Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joea
Oh now that's over the top, travel, including air travel has given me opportunities and benefits. I believe cars do cause more pollution globally anyway. I can do without tomatoes in winter (well I can buy canned, or dried) but we always traded for things like tea, wine and even oil. We always used it in my household growing up in Canada.
|
You see, here it already starts as I predicted! "Yes, save the world, but don't expect me to seriously change my living habits. I have plenty of good reasons, you see." Modern planes are okay beyond a certain distance, and if you have reasons to travel. Mass tourism is not. It even is no right.
|
Well ok, thanks for the personal shot.
I guess I started it, sorry. Not a good way to debate. I have several points to make. Who decides "a good reason" to travel or not, or what minimum distance? (Geography including mountains and water would indicate time should be the factor IMO). If we question mass tourism we must question job mobility (even if certain jobs like journalists and scientists require travel) and even educational mobility. (Yes my own experience again). These create the impetus to travel (encompassing all transport).
Good luck trying to limit mass consumption in democracies unless the elites make a show of limiting their own consumption as well or draconian measure that destroy democracy are implemented.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Trading is okay in principle, nothing against that. I sell you what you don't have and can't produce yourself, and you sell me what I don't have and can't produce myself. That'S what trading originally has been about in past times … But admitted, it maybe is less profitable, so... But if somebody thinks he must have his Irish butter in Germany and therefore all the energy and effort during the logistical efforts must be maintained in the name of "free trade" and "democracy", because it is so much more tasty (probably only in his imagination anyway), then I could not care less for that man. He better should change his taste, basta.
|
Well that is a very good principle, I agree totally. I suppose one way to deal with that is allow the trade but tax the heck out of it (this will bring howls from free traders). On the other hand, I don’t think the answer lies only in changing consumption patterns. I have no qualms about buying real Italian parmesan (granted not too far from Geneva) or Appenzeller from Eastern Switzerland, but favour shipping them as much of the distance as possible by rail rather than truck. Same with the search for alternative fuels, I don’t think the militaries of the world will want their toys to run out of juice when the current variety runs out.
Anyway, simplicity is nice but can also become an idolatry of sorts, or a new Puritanism. Cutting back in certain areas, doing without certain luxuries while permitting oneself others and allowing core needs (different for each person) even if not “PC” is a valid choice IMO.