STOP FLYING. stop it
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 15. 06. 2023
- đŽ Website - www.vaush.gg/
đ” Patreon - / vaush
đ MERCH - merch.whitefore.st/
đ SIGN UP TO CANVASS! www.vaush.gg/map
đ Other Socials đ
âïž Main Channel - / vaush
đ 3rd Channel? - / @vaushvidya
đŠ Twitter - / vaushv
đŸ Twitch - / vaushvidya
đž Instagram - / vaushv
đ” Facebook - / vaushvidya
đ” TikTok - / vaushvidya
đPodcast - anchor.fm/vaush
#planes #travel
Im a pilot so i have a vested interest in people flying⊠but i would love for a majority of short haul flying to be made useless by a reliable train system.
Just pilot a train smh
â@@Mox1990 He can't, stupid! Trains don't fly!
"guys, I have an idea... what if we put wings... on trains?" - Elon Musk, probably
@@rmiki96 Training wings?
@@devinpaul9026 So take, these training wings, and learn to fly again, learn to live so freeđ”
I live in AZ and having to fly from Phoenix to San Diego, LA, Vegas or Denver because thereâs no trains is really annoying and inconvenient. We should be more like Europe where flying is really only for distances that canât be covered by conventional trains.
god a high speed rail line between phoenix and san diego would be sick
There used to be train service between PHX and LA directly but it was gotten rid of in 1995 as Union Paciific took the west side of the phoenix subdivision out of service and amtrak lacked to funds to acquire those tracks. The only train service is to take a bus to Maricopa and the train there comes by only three times per week.
Northeast is decent. But still bad. Only decent for the major cities (DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston).
Only way to improve the trains in USA is to nationalize the tracks. But that will never happen for a long time if it ever does happen.
â@@RIStar-ds7wr Still has to manufacture more track otherwise commercial shipping and manufacturing go bye-bye.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to work because the time for a trip from Phoenix to Denver Would be 5 hours non stop at 300 km per hour so I believe with stops and slower sections the time would approach the drive time of 12 hours. Also building over the mountains would be expensive. The other two destinations would work and should be built asap.
Planes should be used for trans atlantic/pacific flights. The stuff we do in the US is just dumb. And I am talking about the big ones, not the small 2 - 10 person planes. (I use those to skydive so I am biased.) But traveling across states would be so much cooler with trains. You could go through tunnels, see amazing scenery, and it privides excellent background noise.
But it's worse. There is no point in vacation days for the working class without planes. Buy the time you get somewhere your time is up. Especially if you want to go overseas. Just creates more isolation and will be an overall negative for society.
â@@Vereenks3maybe (here's the idea) workers get more vacation time
@keithvereen5256 Well, maybe we should do like Europe and give more vacation time, I don't know.
Edit: Yeah, like twisted fo0l said!
@@twisted_fo0l well jeez thatâs fucking helpful in the concurrent issue
@@Vereenks3 If your vacation requires you to fly, fuck your vacation. Go somewhere that's near where you live. We can't have everyone flying around the world for fun. It's ridiculous.
the one problem vaush's take here is that transatlantic and transpacific ships use about as much fuel as plane flight, not to mention flight time. continental travel should be done via train and boat though, as it's more efficient.
he retraces it later. i basically agree.
And fuel prices arenât going down either. Manufacturers are leaving the Asian continent and rebuilding factories in America. Not out of some altruistic sense of virtue, no, gas prices literally make it cheaper to build in America rather than cross the pacific
10:22 - Just listen to his arguments instead of presuming them
@@thijsdaenen4980 10:53 literally 30 seconds later Vaush states they should be more expensive ideally, not just so the subsidies can instead go to trains. This is where most peoples disagreement with his take comes from, that it would make intercontinental travel less accessible, with Vaush's only deflection for seconds later was that the only people effected by this would be business men.
This is the first time ive ever had a non-media disagreement with Vaush of any substance, so please quick acting so flippant when someone has a reasonable critique of a media figure you like.
@@thijsdaenen4980 His arguments just make it worse. Itâs pretty much cutting off people from experiencing other cultures or living anywhere else. Itâs truly a brainless take by him
"In one ear and out the other with you people!" immediately brought me back to my childhood, giving me that nostalgic home sick feeling đ
We must return to trains and boats.
bring back the schooner, it's time
Blimps?
