3 ms·
> A giant car is probably the most harmful-to-others luxury indulgence you could pick International travel. People need to get to work, nobody needs to backpac
by willcipriano 3y ago
> A giant car is probably the most harmful-to-others luxury indulgence you could pick
International travel. People need to get to work, nobody needs to backpack through Europe to "find themselves" (besides perhaps Europeans).
- rbanffy 3y agoMore people, Americans mostly, really should backpack through Europe, not just to find themselves, but to also discover the wonders of universal healthcare and a welfare state.
- njharman 3y ago> People need to get to work, nobody needs to backpack through Europe That is why American capitalism/consumerism is bad. Our society would be far, far better served if people exposed themselves to different cultures, beliefs, experienced world first hand instead of through talking head media. If more "found themselves" they'd know life isn't about work and money.
- lmm 3y ago> International travel. Probably less harmful; the per-year CO2 emissions are similar (depending how long your commute is and how much travel you do), and travel has fewer of the other negative externalities (taking up road space and city space, killing people directly). > People need to get to work, nobody needs to backpack through Europe Perhaps, but I don't see how putting out an extra n tonnes of CO2 by driving an unnecessary giant car to work is any better than putting out an extra n tonnes of CO2 on things that are more directly self-indulgent. (If anything I'm more sympathetic to wasteful consumption if the consumer is at least enjoying themselves)
- willcipriano 3y agoIf the co2 emissions are similar and both are just for fun I don't see how you ethically justify the one and not the other. This looks elitist and classist.
- lmm 3y agoBecause, as I said, the CO2 emissions are not the only negative externality cars impose on other people.