You should consider giving travel a try, though. When done right, it has so many benefits that I cannot recommend it enough.

Among them: it gives you a better perspective on life, it gives you a better understanding of what is there to improve in your own community that you didn't notice before because "we have always done it this way", and it tends to make people less judgemental and/or racist.

People won't care about droughts in Africa they see on TV, but if you could bring them there and see it with their own eyes I can guarantee you they would.

The majority of benefits you mention are absolutely not applicable to the majority of travelers, specifically those only visiting countries for a short time in areas designed for tourists. Also doesn't take into account repeat tourists (e.g. masses in North/West Europe going south by plane every summer).

There's a humongous difference between your average Ibiza tourist and someone visiting Asia to study the culture. From experience, the majority is far closer to the former than the latter.

> it has so many benefits

... but that's true of everything that we could ever consider banning in the name of combatting climate change.

When done in a purposeful way, sure.

But for 99% of the people it's like:

- "white sand good. clear water good. sun good."

- "yum, food."

- "tee hee. disney."

Not all travel is frivolous, and demonising ordinary people as if they’re doing it for no reason is unhelpful.

There are those who move to new countries and have an entirely reasonable desire to still see their families from time to time.

For business deals and diplomacy, meeting in person remains a far more effective way of building rapport and good working relationships than anything tech can provide just yet.

And travel for tourism, while arguably unnecessary, does contribute to producing more educated & empathetic segments of the population who are more likely to see themselves as part of the world rather than identifying only with their tiny corner of it. It’s a difficult one to quantify, but something we’d notice if it ended. There are also parts of the world that would become much poorer if not for tourism.

I’m all for finding ways to reduce the need for travel, asking people to travel less where possible, and of course pouring investment into decarbonising aviation. We’re at the point where it’s one of the necessary actions society needs to accept.

But don’t pretend these are not very real and in many cases very painful sacrifices we’re asking people to make.

You can mention all reasons you want. But travel has to adapt to the needs of a healthy environment and not the other way around.

If that means you have to travel on a donkey for 5 years to make it to a really important conference then so be it. If that's too much then do it online.

You have spectacularly missed the point, and that’s not a good faith response.

No, you miss the point.

My point is attacking the central belief in this civilization, which is that human convenience is more important than everything else.

What is more important: a) the extinction of a mammalian species, or b) a few people not being able to see their family? To me the response is very clear: a)

If a) is more important then if 2% of humanity cannot see their family that's OK. It's the cost of sharing the planet with other species that also need to survive.

I don't care if a few million people cry at night, that's better than a species going extinct. Extinction is forever.

In perspective, none of the stuff you mention really matters. Your convenience is not as important because there's 8 billion of you. You are not as special as you think.

All beings on Earth will go extinct at some point; it’s a matter of when. Extending that significantly has merit, but must be traded off against many factors, including convenience and quality of the lives lived until the point of extinction.

Perhaps we should ration the population to 2 Billion or so, to give everyone who lives a better life, mean, median, and mode, than we can at 8 Billion. Perhaps 8B is OK, but only if those 8B each make deeper sacrifices than the 2B would have to…

Starting by eliminating all expectation that it is normal for a human being to travel frequently on planes.

Is that the optimal first step in terms of return for the environment over delta-convenience, delta-fun, and attention budget?

I’d expect that other improvements sort far, far higher on the return over expense scale, but are not as symbolic.

Convenience? fun? Dude... there's a literal extinction going out outside.

That is, again, not what was argued.

Your comment claimed all travel is ‘pointless’ and without any reasonable justification. It was filled with invective for anyone who might have chosen to travel at some point. It was an argument lacking in perspective or empathy.

You’re now trying to turn this into a question of whether these might be justifiable sacrifices but that was never a point of contention. In fact, it’s something I raised first.

As I said, not a good faith response.

Humanity has to downsize its expectations and ego. Cutting most passenger air travel is a key part of that. Next we should ban most non essential plastic objects. Then slam a sticker in front of every product with its carbon footprint.