No.
@@alexthefaeonce we develop fusion and can create helium, yes please!
I wonder what modern Sea Shanties will be like?
The desync between Vaush's video and audio here is painful
Finally someone showing me that it's not just a problem on my phone
I refreshed the page and nothing changed. I noticed that there is the opening sound but not the video, so maybe they shifted the audio to put it in, but forgot to cut the video? Anyway, Imma use this one as a podcast.
Oh yeah, this aint it chief. I had to just listen instead of actually watching because of it.
his video is flying and the audio took the boatđ€Łđ€Łđ€Ł
I thought it was a me problem, thanks for confirming otherwise
I can't wait for the trains that go over the ocean
me too, but but boats would be nicer
THE ONE PIIIEEECE...
Bro, I'm just waiting for trains that go between a first world country and a second world country located on the same continent.
International flights should be subsidized, short flights should not. It's important for countries to intermingle.
@@Sneaker3719 Ok, build me a train connecting Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, please.
@@voltage80x
i admit i misread your comment. i thought you were saying short flights should be subsidized.
but even in the age of subsidized flights, xenophobia still abounds!
and we can still travel across oceans with just boats!
ââ@Sneaker3719 Xenophobia is a lot less prevalent now than it was 100 years ago. Still an issue, but it's improved a lot
trains overall are a much better travel experience.
I donât know, I just have an aversion to a system that would basically prevent all cross continent travel. Boats would take a prohibitive amount of time. (That said I do support making most all overland travel trains)
I'm usually a strong Vaush believer, but "only the top 1% gets to go visit other countries" rubs me the wrong way.
I believe in a global society.
For a flatland country like the US sure... MĂ©xico is 70% mountains without navigable rivers. We NEED planes
â@@abigaillilac1370isn't it already only a incredible small amount of the population that uses planes?
â@@leonake4194might I introduce to you Austria or Switzerland? Trains work there.
@@KeVIn-pm7pu how many of those can fit into Mexico?
The distance from San Francisco to LA is about the distance from Milano to Rome or Tokyo to Osaka, both of which have rail connections. America is literally 60 years behind the rest of the developed world.
Actually, theyâre behind the undeveloped world as well. India, Morocco, and Indonesia are all about to open their HSR systems, but I guess itâs just the American way to wallow in mediocrity.
What are you talking about? We're literally building high speed rail between SF and LA right now.
America min-max freight rail over passenger rail
@@wta1518They are! And itâll be ready in 2030. But we shouldâve done it dacades ago along with the rest of the world.
And instead of making it a national priority, the CaHSR Authority needs to fight for every penny of funding wile roads and airports are blindly subsidized to the tune of billions.
Bro I took a flight from NYC to LA. Was like a 5 hour flight almost 3k miles 1k miles longer than going from Istanbul to London...
â@@richardarriaga6271while freight on rail is still underfounded
When it comes to intracontinental travel, hard agree.
Do you perchance mean intracontinental (as in within the same continent)? The opinion seems strange otherwise
@Raphael Ferreroni Yes indeed. I typed it out really quick without checking the specific term. đ
I agree to a certain extent, but routes like LA to NYC just aren't feasible by rail.
â@@HenrythePaleoGuy doesn't it make more sense to be ok with intercontinental? open borders and trains fix intracontinental travel and shorter flights are less energetically efficient
â@@spiguyyeah open border between Asia and usa, genius. We need it, not you gringos.
Vaush, I agree with a lot of this, but for international travel at least there actually isn't a viable option to replace air travel. Ships use basically the same amount of fuel. Also air travel only makes up 2% of the 18% of emissions which is due to transportation. So best case scenario it will not have a significant effect on emissions. Also the biggest non traditional use of corn is for ethanol, corn syrup doesn't even come close it's a tiny percentage of the 10% used for human consumption
So yeah, I do not agree with the take of making air travel super expensive. I think regular people should be able to travel the world, because even if the ticket prices were jacked up the airlines would still be running the flights, so the only effect would be taking that away from working people. And the subsidies are relatively very low compared to other things so we can definitely afford it
Any good sources for the travel stuff? That international travel bit set me off on a research bender. One thing Iâve come across is it doesnât actually seem like boat travel is in any way better than plane travel and could be worse in many aspects.
@@JaeEunA I kinda did the same. But it did seem pretty consistent that at the least it's not really any better. Plus you have much more risk of having a massive oil spill in the ocean, even more than we already do. It's just not a thing, air travel is the more efficient means of travel for very long distances, and yeah like I said it actually only makes up a small percentage of our emissions so even if we eliminated it it wouldn't do hardly anything
Absolutely. This whole take is a rare Vaush L because he fell for the neoliberal trap of "we all just need to tighten our belts" propaganda. It's just more bullshit that's propagated to distract people from the fact that goods and services used by the working class generally don't make up the majority of emissions, the existence of billionaires and the stupid luxury industries they partake in does.
Every time. Whether it's veganism or Earth Day or recycling or blaming cows or flying, it's always been a calculated grift designed to distract people from the real problem: A tiny handful of people create the majority of the climate crisis in preventable ways. Promoting practically symbolic personal sacrifice from billions of ordinary people instead is how they've always gotten away with it. And it does next to nothing.
â@@JaeEunA At the end of the day, there is only one solution to climate change: Eat the rich. Seriously. The poor do not need to sacrifice a goddamn thing. It's always been the wealthy creating the problem, then promptly making us pay to clean up their mess. They make most of thr emissions, and then tell us we need to take all the small luxuries away from our already meager lifestyles to reduce our comparatively tiny carbon footprints. And people go along with it to feel like they're doing something or being Good People.
It's like having a guy with a flamethrower who's currently torching a forest, while wagging his finger and telling you to put out the match in your hand because it could cause wildfires. And I don't mean Vaush, I mean the assholes all this propaganda comes from.
It's the same as saying "stop using plastic". It would require a massive policy shift designed specifically to make plastic (or flights) uneconomic.
It's as simple as removing subsidies for airlines and airports. The "free market" will handle the rest.
@@Darth_Insidious it may also require taxes to account for the negative externalities that the companies would otherwise not be held accountable for. Flights create a lot of emissions, which impact our health and environment. It's a really complex calculation.
@@Darth_Insidiousgood luck ever getting elected again after pulling that off. Americans love to fly too much.
like a full 2 second desync
â@@Darth_Insidious Except it isn't. Companies would sit on their asses not bothering because they have no incentive to provide affordable transport to the working class at all. The free market doesn't work.
When it comes to travel, I have always had the best time on "slow" methods of travel. A slow train trip through Alaska was beautiful and amazingly relaxing. Same with ocean liners. I think part of the demand of planes is that even as we become more productive as a species, the majority of people are losing leisure time. If you only have a week of vacation a year, you HAVE to fly if you want to travel for tourism.
It would be pretty cool if we fixed that.
@@ararepotato1420probably wonât be anytime soon, unfortunately
that's why I don't even bother with traveling somewhere for vacation, like, just to think about it and being forced to do tight time management to administrate my leisure or tourism time the most efficiently... I mean, that shit stresses me out and I'm on vacation lol
@@Lambda_OvineStaycation supremacy, right there with ya
With many shorter to mid range flights, proper high speed rail infrastructure is as fast or faster than flying because you donât have to spend time through security and sitting in airports
I want to actully know why he doesn't see disincentiveising taking planes for trips that a train can do, but not making cross ocean flights more expensive while doing the first thing as unviable. Like, sure, planes are a negative for the earth, but they are far from the worst thing and I think it's valuable to not gatekeep traveling the world behind a greater paywall while larger contributers to climate change are adressed.
It all needs to be adressed. We are aboard a run-away train, we do not get to be picky on which breaks we activate.
@@caad5258 addressing flights that can be done by train does address pretty much the whole plane issue though. Currently planes produce 2.4% of CO2 emissions, but 9 out of 10 American flights are domestic. Not even taking into account that the total CO2 counts freight planes, and many of those internal flights from America can also be done by train, just using the 2.4% CO2 and 10% international flights, less than a quarter of a percent of CO2 emissions are from the types of flights I would like to have around. That seems like an acceptable emission level to have for somethings as important as global travel in an industrial world.
