But that's the thing... instead of taking short, thoughtless breaks here and there, what if someone did take a 3 month break from their office life and sailed to Europe? How much more meaningful and memorable of an experience would that be? (The scurvy experience we can easily forego now.)
That people are thoughtless creatures easily susceptible to marketing gimmicks?Original Post Deleted
I think there are people doing this, and perhaps with more awareness more will do so... In Asia though, I don't know. I think Europeans appreciate their time more.
Have no beef in the environmental argument of this trip, but I'd think that flying is more efficient in terms of time and carbon footprints.
I'm of the belief that its best to get where you're going as quickly as possible and enjoy your down time. If a cruise ship is your destination then so be it, the stops it makes are the sideshow.
If a place is your destination, then so be it, the mode of transport is the sideshow.
Just saying this with no vested interest other than moderating this down a few notches.
Last edited by shri; 11-05-2019 at 12:21 PM.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/7...-cruising.html
Whilst a ferry isn't a cruise ship, it is still not environmentally friendly, considerably less so than flying and that's not including the train / bus / taxis required. It's the same as the nuclear power versus renewables or organic vs modern farming discussion, people cling to unresearched views that give them warm environmental fuzzies while not realising that their chosen ideology is actually worse for the planet.
TL : DR If you want to be environmentally friendly, stay home. If you must go, take a plane.
It impacts the entire planet when people take ideological stands on things that require evidence and science to find a way forward. Continually pointing out where people's thinking is going to harm the planet is not an attack, it's desperation to try and get people to see the harm they are doing. We aren't here to give people a pat on the back when they are plain wrong, and adding to the disaster that is building globally.
It's also a case of Europeans being afforded the financial wherewithal and holiday time to do so, not simply valuing their time more. In Korea, for example, it's common for locals to only have 8 days off a year, making it ridiculous to consider anything other than the fastest means. Holidays are so scarce that many flights return as red eye so people can eek out an extra day, going straight to work with their 6am arrival.
All this to say, it requires an existing level of prosperity for a society to even start thinking in these terms. And arguably, the way we even got to a standard of living that can entertain the idea was already at the expense of everyone else. I agree, though, there's a culture side that can be fostered given where we now stand, even if it's a drop in the ocean, so can appreciate your attempt.
In that overland/sea travel would actually be more harmful than flying? Probably agree though I don't have the numbers.
However, the OP has made her position clear many times in terms of reducing travel so overall I don't see her ideas as negative.
On the one hand one individual not flying will make no difference but on the other by going by sea she is causing harm.