[d1rge]

Putting practical considerations aside, what might the effect on society be if we could be at any other place on earth in less than an hour?

Would tourism explode? What would that mean for the environment?

What about international business?

Would it be the end of remote workers? Or would it encourage even more distributed workplace?

[ars]

It would more or less mean the end of nations.

In some parts of the world you can live on $5 a day, in others it's $100 - but with cheap travel, those earning lots would buy services in the cheaper places - increasing prices.

And those earning little would seek employment elsewhere, reducing wages.

The overall result would be to flatten the income disparity about nations. (But it would have no effect on the disparity within nations, since that is caused by differences in intelligence, and that won't change.)

Some places would of course "cut themself off the grid" (like North Korea), but the majority would not, and the world (or at least the connected places) would become much more similar.

And some counties would put up barriers (like those separating the US and mexico - if not for those the wages in the US and mexico would tend to equalize, but they don't because of the barrier).

All this assumes that the travel is cheap - if it's expensive, it doesn't much matter that it's fast.

[gtufano]

I find interesting that you assume that disparity within nations is caused by differences in intelligence. While this is true (i.e.: differences in intelligence make a difference, sorry for the joke) there are many, many, other causes for differences: geographics (easy), social (not all the countries are permeable to social status changes) and so on... I feel this "all is caused by the intelligence" a bit ingenuous. But may be it is only my european culture speaking...

[dantheman]

You misread his statement: > The overall result would be to flatten the income disparity about nations. (But it would have no effect on the disparity within nations, since that is caused by differences in intelligence, and that won't change.)

He's saying that local effects of a nation would quickly be brought up to par, whereas the distribution in nations wouldn't likely change.

[bocajuniors]

I think the misreading was you misreading gtufano.He disputed the unsupported statement that income differences within a nation are mainly because of intelligence differences