4 ms·

People from the lower 48 can't seem to conceive how important GA is to Alaska. If you grounded all GA planes in Alaska, thousands of people would start dying of

People from the lower 48 can't seem to conceive how important GA is to Alaska. If you grounded all GA planes in Alaska, thousands of people would start dying of starvation within a couple of weeks. There are simply no roads to most of rural Alaska.

mschuster91 4y ago
At that point the question does arise: is it long-term sustainable to keep such communities artificially alive, or would it make more sense to pay off their residents to move somewhere where they can be supplied with resources way more efficiently?
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  GA in Alaska requires less public infrastructure than elsewhere because there are more planes that can land on and take off from water, snow, and unpaved surfaces. Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents.
  - mschuster91 4y ago
    > Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents. The question is not if they can afford it because they obviously can, the question is if this is long-term sustainable - not just from a CO2 emissions point, but you also need pilots, the planes or boats themselves, and all of that to supply cities that don't even manage to get 100 residents [per 1, at least 23 fall below that limit]?! Maybe just accept for once that there are areas so remote it isn't worth the effort to supply them. We should return these areas to nature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      You’re not going to save the world by kicking a few hundred Alaskans off their property.
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        It's not (just) about saving the world. It's actually the ability to keep them supplied that is at question, given the current immense shortage on labor and fuel prices that are not going to go down.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  What's "artificial" about using planes to transport food instead of trucks?
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  Many of these communities have been there for hundreds of years. It was their homeland long before the United States existed. Do we force them off their land because it's more convenient for us? Do we force them to revert to a primitive lifestyle with no access to modern conveniences like medical care, a good education, food in lean times, electricity, or communication? Or do we let them continue to have the best of both worlds at the cost of an airplane once a month? I vote for option 3.

mschuster91 4y ago

At that point the question does arise: is it long-term sustainable to keep such communities artificially alive, or would it make more sense to pay off their residents to move somewhere where they can be supplied with resources way more efficiently?

snowwrestler 4y ago
GA in Alaska requires less public infrastructure than elsewhere because there are more planes that can land on and take off from water, snow, and unpaved surfaces. Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > Also Alaska can easily afford basic infrastructure, heck they pay an annual stipend to permanent residents. The question is not if they can afford it because they obviously can, the question is if this is long-term sustainable - not just from a CO2 emissions point, but you also need pilots, the planes or boats themselves, and all of that to supply cities that don't even manage to get 100 residents [per 1, at least 23 fall below that limit]?! Maybe just accept for once that there are areas so remote it isn't worth the effort to supply them. We should return these areas to nature. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    You’re not going to save the world by kicking a few hundred Alaskans off their property.
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      It's not (just) about saving the world. It's actually the ability to keep them supplied that is at question, given the current immense shortage on labor and fuel prices that are not going to go down.
josephcsible 4y ago
What's "artificial" about using planes to transport food instead of trucks?
dreamcompiler 4y ago
Many of these communities have been there for hundreds of years. It was their homeland long before the United States existed. Do we force them off their land because it's more convenient for us? Do we force them to revert to a primitive lifestyle with no access to modern conveniences like medical care, a good education, food in lean times, electricity, or communication? Or do we let them continue to have the best of both worlds at the cost of an airplane once a month? I vote for option 3.