2 ms·
I kind of think the same was said of trains and cars at some point. Consider 'flying around' in multi-ton 500-horsepower 50 foot big rigs through populated are
by JoeAltmaier 4y ago
I kind of think the same was said of trains and cars at some point.
Consider 'flying around' in multi-ton 500-horsepower 50 foot big rigs through populated areas. We have accepted that risk.
It's all about the failure rate, nothing more.
- Eisenstein 4y agoI am not really of the mind that the general adoption of automobiles was a net positive for humanity. Moving greater distances from things we need has created a need for them when they should be no more than a convenience. Using a few tons of metal to move a single person from place to place is incredibly inefficient and should be stopped as soon as possible. Note I am speaking of individual use of cars. The same holds true for flying. We don't need to do it and I can't see it making anything better in the slightest.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoBut we have to admit, individuals may find them useful or entertaining. If those individuals can afford them, we will have them. In this world of relative freedom, we don't have options like stopping things as soon as possible. You can make them relatively expensive with tariffs, or regulate them to make licensing onerous. If the public doesn't agree with that, and the public is made up of many individuals, then even that much opposition will fail.