Wouldn't it be better if...

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:25 pm

Wouldn't it be better if air travel wasn't so easily available? There would be less noise pollution, less upper-atmosphere pollution, people would appreciate distance again, there wouldn't be subsidies going to airlines, the onground infrastructure would most likely be better taken care of, you wouldn't have to worry about your relatives arriving at the airport, and CNN would stop airing stupid Quatar airlines commericals.

Instant Cash · Post by **Instant Cash** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:40 pm

But then I could probably only afford to go to Europ eon a boat, which would take forever.

There are good and bad effects of a shrinking world.

Personally I think it helps open peoples eyes to a world outside their home town.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:32 pm

Angel wrote:Wouldn't it be better if air travel wasn't so easily available?

High availability of transport for goods benefits everyone, overall, and air travel is the most efficient means of moving goods over long distances. Use of other modes of travel would decrease availability of goods, increase their price, and result in additional pollution.

If the world were local, and everyone would stop trying to make it international, less air travel would be great. I'm all for banning cars and trains, too, and getting rid of all the roads and killing 90 percent of the human race, but you don't get to go back, Angel. Progress doesn't work that way.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:35 pm

To be fair, progress is usually punctuated by events where we test out how damn efficient all these new gadgets are at wiping other people out.

MooCow · Post by **MooCow** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:54 pm

No, it wouldn't. It'd be much harder for me to travel to foreign countries to hunt large animals into extinction. That would be a terrible shame.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:25 pm

TLM wrote:To be fair, progress is usually punctuated by events where we test out how damn efficient all these new gadgets are at wiping other people out.

If the alternative is no progress, I think you'll find most people are okay with that. Personally, I'm still in favor of genocide and a return to pre-industrial technology, so I'm actually over the fence beyond Angel.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:38 pm

on a side note, I just got something in mail via sea mail after 6 weeks of waiting.

It's a great surprise if you know that something is coming, but you don't know when it will arrive, and by the time that you almost forget, it arrives.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:59 pm

Why should distance be appreciated?

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:04 pm

Adam wrote:Why should distance be appreciated?

Because then you can appreciate just how far away Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and all the other fucked up places in the world really are.

Seriously, though, we have lost a lot of respect for just how big the world is (comparatively speaking. Journeys that used to take days now take maybe half an hour. Journeys that used to take weeks, months or several years even, now take maybe a day, tops. The exoticism of travelling and seeing the world is slowly but surely going away, replaced by a 'shopping' mentality of travel where you have to see all the sites, and just skip the rest.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:10 pm

The journey, not the destination, should be the reason for travel. There's nothing more fun than grabbing a few buddies and driving around aimlessly for a day or two. In the instant gratification world we live in, air travel is just one more way to make people stress out about "making time", instead of doing something they enjoy with that time.

I, personally, could do without it.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:23 pm

TLM wrote:Seriously, though, we have lost a lot of respect for just how big the world is ...

Respecting the world for its size is like respecting a 7 foot guy just for being tall.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:30 pm

Adam wrote:Respecting the world for its size is like respecting a 7 foot guy just for being tall.

I respect the 7 foot tall guy because he can probably kick the shit out of my dwarven ass. The world on the other hand, is just a complete dirty whore.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:39 pm

Jeff Hauze wrote:
Adam wrote:Respecting the world for its size is like respecting a 7 foot guy just for being tall.
I respect the 7 foot tall guy because he can probably kick the shit out of my dwarven ass. The world on the other hand, is just a complete dirty whore.

The only trouble being that while she might reveal her clefts and crevices and round hills to us for nothing, her bitchslaps literally makes the ground shake.

[Edited for idiotic mistake.]

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:30 am

lordhellion wrote:The journey, not the destination, should be the reason for travel. There's nothing more fun than grabbing a few buddies and driving around aimlessly for a day or two.

But what if I want to travel long distance to visit people/a place? If I'm going overseas to visit the Euro crew or going back East to see my old town, screw the journey. It's the destination that I want.

In the instant gratification world we live in, air travel is just one more way to make people stress out about "making time", instead of doing something they enjoy with that time.

I, personally, could do without it.

Instant gratification? Never flown to Australia or Asia before, huh?

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:40 am

Cash wrote:But what if I want to travel long distance to visit people/a place? If I'm going overseas to visit the Euro crew or going back East to see my old town, screw the journey. It's the destination that I want.

Why not get the best of both worlds?

