3 ms·

Prohibitively expensive cost would probably be the reason for “not”. Though for business class and luxury travel, I suppose it could be feasible, ignoring ethic

by clnq 4y ago

Prohibitively expensive cost would probably be the reason for “not”. Though for business class and luxury travel, I suppose it could be feasible, ignoring ethical dilemmas of using a lot of energy to indulge the rich. But as a society, we ignore that. So that’s all sorted.

snapplebobapple 4y ago
Do we ignore the ethical dilemma or does it not exist? It really seems like it does not exist.
- afavour 4y ago
  In what way does it not exist? We let exorbitantly rich people live in extreme luxury while extremely poor people literally starve to death. It's certainly not a new ethical dilemma but it definitely exists.
  - snapplebobapple 4y ago
    That assumes that one's need is automatically a claim on a third party's life, which is not the case. For there to be a claim there needs to be direct harm shown, otherwise there is no claim, there is only the possibility of willing, unforced charity from the third party if they choose to provide it. In the alleged ethical dilemma I was responding to there is clearly no claim that would bar fast passenger travel per se. There is possibly a claim in a round about way if the externalities of carbon output are not taxed at their marginal cost via a carbon tax, but that is not a reason an ethical dilemma to be considered for fast travel, it is an ethical dilemma of improperly priced externalities and would again not be a reason to bar fast passenger travel.
  - lazide 4y ago
    I’ve seen no evidence that someone being rich results in someone else starving. Near as I can tell, some people will starve regardless of if someone else is rich or not. And some folks will be rich, regardless of if someone else starves or not.
bradhe 4y ago
Airlines in general started as an object for business class and "luxury" travel (despite looking really, really not luxury today). Took almost 100 years to get to today's point of being completely accessible for everyone.
sterlind 4y ago
Aside from the cost, what about the sonic boom? Mach 9 would shatter windows.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  The sonic boom happens at the transition between slower and faster than sound, no? Presumably past that point it’s moot (mute?)
  - zamnos 4y ago
    No. The sonic boom is not something that only happens once, it happens continuously as the airplane forces its way forwards through the still moving air in front of it. This is why supersonic flight has been held back. Transcontinental flights are banned in the US (since 1973) and Europe because they would cause a boom all along their flight path. https://history-computer.com/why-is-supersonic-flight-banned-actually/ https://history-computer.com/why-is-supersonic-flight-banned...
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      Ah actually the Wikipedia page explains better - from the perception of someone on the ground it’s a single boom, because the sound is caused by the wave front of the shockwave cone. But the cone is continuous along the path. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

by clnq 4y ago

snapplebobapple 4y ago

Do we ignore the ethical dilemma or does it not exist? It really seems like it does not exist.

afavour 4y ago
In what way does it not exist? We let exorbitantly rich people live in extreme luxury while extremely poor people literally starve to death. It's certainly not a new ethical dilemma but it definitely exists.
- snapplebobapple 4y ago
  That assumes that one's need is automatically a claim on a third party's life, which is not the case. For there to be a claim there needs to be direct harm shown, otherwise there is no claim, there is only the possibility of willing, unforced charity from the third party if they choose to provide it. In the alleged ethical dilemma I was responding to there is clearly no claim that would bar fast passenger travel per se. There is possibly a claim in a round about way if the externalities of carbon output are not taxed at their marginal cost via a carbon tax, but that is not a reason an ethical dilemma to be considered for fast travel, it is an ethical dilemma of improperly priced externalities and would again not be a reason to bar fast passenger travel.
- lazide 4y ago
  I’ve seen no evidence that someone being rich results in someone else starving. Near as I can tell, some people will starve regardless of if someone else is rich or not. And some folks will be rich, regardless of if someone else starves or not.

bradhe 4y ago

Airlines in general started as an object for business class and "luxury" travel (despite looking really, really not luxury today). Took almost 100 years to get to today's point of being completely accessible for everyone.

sterlind 4y ago

Aside from the cost, what about the sonic boom? Mach 9 would shatter windows.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
The sonic boom happens at the transition between slower and faster than sound, no? Presumably past that point it’s moot (mute?)
- zamnos 4y ago
  No. The sonic boom is not something that only happens once, it happens continuously as the airplane forces its way forwards through the still moving air in front of it. This is why supersonic flight has been held back. Transcontinental flights are banned in the US (since 1973) and Europe because they would cause a boom all along their flight path. https://history-computer.com/why-is-supersonic-flight-banned-actually/ https://history-computer.com/why-is-supersonic-flight-banned...
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    Ah actually the Wikipedia page explains better - from the perception of someone on the ground it’s a single boom, because the sound is caused by the wave front of the shockwave cone. But the cone is continuous along the path. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom