[dash2]

I hope I'm not overinterpreting, but I get the sense that you think that's morally better than simply avoiding contrails. If so then this is surely a mistake! While an individual who imposes heavy costs on himself to do something socially valuable is certainly demonstrating commitment to the cause, the best solution for society is the one with the lowest costs.

[lavela]

Please explain how more flights with optimal routing are environmentally cheaper than less flights with optimal routing.

[gblargg]

Sounds like parent was taking into account all costs, not just certain ones.

[mmooss]

Actually, lots of people acting together regularly accomplish things - almost everything wortwhile is accomplished that way, probably back to our non-homo ancestors.

As a simple matter, it keeps my city clean - we all put garbage in the bins (yes there's a law, but no way could it be enforced if the great majority of people didn't do it already). More dramatically and recently, the protests in India.

> society

Society is us - you, me, everyone. Nobody else is coming to help us.

I'm responsible for what I do, for the consequences of my actions. It's embarassing to say it's someone else's job (especially when the someone else is 'society'), and therefore I'm not going to do anything.

[dash2]

I think you've misunderstood my comment. I understand that people can do things together. My point was that the best thing to do together is to solve our problems at lowest total cost, and that choosing a high-cost solution can be individual "virtue signalling".

[mmooss]

> virtue signalling

That term lacks all credibility - it's just a weak attack based on mind-reading - and is a signal itself.

Most people actually want do good - humans naturally are very social and want to do well for the group - and without prioritizing signaling. How sad that some are so politically driven by reactionary politics that their contribution is to snipe at others.

[dash2]

> That term lacks all credibility

I disagree. There's coherent economic theory about how costly actions can be used to provide credible signals. It's been used in a wide variety of disciplines including biology (peacock's tails). No mind-reading is needed. I understand that sometimes it is used by right-wingers to attack left-wing positions. My comment wasn't driven by reactionary politics, and my point was to encourage people to think about what actually does well for the group - which, at the risk of repeating myself, is about minimizing the cost for a given level of benefit.

[mmooss]

If you do understand theory and science, you know that theory doesn't apply to individuals, that it's evidence of nothing.

To describe something in the real world, you need objective evidence, in this case of someone's motive - or there's always mind-reading.

[dash2]

There’s lots of evidence for costly signalling across multiple domains! For this specific case, I can’t be certain about any individual’s motivation, of course - I simply raised the possibility and pointed out why it would be a bad idea to think that way.

[mlrtime]

Hint: It's performative. The people who are actually doing this don't come to HN to announce it.

[jtrip]

This is an issue, a question of an issue, with the maximalist position. By simply using trains wherever possible and avoiding 'frivolous' travel a huge impact can be achieved on one's carbon footprint.