4 ms·

You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.

by _djo_ 4y ago

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.
- _djo_ 4y ago
  That is, again, not what was argued. Your comment claimed all travel is ‘pointless’ and without any reasonable justification. It was filled with invective for anyone who might have chosen to travel at some point. It was an argument lacking in perspective or empathy. You’re now trying to turn this into a question of whether these might be justifiable sacrifices but that was never a point of contention. In fact, it’s something I raised first. As I said, not a good faith response.
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    Humanity has to downsize its expectations and ego. Cutting most passenger air travel is a key part of that. Next we should ban most non essential plastic objects. Then slam a sticker in front of every product with its carbon footprint.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  All beings on Earth will go extinct at some point; it’s a matter of when. Extending that significantly has merit, but must be traded off against many factors, including convenience and quality of the lives lived until the point of extinction. Perhaps we should ration the population to 2 Billion or so, to give everyone who lives a better life, mean, median, and mode, than we can at 8 Billion. Perhaps 8B is OK, but only if those 8B each make deeper sacrifices than the 2B would have to…
  - 29athrowaway 4y ago
    Starting by eliminating all expectation that it is normal for a human being to travel frequently on planes.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      Is that the optimal first step in terms of return for the environment over delta-convenience, delta-fun, and attention budget? I’d expect that other improvements sort far, far higher on the return over expense scale, but are not as symbolic.
      - 29athrowaway 4y ago
        Convenience? fun? Dude... there's a literal extinction going out outside.

You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.

by _djo_ 4y ago

You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.

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.

_djo_ 4y ago
That is, again, not what was argued. Your comment claimed all travel is ‘pointless’ and without any reasonable justification. It was filled with invective for anyone who might have chosen to travel at some point. It was an argument lacking in perspective or empathy. You’re now trying to turn this into a question of whether these might be justifiable sacrifices but that was never a point of contention. In fact, it’s something I raised first. As I said, not a good faith response.
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  Humanity has to downsize its expectations and ego. Cutting most passenger air travel is a key part of that. Next we should ban most non essential plastic objects. Then slam a sticker in front of every product with its carbon footprint.
sokoloff 4y ago
All beings on Earth will go extinct at some point; it’s a matter of when. Extending that significantly has merit, but must be traded off against many factors, including convenience and quality of the lives lived until the point of extinction. Perhaps we should ration the population to 2 Billion or so, to give everyone who lives a better life, mean, median, and mode, than we can at 8 Billion. Perhaps 8B is OK, but only if those 8B each make deeper sacrifices than the 2B would have to…
- 29athrowaway 4y ago
  Starting by eliminating all expectation that it is normal for a human being to travel frequently on planes.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Is that the optimal first step in terms of return for the environment over delta-convenience, delta-fun, and attention budget? I’d expect that other improvements sort far, far higher on the return over expense scale, but are not as symbolic.
    - 29athrowaway 4y ago
      Convenience? fun? Dude... there's a literal extinction going out outside.