Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Wow almost like people don't feel the need to moralize a hypothetical asklemmy question
Do hypothetical questions automatically have no moral dimension?
Not enough to be "disappointed" that people aren't talking about the climate implications of traveling, no. I wouldn't judge someone for taking a single vacation.
Bringing it up just feels like moral grandstanding. Let people have fun answering the hypothetical.
If people really aren't interested in the impacts of their choices, why should I not be disappointed? Why aren't you? Surely it's disappointing. Nobody will be taking any luxurious distant holidays on a planet that's been made unliveable by the cumulative impact of 8 billion people who don't give a shit.
Nobody is taking a luxurious distant holiday period. We're talking hypothetically
I get that the environmental impacts are pretty significant. I looked it up and it seems like aviation is like ~3% of worldwide emissions and while that's not really the biggest number I've ever seen, it is pretty significant.
I just think it's equally unreasonable to condemn air travel in general when the alternatives are equally unreasonable. If somebody wants to go on a trip, what should they do? Months-long zero-emission backpacking journey? Never visit anywhere your whole life? Wait for your country to build high speed rail?
The 3% figure is going up, up, up exponentially with no end in sight. Because right now, most of the world's people have never set foot in a plane but they sure want to. And why shouldn't they? After all, we do (or do we?).
That figure is in fact misleading for the purposes of this debate, because for individuals flying has a huge impact on one's carbon footprint. That's not surprising when you think about it: it's similar to driving (alone in a smallish car) for the same distance, but who drives to NZ and back? The problem is distance and time. And most people in the world have never taken a plane. It's a completely unscalable as an activity.
About alternatives, the premise of this whole debate seems to be that the only good holidays are ones far, far away. That is very debatable.
Vacations are one incredibly small factor in the overall picture. In order to combat the negative impact we've had on our climate we need to fundamentally change pretty much every aspect of our lives from the top down.
And you're free to be disappointed, but just don't be surprised when other people think less of you for trying to ruin what little guilt-free fun people can have.
8% ain't nothing. I'd say reckoning with our travel habits and what we feel entitled to is a fundamental part of any solution.
I'm less bothered about being a killjoy than I would be about being a hypocrite.
On an individual level, vacations are not an "incredibly small factor". For an average person, a single flight will wipe out all their other conscientious efforts in terms of diet, housing etc. For some reason most people are only dimly aware of this fact.
Yes, but the average persons individual efforts mean fuck all in the scheme of things. It's not individuals that make the difference, it's the collective effort.
Which, frankly, doesn't mean shit in this hypothetical situation. Hypothetically you could use your infinite money to create enough carbon offsets to completely fix the climate entirely for everyone everywhere.
Obsessing about small things like that to the complete rejection of all joy in life won't solve anything. If anything it will drive away any positive influences in your life, making you a joyless curmudgeon who can help no one.
Who's getting angry and defensive in this debate?
My concern is with not being a hypocrite, that's all.
Who said anything about angry and defensive? I said you were obsessive.
Eco terrorist zealot. Next thing he will burn local courier company because they use diesel trucks.
If money is no object, then you can find some incredibly expensive way to travel which does not contribute to pollution. So no, there is no moral dimension
This is the closest to a sensible response so far. The problem then is that it is basically impossible to spend lots of money without creating pollution somewhere up or down the chain. Because money is itself a vector of pollution. But your point is taken.