BF2S Forums Pandemic thread

Larssen wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

I can't find the source anymore but I thought it was more like the richest 1 or 2% globally who were responsible for the majority of travel emissions. Which, if you live in a rich western country, likely includes all of us.

Still the flights I've taken over the years pale compared to business execs and consultants who often hop on planes every other day.

Even so I've always been of the opinion that chastising people for travelling is the wrong way to go about it. Of course there's such a thing as moderation like with all things in life, i.e. don't be one of those people who wants to participate in '100 countries in a year' challenges, avoid completely unecessary business trips, but that still leaves lots of 'necessary' air traffic.

There's got to be a way to incentivise quicker adoption of sustainable energy consumption in flight and seafaring. I don't think limiting people's mobility and flight shaming (popular in scandinavia) are at all realistic. It also annoys me greatly when people pontificate their smug superiority because of their diet, consumption or travelling habits as though individual actions will do anything to address a systemic issue like climate change

/rant

Yes we must do something, just as long as no-one's lifestyle has to change at all.

I don't think I've made a single business trip which was really necessary, and I've done about half the trips I could have if I wanted. Avoided India, avoided China, avoided Malaysia, avoided a good number of trips to the US. I did pretty well everything I needed to by fax and phone. Email made it even easier.

Its exactly individual actions which will solve it, not some magical technological fix which enables everyone to carry on as normal.
Typically technological fixes solve nothing, they just enable even greater consumption.

The problem is people like you who are willing to do nothing because you won't see the point, and the other 99% of the world who want your lazy consumptive lifestyle too and don't see why they shouldn't.

/rant

The clothes you wear are most likely produced in china, the soy you eat comes from brazil, the wheat you consume from the united states, the computer and phone you're typing on a result of extensive mining operations and a complex logistics chain through multiple regions. I'm sure you have a car, or a bike. I'm sure you live in a house, the construction process of which also involves plenty CO2 emissions. Our economy and way of life has been structured in such a way that just by living, Dilbert, you're already contributing to global warming every single day.

Now some people want to go the extra mile and go absolutely batshit on personal sustainability, from the products they buy to how their house is built, solar panel rooftops, vegan diets etc. But for how many is that a realistic option? If you didn't realise, always going to the artisanal baker/butcher and buying all your stuff locally produced is expensive as fuck. How is a median income household with a kid or two going to afford that? Is average joe busdriver supposed to spend his entire income here?

This idea that your personal diet and travelling habits, or consumption habits in general really, AT ALL compensate for the greenhouse gas emission dependency of the entire economic system is deluded. I haven't even touched on the emissions generated by business in their dealing with other private sector parties...

Last edited by uziq (2020-12-11 22:31:36)

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

look at the high and mighty manlet, living in an annexe of his parents house and feeling great about the fact he has no friends, never goes anywhere, and eats quinoa! phwoar!

get an adjustment you cuck.

Ah, insults, doesn't change the fact you yourself produce nothing tangible or useful - moving words around in someone else's actual work and forwarding it to the printer.

uziq wrote:

i guess a person who pays his own way in life, has a socially useful job in the cultural sector, literally concerned with the production and dissemination of knowledge, is a ‘parasite’.

why anyone who has emigrated to another country and felt entitled to a slice of their good life feels further entitled to call others ‘parasites’ is beyond me. probably best to tuck that one away in a little pocket of one’s vocabulary until it’s really warranted.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I'm all for multigenerational housing if all parties involved are amenable. It conserves resources and slows the suburban sprawl. It's nice when taxpayer money goes back into the working public. It's just that then calling someone else's way of living and career choice a parasitic lifestyle is playing with fire.

"lolz u habe no responsibilites"

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-12-11 22:54:43)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I've seen editor/author working relationships talked about a lot in afterwards and acknowledgements. Some of them are jokingly resentful at their baby being modified, and some are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that improved the final product in ways they would never have thought of on their own. Calling an editor a glorified spell checker seems to me like a fundamental misunderstanding of the job typical of the disdain I'm used to hearing from STEM students about humanities in general.

Dilbert wrote:

I've read hundreds if not thousands of raw unedited papers, never had any problem understanding anything in some pretty arcane areas.

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert wrote:

I've read hundreds if not thousands of raw unedited papers, never had any problem understanding anything in some pretty arcane areas.

you've never came upon a badly written piece of tech documentation working as an engineer? really?