Mooney_Driver wrote:
So “tourist bombers” are ok, because those people are using them for their own devices, but the “evil” biz jets are not??
Biz jets are “evil” because they send out a whole lot of CO2 for the meager work they do, bringing a person from A to B. It’s the most inefficient way of transporting human beings in terms of CO2 emissions. Look, the world isn’t perfect in any way, shape or form, and neither is human kind or humanity. However, pretending to not “get” the logic behind discoloration of the skin of biz-jets, CO2 and activists, is at best dishonest.
Ultranomad wrote:
You certainly have a point, but I’m afraid this tradition doesn’t really work in today’s society anymore
Well, the Nordic countries are consistently at the top in the world regarding all measures of happiness, quality of life, wealth, freedom et etc. Do you think this just happens by itself?
Ultranomad wrote:
think of the overreaching actions of Barnevernet in Norway
I don’t know what you have seen or heard about Barnevernet 
But, Barnevernet are repeatedly in the news for abusing their powers, and being seemingly complete nuts at time. Their role is to protect children against abusing and negligent parents. It’s by nature pure conflict with lots and lots of emotions, and as such also easy picking for garbage media.
It’s the most inefficient way of transporting human beings in terms of CO2 emissions.
I’m not quite sure but I believe mega yachts are even less efficient. However, they always have armed guards ready to exercise force and that’s why they are rarely targeted. In addition these yachts are often owned by interesting characters who can’t care less about environmentalists and their endeavors to save the planet.
LeSving wrote:
I don’t know what you have seen or heard about Barnevernet But, Barnevernet are repeatedly in the news for abusing their powers, and being seemingly complete nuts at time. Their role is to protect children against abusing and negligent parents. It’s by nature pure conflict with lots and lots of emotions, and as such also easy picking for garbage media.
For the last few years, the Swedish social services have been the target of organised campaigns claiming that they are systematically “stealing” the children of muslim parents to give them to non-muslim families. (Both Russia and wahhabites from the Middle East are suspected to be behind this.) Has Barnevernet been subject of similar campaigns?
Silvaire wrote:
I think rule of law and rational business management are healthy for a society, and those living in it
He he. Of course rule of law and rational business management are healthy for a society when looking at it in isolation. That’s beside the point. The point is that flying biz-jets is bad for the global climate. That has nothing to do with rational business management. The only rational business decision is to use/not use biz-jets based on parameters such as cost, nuisance, public relations, efficiency etc. If the nuisance and (negative) PR factors becomes too large, a biz-jet will not be used, period. Low hanging fruit for activists.
LeSving wrote:
Well, the Nordic countries are consistently at the top in the world regarding all measures of happiness, quality of life, wealth, freedom et etc. Do you think this just happens by itself?
Having lived in Denmark, I agree with you on that, but I have also heard from Scandinavian acquaintances of mine that civil rights and freedoms, especially privacy, have been gradually eroded in recent years. Maybe I am overreacting – please correct me if so. @Airborne_Again, do you have an opinion on that?
I don’t know what you have seen or heard about Barnevernet But, Barnevernet are repeatedly in the news for abusing their powers, and being seemingly complete nuts at time. Their role is to protect children against abusing and negligent parents. It’s by nature pure conflict with lots and lots of emotions, and as such also easy picking for garbage media.
This much I do understand. What I meant were multiple cases lost by Barnevernet in the European Court of Human Rights.
Silvaire wrote:
In my view, belief in the enduring value of a Constitution that also by design protects individual rights and responsibilities over nanny state tyranny is not “socially conservative”, it is the opposite.
Sure, but the general morality in the U.S. society is a lot more conservative (or paternalistic, if you will) than in most of Europe. To me, it’s first and foremost an agressive pushing of Christian agenda in politics and an erosion of privacy.
And these are not freedom loving rebels, quite the opposite. They are authoritarian by nature, in my view reflecting their lack of maturity and naive fear, while the rule of law supports liberty.
On that one, I agree with you absolutely. Liberty is being attacked both from the left and from the right, and moderate views are becoming ever scarcer.
It’s completely right IMO to defend the future of humanity and to fight climate change, including potentially replacing inefficient means of transportation. So the cause in itself is laudable. The means is another story entirely.
