First DarkTue, Feb 23, 2010 That's true in a sense but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I'm sure we can all agree that the vast majority of air flights have basically nothing to do with understanding or inspiration. In fact, most people see them as an inconvenience which they have to put up with before they get to their destination. And airplanes are by far one of the worst polluters out there. Just as we don't all need to be astronauts to be inspired and learn from space programs, we don't all need to fly in order to see spectacular views from above. And that's all that air travel really has to offer in and of itself.
Beyond that, it's just a means of long-distance transportation. On that front, we have developed a global society which is completely dependent upon fast, dirty travel, but we need to question its necessity with regards to sustainability. The technology isn't getting efficient enough quickly enough for us to hope that the environmental consequences will be cut down significantly any time soon. So we have to decide which types of flights are the least necessary, and personal/business trips are on the top of that list. As much as people want to travel to exotic places or visit relatives, it just isn't sustainable. It's selfish.
I think we're in a far worse position than most people are willing to accept, one which requires major lifestyle changes in order to ensure our collective prosperity and survival. Worst of all, the ones who will suffer first and most are the people (and other life forms) that aren't even taking flights or driving SUVs. If we don't make major changes, such as huge cut downs of air travel, we are condemning the innocent, along with ourselves and future generations.
Personally, I feel obligated to point out unethical and irrational behaviour whenever I have a good opportunity. Remaining silent is no different than saying "That's okay, you can keep doing that." But many would certainly call my views "radical"/"alarmist". I guess we'll see...
"one person alone cannot make any difference for good or for bad"
That's a deeply pessimistic thing to say. But more than that, it's unrealistic. If that were true, there would be no revolutionary icons, no infamous dictators, no noteworthy individuals.
That's true in a sense but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. I'm sure we can all agree that the vast majority of air flights have basically nothing to do with understanding or inspiration. In fact, most people see them as an inconvenience which they have to put up with before they get to their destination. And airplanes are by far one of the worst polluters out there. Just as we don't all need to be astronauts to be inspired and learn from space programs, we don't all need to fly in order to see spectacular views from above. And that's all that air travel really has to offer in and of itself.
Beyond that, it's just a means of long-distance transportation. On that front, we have developed a global society which is completely dependent upon fast, dirty travel, but we need to question its necessity with regards to sustainability. The technology isn't getting efficient enough quickly enough for us to hope that the environmental consequences will be cut down significantly any time soon. So we have to decide which types of flights are the least necessary, and personal/business trips are on the top of that list. As much as people want to travel to exotic places or visit relatives, it just isn't sustainable. It's selfish.
I think we're in a far worse position than most people are willing to accept, one which requires major lifestyle changes in order to ensure our collective prosperity and survival. Worst of all, the ones who will suffer first and most are the people (and other life forms) that aren't even taking flights or driving SUVs. If we don't make major changes, such as huge cut downs of air travel, we are condemning the innocent, along with ourselves and future generations.
Personally, I feel obligated to point out unethical and irrational behaviour whenever I have a good opportunity. Remaining silent is no different than saying "That's okay, you can keep doing that." But many would certainly call my views "radical"/"alarmist". I guess we'll see...
That's a deeply pessimistic thing to say. But more than that, it's unrealistic. If that were true, there would be no revolutionary icons, no infamous dictators, no noteworthy individuals.