Starbucks says Niccol can live in his home in Newport Beach, California and commute to Starbucks’ head office 1,000 miles away on a corporate jet
Starbucks says Niccol can live in his home in Newport Beach, California and commute to Starbucks’ head office 1,000 miles away on a corporate jet
There’s no inherent polluting/ecological threat in either vehicle (in the far-flung hypothetical that they run on sustainable sources), i.e. you can conceive of a solar-jet or a fusion yacht. Why can’t people have nice, private things? Because my utopia conception of an equitable, 1%-less future doesn’t necessitate me crammed in 949 hyperplane with 1000 other people for efficiency.
Add a few more paragraphs and boom: you’ve got a copypasta
EDIT: Wait, parent comment is not sarcasm
You keep using the word “future”.
That’s sort of the point you’re ironically appearing to miss.
No, I’m not missing that the unchecked usage of mass polluting luxury vehicles by the 1% is a not-insignificant contirbutor to global emissions.
But the statement wasn’t those fuckos should stop, it was “humanity shouldn’t have” those things. An unqualified, blanket(, likely hyperbolic) denial. Like saying ‘humanity shouldn’t have personal cars’ because EVs hadn’t taken off yet.
Go deeper.
We shouldn’t have these things because the usage is abused by every aspect of modern society. Look into the history of electrical and hydrogen engines. You’ll see what I mean.