Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokai | Hacker News Reader

Isn't almost everyone on Antarctica payed to be there?

well, not the tourists. They pay handsomely.

there's a tourist camp just next to South Pole Station. When I was at Pole in summer '19-20 the tourist camp staff invited us over for Christmas (when I guess they had no tourists). The awkward thing is that the research station is supported out of McMurdo which is supported out of Christchurch, so follows NZ time, but the tourist camp is supported out of Punta Arenas, so follows Chilean time...

I met some of the tourists on New Year's during the ceremony where the geographical pole marker is moved (the ice moves a bit every year, so the pole marker has to be moved relative to the station so that it remains over the real pole). One guy apparently had kept applying to be a winterover for some experiments and wasn't selected so he just paid to go visit Pole anyway.

And then there are the adventurers, who randomly show up on skis or in an Arctic Truck..

And then there are the adventurers, who randomly show up on skis or in an Arctic Truck.

Really? That's a bit of a surprise (the random part). Like, if you have the means, you can charter a ship out of Christchurch, sail to Antartica, and go skiing without permits or notifying any of the bases? Wild.

Given how remote the area is... if you end up with issues and don't have a permit, you'll most likely die.

“And then there are the adventurers, who randomly show up on skis or in an Arctic Truck..”

That’s an interesting point. A while ago I had a discussion with a flat earther who claimed that the military won’t allow anyone close to Antarctica. I told him I am pretty sure that people have crossed Antarctica by foot or even bicycle (heard this on a podcast). But I wasn’t sure how the permit process works and if there are limitations.

I know flat earth is stupid but it’s a good exercise to refute these people with knowledge you have. Turns out this is quite difficult because often you have only very vague knowledge of the details.

If you engage with a flat earther you have already lost. Anyone who genuinely believes in a flat earth has closed off their mind to information that refutes their beliefs. If their mind were open, they wouldn’t believe in a flat earth.

> even bicycle

Yep there have been a few of these [1].

The first trip to the south pole by cycling however was actually by tricycle by a researcher[2] who was riding alongside the South Pole Traverse[3] which is a tractor + sled motorcade for hauling cargo and supplies to and from the south pole station.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_cycling_expe... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Leijerstam 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse

There are now over 100,000 tourists visiting Antartica per year [0], while the working population maxes out at around 5,000 [1]. So, in fact, the overwhelming majority of visitors to Antartica pay for the privilege.

0: https://geographical.co.uk/science-environment/tourism-numbe...

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

This is true however very few tourists who visit Antarctica actually ever do more than step out onto the ice or the shore for a fairly short amount of time, often not even at all (just cruising along the coast). Those that actually venture inland are few and far between.

If you can get a slot with one of the contractors for the USAP, you'll almost certainly get a chance to do a lot more than the average tourist.

From the article:

> While there are a select handful of tourist expeditions that offer overnight experiences in Antarctica, the only people who actually live on the ice are those working at research facilities.

It’s a funny turn of phrase to say ‘on’ and it’s probably accurate as it conveys that it’s temporary.

I was on Europe a few times.

Wow, I never noticed that before. It is probably because to the English brain Antarctica sort of has the feel of a mile high platform of ice, but it is certainly interesting that we use "on" vs. "at"

Or "in"

It's common for islands, and Antarctica is somewhat island-ish. For Long Island (New York), you say "on" it, and anyone who says "in Long Island" gets laughed at. I think the same goes for the Hawaiian islands and places like Key West. Although, funnily, we do say "in Manhattan", not "on" for that one.

There's a limit once the island is big enough, as it's usually "in Great Britain" or "in Iceland".

Is great Britain the island, though?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

I’ve also noticed that it happens with tiny sports cars too if they are perceived as ‘cute’.

‘I’d love a turn on it’.

Kind of. Many are military. When my coworker (in Iowa) was there in the 80s, he was the only non-military over-winter person there. He worked for the weather service.

The military get paid too.

Sure, but the same whatever they do. Do they get lured into a post at the earth's armpit by better pay? I don't imagine they do.

So they aren't strictly 'paid to live in Antarctica'. They are 'paid to be a soldier and do whatever shit work is their lot'.

I assume it's the Navy doing the work, maybe the Army. If either branch is like the Air Force then they'd get some nice additional money for working there. You get a nice pay bump for working in Alaska and the North Pole. I assume it's the same, plus this would be out of country, so tax break.

But yes I get your meaning. Military is assigned work, they go where they are told.

Military personnel get paid to be where they are, they don't do it for free... and they get some of the best social benefits of any citizens in the US.

It's the US' proof that socialism works!

Have you ever met an enlisted person? They usually have nothing good to say about the government.

Sure, but I've definitely never met one who was angry about their government pay, paid college, or allmost fully government sponosered healthcare, they're angry about HOW these things are enacted more than anything else for the most part not that they're being offered to them in general like the majority of the public would benefit from as well.

The point is that it's never executed well. Socialism sounds great on paper when people are perfect. But they are not. They never will be. It will therefore never be "done the right way this time" and we will keep using it as an excuse to worsen peoples' livelihoods equally, decrease peoples' income with which they decide what they want to use to pay for, and to put down dissidents. As it always has.

Capitalism is the worst type of economic strategy, except for all the others.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

To someone poor who is dying of a curable illness, healthcare that isn't executed well is infinitely better than care they can't afford.

It's great to make decisions about how to spend your income, unless... you have no income.

Here's an explainer about what socialism actually is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgiC8YfytDw

Reply on news.ycombinator.com