all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 3 years ago

That's great, but I'd still like to be able to afford a big vacation, please.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    This is basically stoicism. Appreciate what you have. Try imagining you’ve lost it, it’s called negative visualization.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    Can we have some healthcare, please?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I get the sentiment of this post and just being satisfied and content with that you have, but I also feel like this is just “ money can’t buy happiness” wrapped in a new Wrapper. I know the OP post of it most likely did not mean it as that, but itt to feels like the bourgeois would this to keep us “poors” for wanting a small percentage of what they have. I like the idea for sure just see how it could weaponized against the 99%.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I just reached down to pet my kitty and he groomed my glasses so I’m on board with this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (7 children)

    If more people thought like that instead of not being satisfied unless they get two offshore vacations a year things would be much better for everyone

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    Nothing wrong with wanting to see the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (5 children)

    Except for the fact that most of aviation's pollution comes from passenger flights and it pollutes a whole lot more to travel by plane vs car.

    Put four passengers in a full sized truck and make them travel cross country vs put them in a plane and make them travel halfway across the country, their environmental impact is lower in the truck even if they traveled twice the distance.

    There's nothing normal about being able to visit the whole world in our lifetime and it's a concept that didn't exist 100 years ago. We would do perfectly fine without it... Heck, we would do better without it because that would reduce our global emissions by at least a percent and potentially 2% depending on what people decide to do during their vacations instead.

    Not even talking about emissions, the temporary clouds that planes create contribute to more global warming than all the CO2 emissions by the industry since its creation.

    https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Ok keep sitting in your cave, garden gnome.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    Well, you said there's nothing wrong with wanting to see the world, I explained at least one thing wrong with it, but hey, keep doing what you're doing, who cares about consequences, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I explained at least one thing wrong with it

    No, GP said that there's nothing wrong with wanting to see the world, and all you replied what's wrong with air travel.

    And just because traveling the world is a recent phenomenon, doesn't mean people haven't had the desire to explore the world and distant places for centuries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago

    I mean yeah, that's what I do. I cherish my little joys and super cherish the big bonus ones. Still miserable, but I cherish them lol.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    "staycation" energy

  • source