Civilization is (or has been) the work of channeling violence towards non-violent means, and allowing for peace and prosperity at a large scale through morality and common rules. The problem of climate change is a problem of common good, i.e. a problem that civilization faces. If individuals use forceful means to apply their view, it means that civilization is already in danger, along with any chance of actually solving the problem collectively (I guess if society collapses there’s no problem anymore, but that’s not desirable either for most people). If common rules disappear, everyone will be out for themselves and noone will care about the common good any more. This is the main contradiction I see with such actions. Disrespecting the work of others (as imperfect or polluting as it might be) has much deeper implications for society that eventually undermine any chance at lasting peace and collectively solving the problem. I know this is a very unpopular opinion nowadays since untouchable anguishes about grand urgencies dominate most rational and collective thinking, but this drives my point home even more.
I’d much rather have plentiful energy and fight climate change with civilizational and industrial means instead of diminishing prosperity which will lead to war and violence.
Ultranomad wrote:
Scandinavian acquaintances of mine that civil rights and freedoms, especially privacy, have been gradually eroded in recent years
I would say it’s the exact opposite (for better or worse). Norway used to be a much more open society. Privacy wasn’t a thing at all, and no one cared. With IT (internet, mobile phones, social media, databases etc), privacy has become a thing, and a focus on rights and freedoms has also inevitably come along. What is privacy without some accompanying rights (in written form) ? The practical effect is merely a more complicated society, as well as less open society IMO. Perhaps the pendulum is already on it’s way back regarding this for all I know. If people feel privacy is being eroded, I cannot think of any other explanation. You have to be more specific.
Ultranomad wrote:
This much I do understand. What I meant were multiple cases lost by Barnevernet in the European Court of Human Rights.
Well I haven’t really paid attention to it. Barnevernet is in the news all the time, for the reasons explained, and it just passes me by It wouldn’t surprise me though, if this is related to what AA writes. A quick google search shows Barnevernet pops up together with immigrants, “swiftly and surprisingly removing children from their homes targeting immigrants and single parents”. This is typical BS, because it’s not consistent with reality. Barnevernet reacts only after repeated reports of concern from relatives, neighbors, school, friends etc. Police also in some cases. They have no “agents” out in the field spying
For the parents, this is disaster regardless I guess, but I think this is closely related to how parents view their children. Children have rights that gradually comes in effect when they grow up. You don’t own your children, you only have them on loan, is the common and legal view on this. Many immigrant groups don’t see it like that. They look at their children as their possession, their property. Consequently they can treat them as they want (they think), but that is very far from the case.
LeSving wrote:
Well, the Nordic countries are consistently at the top in the world regarding all measures of happiness, quality of life, wealth, freedom et etc. Do you think this just happens by itself?
Nah, not by itself – say profiteering by selling the world a lot of CO2 certainly helps with the wealth issue…
Yes, Bizjets are the equivalent of the three ton ferrari SUV where you could take the bus (Airline), your car (IFR piston GA) or your bike (VFR GA). At least they manage to actually archieve the speed instead of standing in the traffic jam and don’t run over kids in front of the school – on the other hand, the pollution is comparatively insane when running the APU to keep the air conditioning working in the cockpit while waiting on the tarmac is “just 60 pounds an hour”, and I’m quoting here.
But the same argument can be made concerning the ancient leaded fuel guzzling planes of a bygone era, the worst ones with twin engines – just compare them to the efficient UL designs we have today. Where do you draw the line?
I disagree that the market can control the underlying issue in a reasonable manner – this is what we need politics for. If we just let the market control everything, we’d still have children working in the coal mines and the desire for a short term profit certainly is stronger than the motivation to prevent long term harm – because the guy in charge gets a nice fat bonus and works elsewhere when the sh!t hits the fan.
Vandalising art and planes won’t bring a revolution, neither will gluing yourself to the street in the rush hour. And if you tell the people just how much of this nice first world wealth they would have to give up, all the while the, say, chinese population is still trying to emulate our lifestyle of abundance, so it won’t even make much of a difference… even the climate activists go to see thailand in their revolutionary spare time or fly the crew of the ship in airplanes for the backfired “I rather sail to the US” publicity stunt.
I recognize the duality of the hobby of flying and the desire to leave a better earth for my children.
Ultranomad wrote:
On that one, I agree with you absolutely. Liberty is being attacked both from the left and from the right, and moderate views are becoming ever scarcer.
True.
LeSving wrote:
I would say it’s the exact opposite (for better or worse). Norway used to be a much more open society. Privacy wasn’t a thing at all, and no one cared. With IT (internet, mobile phones, social media, databases etc), privacy has become a thing, and a focus on rights and freedoms has also inevitably come along.
Now that you mentioned it, I understand that you are definitely right. I actually meant a different aspect of privacy: the freedom from pervasive police surveillance. What I heard from acquaintances was mostly about Sweden rather than Norway – that the culture of mutual respect between people (including respect for private life) is changing towards state paternalism.