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:40 am

I like the fact that I can easily and comfortably - and relatively cheaply - hop on a plane to go visit friends overseas. I like the fact that I can order something online from the UK and have it arrive here within a week. I certainly prefer both of those situations to some indefinable mystique the world had when it was 'bigger' and the foreign parts were truly inaccessible.

Let's also not forget that inaccessibility makes things strange and unfamiliar, which - thanks to human nature - breeds distrust and prejudice.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:55 am

lordhellion wrote:Why not get the best of both worlds?

Because "the best" isn't the same thing to everyone. Isn't that obvious? I generally don't give a shit about the journey. If I'm travelling with someone, the important part of the journey is the with them part, and if I'm travelling on my own, it's almost always destination-based. I lean over to the airplane window and watch the earth go by underneath sometimes, but if I sleep through it -- big deal, there will be other flights.

TLM · Post by **TLM** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:55 am

True enough! I'm not saying I'm not making use of all the comforts and conveniences of the modern world, far from it. I partake regularly. However, comfort and ease costs us when it comes to diversity of experience. When we traveled as a kid, we went on a bus tour from Norway to Italy, and somehow that was more exiting than going the same route by plane two years later, even though we got to spend more time at the destination. It has made me think that faster and more comfortable doesn't always equal better, is all.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:57 am

lordhellion wrote:
Cash wrote:But what if I want to travel long distance to visit people/a place? If I'm going overseas to visit the Euro crew or going back East to see my old town, screw the journey. It's the destination that I want.
Why not get the best of both worlds?

Because I only have so much vacation time. I'm not Flak.

I've driven around the US and around Victoria, Australia. I drive for my GD job. If I'm going on a tour of some area, then bring on driving in the car. Yes, I've done both (Roadtripped to GenCon/The Gathering with Eva and Adam, and Deev and Jestyr), but the purpose of the vacation was to specifically take a road trip. But road/boat trip to Europe or South America or Asia? No thanks. That's a few weeks stuck in a boat that I won't e able to tour the country or visit with people. Besides, "Day 16 in the ship. yup. Still fucking ocean all around us. Have prayed for a change of scenery. It's like driving through Nebraska with waves.'

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:03 am

Bah. You guys need to take life slower--it goes too fast as is.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:06 am

Yeah, hence wanting to spend more of it with people I love, NOT GETTING TO THEM AS SLOWLY AS POSSIBLE. OH, LOOK, THE SAME PRETTY ROCK THAT WAS THERE LAST TIME WE DROVE BY HERE! WOOHOO!

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:09 am

Ah, there's the problem! You're taking the same route every time!

You should mix it up a bit.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:15 am

Why? I'm perfectly happy with how I travel. I like modern conveniences, and I am all about using our GIANT BRAINS to continue to bend the world to our will.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:21 am

Adam wrote:Yeah, hence wanting to spend more of it with people I love, NOT GETTING TO THEM AS SLOWLY AS POSSIBLE. OH, LOOK, THE SAME PRETTY ROCK THAT WAS THERE LAST TIME WE DROVE BY HERE! WOOHOO!

That's the response of a happy, self-content traveller. I think you got some Canadian Rage Froth on me...

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:23 am

lordhellion wrote:Ah, there's the problem! You're taking the same route every time!

You should mix it up a bit.

There's a reason they're called The Flyover States.

*ahem* sorry, Brasky...

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 1:27 am

lordhellion wrote:
Adam wrote:Yeah, hence wanting to spend more of it with people I love, NOT GETTING TO THEM AS SLOWLY AS POSSIBLE. OH, LOOK, THE SAME PRETTY ROCK THAT WAS THERE LAST TIME WE DROVE BY HERE! WOOHOO!
That's the response of a happy, self-content traveller. I think you got some Canadian Rage Froth on me...

A happy, self-content traveller, who thinks other people telling him how he should travel are retarded. Give me my airplane and the airport so I can people watch!

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:00 pm

I certainly feel no need to dictate how you travel Adam, but I also hope you'd extend me the same courtesy. (Knowing you like I do, I think you would if you were in charge.) I think sometimes we, as a society, have become too concerned about convenience and let some of the fun parts of travel go to the wayside.

I also think some of this convenience has translated into some societal problems, but none of that is specifically your fault or yours to answer for.

Jeff Hauze · Post by **Jeff Hauze** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:17 pm

Paul, don't beat around the bush. Just admit it like the rest of us have. It's all the Canucks' fault that the world is fucked up. I mean, really...they're Canadian after all.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:19 pm

Well yeah, I know he's up there sharpening his ice skates passing off his fake ass quarters in preparation to invade this great nation with their fake ass ham! We have ways of making you say "Good Day!" Pal!

