3 ms·

Started reading, but I'm already there. Traveling less quickly and with less energy converted per person is a no-brainer given human population. It's okay to no

Started reading, but I'm already there. Traveling less quickly and with less energy converted per person is a no-brainer given human population. It's okay to not get everything we want, and in restraint can be found so much pleasure in life. I would like for young people, out of high school or during college/tradeschool, to be able to travel somewhere(s) else in the world so they can see how similar we all are. World leaders need in-person meetings, I think. Journalists and authors, so the rest of us can read about their experiences, whether in fiction or non. There are other reasonable exceptions. Easy for me to say, as I've been around the world a couple times and visited maybe twenty countries after college. I want that for all of my students, and then I want them to generally be okay with flying seldom to never thereafter. Yes, please stop flying, thus increasing the chances of a slower decline of life on Earth during this extinction event.

olgeni 3y ago
> to be able to travel somewhere(s) else in the world so they can see how similar we all are. "One Travel for Life", a new sci-fi serie soon on Netflix \o/
d1sxeyes 3y ago
Easy to say. But my family lives in a country about 1000 miles away. I can take a coach from Budapest to Oradea (in Romania - the wrong way), and then back to Birmingham, which would take around 36 hours. With no space for my legs, nowhere for my son to play, etc. It would cost about 30-40% of a flight, but would mean setting off 2 days earlier, costing me 2 days' worth of holidays. I could take a train, which would take around 24 hours. Trains are much better for long distance than coach, so that's good, but still cramped and difficult. I would also need to buy tickets from four or five different providers, and it's not clear how much my journey is 'protected'. If just one of those trains is delayed, can I still get to my destination within the planned time, or will it mean missing a train which runs once a day, adding 24 hours to my travel time? The train also costs about 100-150% of the flight price. It's really the case of 'fast, cheap, comfortable, pick two' when you fly. When you travel without a plane, often you can only pick one.

olgeni 3y ago

> to be able to travel somewhere(s) else in the world so they can see how similar we all are. "One Travel for Life", a new sci-fi serie soon on Netflix \o/

d1sxeyes 3y ago

Easy to say. But my family lives in a country about 1000 miles away. I can take a coach from Budapest to Oradea (in Romania - the wrong way), and then back to Birmingham, which would take around 36 hours. With no space for my legs, nowhere for my son to play, etc. It would cost about 30-40% of a flight, but would mean setting off 2 days earlier, costing me 2 days' worth of holidays. I could take a train, which would take around 24 hours. Trains are much better for long distance than coach, so that's good, but still cramped and difficult. I would also need to buy tickets from four or five different providers, and it's not clear how much my journey is 'protected'. If just one of those trains is delayed, can I still get to my destination within the planned time, or will it mean missing a train which runs once a day, adding 24 hours to my travel time? The train also costs about 100-150% of the flight price. It's really the case of 'fast, cheap, comfortable, pick two' when you fly. When you travel without a plane, often you can only pick one.