I'm not sure that mass air transit has a place in a post-oil society were we try to leave at peace with the planet. Not just for the carbon impact, but also for the diversity of our species and cultures.

Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane?

Of course, the market wills it so some may think that it must happen, yet I feel that the globalisation and massification of everything made the world a less diverse and interesting place overall.

▲

317070 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I'm not sure that mass air transit has a place in a post-oil society were we try to leave at peace with the planet.

Me neither, but that doesn't stop me from celebrating possible breakthroughs in decarbonisation.

▲

Larrikin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why not stop other Europeans from going as well?

▲

pudgywalsh 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane

Who are you to dictate where Chinese and Indians can and cannot visit or enjoy delicious watermelons?

If someone wants to eat a watermelon like a dirty slave that is their business and you are not going to deny them that right. This is pure insanity.

China and India are the biggest domestic aircraft markets in the world. The manufacturers literally cannot keep up with the demand. If trains were more effective they would have built them already. If California has taught us anything it's that implementation of high speed rail is a joke.

I am appalled at the level of delusion and craziness in these responses, it would take a year to respond to them all.

Air travel is not going anywhere and we are not setting society back 100 years on account of dubious climate histrionics.

Want to save the environment?

Ditch smartphones (future e-waste) and all their useless apps (and resource-sucking infra) we could all live without tomorrow.

Turns out we were as effective in moving goods and services and leisure travel in 2008 as we are today.

We just couldn't post to social media about how uncomfortable the airplane seat was and how the onboard Wi-Fi sucked.

	▲	fc417fc802 44 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If trains were more effective Well they're more convenient by virtue of being faster. The well off will inevitably pay for convenience if allowed. > If California has taught us anything it's that implementation of high speed rail is a joke. The only thing California stands as an example of in that regard is political dysfunction. A hypothetical benevolent dictator could have built out high speed rail there on time and on budget. > I am appalled at the level of delusion and craziness in these responses Has it not occurred to you that maybe that's a red flag that perhaps your own views or emotional state are a bit off? > on account of dubious climate histrionics. An empty dismissal of a vague and poorly defined (on your part) concept. How about engaging with a real position instead of name calling a straw man? > Ditch smartphones (future e-waste) And what do you suppose the combined total environmental impact is for those globally compared to other categories?
	▲	an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]