4 ms·

It would be nice if the author applied his design and writing skills to something more interesting than destroying as much of the ozone layer as possible in a m

It would be nice if the author applied his design and writing skills to something more interesting than destroying as much of the ozone layer as possible in a month (or is there some valuable aspect of his project that I'm missing?).

sp332 17y ago
He's not causing the planes to fly, he's just taking advantage of them. Better to make sure that ozone layer didn't die for nothing :)
- mcantelon 17y ago
  Passengers are weight. Carrying weight requires fuel. Given how lucky we are in the west to have the resources we do it would be nice if we tried to use them responsibly.
edw519 17y ago
Already beaten to death. You can catch up here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782418 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782418
kyro 17y ago
It'd also be just as nice for you to apply your commenting skills strictly to pen and paper instead of using your monitor, computer, and internet to waste energy by the second. But even then, you'll be destroying the forests if you used pen and paper. Seems like any option you take will ultimately result in some sort of pollution/destruction of the environment. It's best that you just stand still and breathe - ah nope, never mind - that's CO2 production. Point is, he's not actively destroying the ozone layer and almost everything we do, from daily tasks to journeys like these, comes at some cost.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  I see. Because everyday activities have some effect on the ozone layer, a month of constant, pointless, unneccessary flying - an activity that is widely known to have a large impact on the ozone layer - is okay. Got it.
  - ekanes 17y ago
    You're right to point out that this activity has a reasonably high environmental cost, but the value of this idea is in its RELATIVE merits. Will they do something interesting/worthy/influential/etc enough to merit the cost. As a practical example of this trade-off, imagine the cost of creating a documentary film. The environment might be hurt by driving all over, or flying a film crew around. But was it worth it? Depends on the film. Let them make their "film" before you're a critic. :)
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      That's a valid comparison and an interesting point. If the premise of their "film" was about something interesting or valuable I might lean towards thinking that the cost could be worth it. However the only premise I can see is a showcasing of web 2.0 documentation as a medium. I don't see why a month of constant, needless flying is needed to for this premise. Documenting a bicycle trip using web 2.0 techniques, for example, would be a similar project without the subtext of needless consumption.
  - sangaya 17y ago
    I don't view their plan as pointless at all. Attempting to document an "average" airline passenger is an interesting social exercise I look forward to reading about. I've recently flown to Germany and Japan from the USA and met extraordinary people along the way. Also, the added effect to our planet by having a plane that's going to fly regardless carry 2 additional people (plus the weight of their luggage) is minuscule at worst. I suggest a reading of "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman for a look at just how durable our planet is. (http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0312427905/ http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/03124...)
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      Documenting the "average" airline passenger couldn't be done from an airport? As for "The World Without Us", I'm confident that the world will continue to exist even if it's uninhabitable for humans. The issue is preserving conditions favorable to human survival, i.e. having a functioning ozone layer.
electronslave 17y ago
As I said the last time this came up, if a seat isn't filled on an outbound flight, it just makes more room for cargo.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption.
  - electronslave 17y ago
    I refer you to my previous post on this topic: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801001 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801001
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      I read your post and, while it makes some good points, nothing in it contradicts my statement.
      - electronslave 17y ago
        You didn't read it. I'm arguing for a more complex model, rather than an idealistic one. "Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption." While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying? "The system carries n amount of weight." Okay, I can accept that. "The system carries less weight if one person does not fly." True, but that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo. For a very large value of n, n-200 = n. An airplane takes a massive amount of fuel to accelerate to rotation speed (it's not just pushing you and cargo, it's also shoving vast quantities of aluminum, steel, plastic and fuel.) The empty weight of a 747-400 (the industry standard) is 400,000 lbs., of which 200 is no factor. If that empty plane takes off, it will use 100 times the body weight of a human being in fuel during takeoff operations alone and continue to burn as much during each hour of cruise flight. Adding humans decreases range. Adding cargo decreases range. Fuel will be burned. Your statement assumes a very simple model of "if I don't get on that plane, I'm saving the environment." The actual model is "if at least 200 people don't get on that plane, a seasonally-appropriate ~15 minute delay will happen until cargo can be loaded." I feel, therefore, that I have contradicted your statement quite soundly. I assure you that I have no interest in representing myself as an environment-hating industry apologist.
minsight 17y ago
You had better be posting this from a computer powered by a stationary bike and an attached generator.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  My workstation runs off a hydroelectric power grid.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Those are often bad for salmon and other wildlife.
    - mcantelon 17y ago
      It's not a perfect method of generating electricity, but probably the cleanest of mainstream electricity techniques, with technology like fish ladders mitigating the disruption to wildlife. I look forward to the increased adoption of cleaner alternatives.

