4y ago

Not all travel is frivolous, and demonising ordinary people as if they’re doing it for no reason is unhelpful. There are those who move to new countries and have an entirely reasonable desire to still see their families from time to time. For business deals and diplomacy, meeting in person remains a far more effective way of building rapport and good working relationships than anything tech can provide just yet. And travel for tourism, while arguably unnecessary, does contribute to producing more educated & empathetic segments of the population who are more likely to see themselves as part of the world rather than identifying only with their tiny corner of it. It’s a difficult one to quantify, but something we’d notice if it ended. There are also parts of the world that would become much poorer if not for tourism. I’m all for finding ways to reduce the need for travel, asking people to travel less where possible, and of course pouring investment into decarbonising aviation. We’re at the point where it’s one of the necessary actions society needs to accept. But don’t pretend these are not very real and in many cases very painful sacrifices we’re asking people to make.

29athrowaway 4y ago
You can mention all reasons you want. But travel has to adapt to the needs of a healthy environment and not the other way around. If that means you have to travel on a donkey for 5 years to make it to a really important conference then so be it. If that's too much then do it online.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    No, you miss the point. My point is attacking the central belief in this civilization, which is that human convenience is more important than everything else. What is more important: a) the extinction of a mammalian species, or b) a few people not being able to see their family? To me the response is very clear: a) If a) is more important then if 2% of humanity cannot see their family that's OK. It's the cost of sharing the planet with other species that also need to survive. I don't care if a few million people cry at night, that's better than a species going extinct. Extinction is forever. In perspective, none of the stuff you mention really matters. Your convenience is not as important because there's 8 billion of you. You are not as special as you think.