5 ms·
I get it, you were saying it for effect, but this statement: >if our descendants learn that we traded butterflies for 9 hour plane flights for business meeting
by pb7 4y ago
I get it, you were saying it for effect, but this statement:
>if our descendants learn that we traded butterflies for 9 hour plane flights for business meetings
Makes it seem like that's all flights are good for. It's not any different than if you said "quinceaneras" instead of "business meetings". They are probably a non-zero percentage of why people fly but even without these things, there would still be demand for air travel and the problem would remain.
I share your doom and gloom about the situation but hope we can focus on changes that have material return. There are many optional things in life that we can cut out but then what would be the point in living?
- ethanbond 4y agoWhich is exactly why I singled out a clear example of something we can reduce and that would be meaningful without incurring a huge negative impact on whether life is worth living or not. Environmental harm is both multicausal and overdetermined which means we do in fact need to pick (many) specific things which individually do not seem extremely substantial (because they’re not) and start reducing them.