sp332 17y ago

He's not causing the planes to fly, he's just taking advantage of them. Better to make sure that ozone layer didn't die for nothing :)

mcantelon 17y ago
Passengers are weight. Carrying weight requires fuel. Given how lucky we are in the west to have the resources we do it would be nice if we tried to use them responsibly.

edw519 17y ago

Already beaten to death. You can catch up here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782418 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=782418

kyro 17y ago

It'd also be just as nice for you to apply your commenting skills strictly to pen and paper instead of using your monitor, computer, and internet to waste energy by the second. But even then, you'll be destroying the forests if you used pen and paper. Seems like any option you take will ultimately result in some sort of pollution/destruction of the environment. It's best that you just stand still and breathe - ah nope, never mind - that's CO2 production. Point is, he's not actively destroying the ozone layer and almost everything we do, from daily tasks to journeys like these, comes at some cost.

mcantelon 17y ago
I see. Because everyday activities have some effect on the ozone layer, a month of constant, pointless, unneccessary flying - an activity that is widely known to have a large impact on the ozone layer - is okay. Got it.
- ekanes 17y ago
  You're right to point out that this activity has a reasonably high environmental cost, but the value of this idea is in its RELATIVE merits. Will they do something interesting/worthy/influential/etc enough to merit the cost. As a practical example of this trade-off, imagine the cost of creating a documentary film. The environment might be hurt by driving all over, or flying a film crew around. But was it worth it? Depends on the film. Let them make their "film" before you're a critic. :)
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    That's a valid comparison and an interesting point. If the premise of their "film" was about something interesting or valuable I might lean towards thinking that the cost could be worth it. However the only premise I can see is a showcasing of web 2.0 documentation as a medium. I don't see why a month of constant, needless flying is needed to for this premise. Documenting a bicycle trip using web 2.0 techniques, for example, would be a similar project without the subtext of needless consumption.
- sangaya 17y ago
  I don't view their plan as pointless at all. Attempting to document an "average" airline passenger is an interesting social exercise I look forward to reading about. I've recently flown to Germany and Japan from the USA and met extraordinary people along the way. Also, the added effect to our planet by having a plane that's going to fly regardless carry 2 additional people (plus the weight of their luggage) is minuscule at worst. I suggest a reading of "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman for a look at just how durable our planet is. (http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/0312427905/ http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Us-Alan-Weisman/dp/03124...)
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    Documenting the "average" airline passenger couldn't be done from an airport? As for "The World Without Us", I'm confident that the world will continue to exist even if it's uninhabitable for humans. The issue is preserving conditions favorable to human survival, i.e. having a functioning ozone layer.

electronslave 17y ago

As I said the last time this came up, if a seat isn't filled on an outbound flight, it just makes more room for cargo.

mcantelon 17y ago
Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption.
- electronslave 17y ago
  I refer you to my previous post on this topic: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801001 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=801001
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    I read your post and, while it makes some good points, nothing in it contradicts my statement.
    - electronslave 17y ago
      You didn't read it. I'm arguing for a more complex model, rather than an idealistic one. "Less total weight carried, across the system as a whole, would result in less fuel consumption." While this is correct from very simple standpoint, what are you really saying? "The system carries n amount of weight." Okay, I can accept that. "The system carries less weight if one person does not fly." True, but that one person's weight is offset on the specific flight in question by cargo. For a very large value of n, n-200 = n. An airplane takes a massive amount of fuel to accelerate to rotation speed (it's not just pushing you and cargo, it's also shoving vast quantities of aluminum, steel, plastic and fuel.) The empty weight of a 747-400 (the industry standard) is 400,000 lbs., of which 200 is no factor. If that empty plane takes off, it will use 100 times the body weight of a human being in fuel during takeoff operations alone and continue to burn as much during each hour of cruise flight. Adding humans decreases range. Adding cargo decreases range. Fuel will be burned. Your statement assumes a very simple model of "if I don't get on that plane, I'm saving the environment." The actual model is "if at least 200 people don't get on that plane, a seasonally-appropriate ~15 minute delay will happen until cargo can be loaded." I feel, therefore, that I have contradicted your statement quite soundly. I assure you that I have no interest in representing myself as an environment-hating industry apologist.

minsight 17y ago

You had better be posting this from a computer powered by a stationary bike and an attached generator.

mcantelon 17y ago
My workstation runs off a hydroelectric power grid.
- davidw 17y ago
  Those are often bad for salmon and other wildlife.
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    It's not a perfect method of generating electricity, but probably the cleanest of mainstream electricity techniques, with technology like fish ladders mitigating the disruption to wildlife. I look forward to the increased adoption of cleaner alternatives.