[reactordev]

I refuse to not experience life because of some social justice reason. I get that they’re polluting but you only live once. I think one trip is fine. Airlines pollute too and yet millions fly everyday. Are we to go back to sailing across ye oceans to lands yonder so as to not harm our planet? It’s not going to happen in this lifetime.

Whether it’s a retreat in the rain forest in Costa Rica or a cruise around the Caribbean for a week. A cabin in Alaska or a yurt in the Norway countryside. Get out there somewhere where you can’t escape your fate. The point is to succumb to the moment, and things become clear. Personally, I like a party. Not a crazy carnival but a sophisticated one - so I went on Norwegian. It was worth it.

[ornornor]

It’s not an all or nothing proposition. There is a gradient between going on a cruise ship (which is multiple times more polluting than even flying, disturbs everything living in the sea, are epidemy hotbeds, routinely reject untreated water into international waters, have questionable working conditions for the crew) and not experiencing life. Most people have never been on a cruise. I don’t think they’d say they haven’t experienced life.

There are places nearby wherever you live that you can visit and that don’t require sailing across the ocean in ye olde ship, flying, or taking a cruise to experience. And they’re just as beautiful, relaxing, and would provide the clarity/relaxation discussed in this article.

[reactordev]

True, but instead of saying “cruise ship bad” how about instead offer those alternatives. I get that cruise ships pollute but out of the couple cruises I’ve been on, I would say it’s less carbon than if I owned a truck. Or a car at all. So to NOT do things simply because of some moral stance on something entirely unrelated is bogus to me. I’m a fan of saying yes, not no, to new things.