The Last Place on Earth Any Tourist Should Go

Your point about realization is key, I think. The awareness of the consequences of various activities and choices. Which somewhat relies upon translating those consequences into metrics that ordinary people can easily grasp.

For example, in some countries, it's law that smoking tobacco must be sold in packaging which includes graphic imagery of surgical outcomes from tobacco use. Staring a diseased organ in the face (so to speak!) every time you have a cigarette is an easily grasped metric.

Perhaps other industries should fall under similar controls. Airline tickets with images of ???. Petrol pumps with ???. But of course, therein lie long battles between different interest and commercial groups. Or, as in tobacco's case, for the situation to progress to sufficiently large and undeniable quantities of deaths and disease, such that action becomes a belated but foregone conclusion.

How about proposing better ways to price externalities, if applicable, to the entertainment options and then let people decide whether they are willing to pay for the impact (by, perhaps, working towards eliminating or reversing said impact).

And not for lack of advancements in those fields, no, but for the sake of filling the coffers of shareholders.

The hedonism that's destroying all we love isn't watching movies or drinking coffee, it's unchecked greed - hoarding of capital.

I'd say you're optimistic: US copyright on works for hire expires 95 years after first publication.

> We can probably expand this to things like coffee, but you could argue that it provides value.

why should anyone need coffee, when they can just take caffeine pills?

That said, I would be really interested in hearing you make your case that people should just accept invasion “for the environment” or they can’t care at all about any other environmental issues.

Much less defensible, from a utilitarian perspective, are the corporate retreats and company meetups that are quite common in the tech industry.

> Last year, for instance, a company named White Desert opened its latest luxury camp in Antarctica. Its sleeping domes, roughly 60 miles from the coast, are perched near an emperor-penguin colony and can be reached only by private jet. Guests, who pay at least $65,000 a stay, are encouraged to explore the continent by plane, Ski-Doos, and Arctic truck before enjoying a gourmet meal whose ingredients are flown in from South Africa.

If this camp requires coming by plane, isn’t this good since it avoids boat trips? The previous paragraph talked about harming the ecosystem but it doesn’t make any claim or offer evidence that these camps and their guests are littering the ecosystem.

Or is the point still “planes bad”? If so, then my criticism from my parent comment still applies.