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:24 pm

lordhellion wrote:The journey, not the destination, should be the reason for travel. There's nothing more fun than grabbing a few buddies and driving around aimlessly for a day or two. In the instant gratification world we live in, air travel is just one more way to make people stress out about "making time", instead of doing something they enjoy with that time.

No, no. You've got it all wrong. You can't appreciate the journey until you appreciate where you are. No one should ever travel. People shouldn't even move, because there's nothing more fun than being where you are.

Sorry, I figured as long as we were tossing out meaningless absolutisms in place of opinions about preference, I should join in.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Tue May 01, 2007 2:37 pm

Serious Paul wrote:I certainly feel no need to dictate how you travel Adam, but I also hope you'd extend me the same courtesy. (Knowing you like I do, I think you would if you were in charge.)

Oh, of course. I don't believe that I said "and we should rip up those highways and take away those trains. By the way, don't try walking anymore -- use your teleporter, please." anywhere. Heck, I even said: "If I'm travelling with someone, the important part of the journey is the with them part, and if I'm travelling on my own, it's almost always destination-based."

I've road-tripped across the USA with Erik and Eva, and the year before that with Tzeentch, I've been across great portions of the USA via the magic of Greyhound. Now? I like to fly.

Really, I think lordhellion was the only one making "you should" style statements. He's welcome to his style of travel, because I sure as hell don't want it. :-)

I think sometimes we, as a society, have become too concerned about convenience and let some of the fun parts of travel go to the wayside.

"Fun," as always, is up to the individual.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue May 01, 2007 4:18 pm

Agreed.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Tue May 01, 2007 11:25 pm

Mostly, I was just poking the bear becuase Adam was getting defensive about it. It'd been a while since I did that--I needed to get it out of my system. Nothing personal.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:24 am

I was being correct about it. There's a difference.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Wed May 02, 2007 4:54 am

Ah, that's what that was, eh? Poke

I thought it was being technocratic and yielding to the system. Poke

Jestyr · Post by **Jestyr** » Wed May 02, 2007 5:00 am

Now you're just being needlessly inflammatory.

lordhellion · Post by **lordhellion** » Wed May 02, 2007 5:02 am

Bullshit. I was being needlessly infammatory a page ago.

Sowhat · Post by **Sowhat** » Wed May 02, 2007 9:25 am

*laughs*

Air-travel existing doesn't stop those who wish to using other forms of transportation. You can go on a road-trip, take a boat, and let others who do not want to travel for the sake of travelling go by air.

There are many valid reasons why some people prefer to fly. Financial and time constraints are a big thing, sure, I'd possibly like to travel to my next destination via boat, but can I afford to take that amount of time off work/university/other commitments like kids or elderly relatives. Do you want to spend a week on a boat when you really want to be spending that time exploring exotic locations, soaking up an atmosphere completely different to that of your own country's, shopping 'til you drop, or simply lazing around on the beach in beautiful weather instead of shivering at home where it's winter? Perhaps you do, but it's quite obvious why many people don't. If you have four weeks annual leave and you're taking one or two of those weeks off to travel, you most likely don't want to spend all of that time in transit. Then there is the case of countries that are isolated from others. Try taking a road trip from Australia... it's an island.

On top of that you have people like my mother who decide at the last minute to go Christmas shopping in KL, or to go to NZ for lunch. Even I love the fact that in this day and age you can decide at the last minute to go visit a friend in another state and be there within five or six hours, just book the ticket online, pack your bag and jump on a plane. You're not trapped, you're free to move.

Toryu · Post by **Toryu** » Wed May 02, 2007 1:43 pm

Angel wrote:Wouldn't it be better if air travel wasn't so easily available? There would be less noise pollution, less upper-atmosphere pollution, people would appreciate distance again, there wouldn't be subsidies going to airlines, the onground infrastructure would most likely be better taken care of, you wouldn't have to worry about your relatives arriving at the airport, and CNN would stop airing stupid Quatar airlines commericals.

IMNSHO, it would be much better to work hard at eliminating the non-desirable side effects (e.g. pollution) than limiting the whole thing altogether and all the good things that comes with air travel, i. e. all the nice things previous posters listed off. But yeah finding a good solution is a pretty arcane, scientific and economic question. Ah, there we have it again...economics.

Wouldn't it be better if...

Wouldn't it be better if...

Re: Wouldn't it be better if...

Re: Wouldn't it be better if...