Edit: I did make a goofy ass error. Long haul flights produce more CO2 than domestic ones, so doing the math how I did isn't the best way. I don't think that error takes the point away though, especially if we were to include factors like freight flight and international flights that trains can do.
@@bamboo213 Sure, but international flights are reliant on the infrastructure and subsidies that are tied to domestic flight. Transitioning from planes to trains will increase the cost of international flights. This is unavoidable. Which is what makes other chatters mad. They seem to think that there's a switch we flip that will halt climate change, while preserving every modern convenience and amenity we currently enjoy.
Appreciate the research though.
@@caad5258 I fully agree that sacrifices need to be made to address climate change. I don't have any specific policy to separate the types of flights, but I don't think it's completely impossible. Infrastructure is pretty much inseparable, but taking the demand for short flights by making trains more convenient than the flights and changing the subsidies to adjust to demand is something that can be done.
I do think Vaush is missing a major component of why Airlines are subsidized. The airline manufacturers are considered of national importance for defense. I.E. In a total war, its advantageous to have a home industry capable of quickly transitioning to making fighters and bombers.
How related are subsidies to aerospace manufacturers (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, etc.) and civilian airlines tho?
Which is bad?
In a total war scenario, the US deploys its nuclear arsenal...
The US procurement of fighter planes is a trillion dollar industry. While defense contractors currently service civil aviation because its reliable business, they could get by on only defense contracts.
â@@supercellodudethose companies make the civilian airplanes too
While you're correct, what Vaush is talking about are airline service companies, not contractors. He's talking about American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Delta Airlines, etc. They simply hire commercial pilots and provide transport. They're not Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. That are actually doing engineering.
It helps that I am incredibly, irrationally afraid of flying.
I'm the opposite
Then your admittedly irrational bias on the issue disqualifies you from jury duty on this, you may now remain silent.
Flying is spooky but so is driving 100 on the freeway to be fair
@@chrisn.6477 Yes, your honor.
Why? It is pretty much statistically the one of the safest ways to travel. You are far more likely to die getting in your car and driving than getting in a plane crash.
Vaush, immigrant families like mine could not reasonably have moved here or lived here without at least international flying being as it is now. My grandparents live across the world and are old and my parents have to occasionally fly to take care of them, which would be unreasonably long on a boat. On top of that, my dad likely could never have immigrated here if he had to be on a boat for months cuz he couldnât be working for that long and he wasnât wealthy in my familyâs home country. There has to be a more serious discussion on this than just âdonât flyâ because immigrant families like mine are millions of people.
I do think your argument for farming is sound. Just consider the human transport aspect of flying, cuz there are serious needs.
You're right, there are incredible benefits to having cheap international flights.
I imagine your father would have much preferred to bring you grandparents with him, so that he could better take care of them.
However soon there will be millions of families migrating to escape areas devastated by droughts, floods and fires.
There are no good choices left to us.
We either reform the current infrastructure to be more sustainable, or wait for our ability to sustain complex infrastructure to collapse, stranding billions in uninhabitable areas.
Consider this, all the airline subsides could've gone towards making train or boat transportation better, safer and affordable for immigrants.
Months?
We're not talking age of sail here!
â@@dynamicworlds1I know right. I don't think people realize how fast modern ships are. Especially if you're not building them to be incredibly profit conscious like super tankers are over transporting our commercial goods modern chips can go quite fast and still be miles ahead of planes in terms of ecological sustainability. Plus, millions of people immigrated to the United States in the age of steamship.
@@Cameronmid1 Even the fastest ships take 2 weeks to over a month to travel from China to US, that's an unreasonably long time to be spending in a ship compared to travel times of flights over the same distance. Not to mention you'd have to get through at least a few major sea storm on the way, maybe you should look up how much ships undulate in those conditions facing the waves directly.
âAre you guys being contrarian for no reason?â
I KNOW Vaush isnât saying this.
Vaush is talking about ecologically friendly airplanes being pie in the sky(when it's objectively untrue) as if constructing massive international train networks wouldn't also be expensive and long term.
What fuel makes a green airplane? Electric vehicles are already at a disadvantage for energy density which is why they have a range problem. How the hell do you make jet fuel that isn't burned?
Do feel like this is a great example of how important messaging is. Vaushâs point about not doing subsidies and the dangers they pose is great, but he managed to say it in such a bad way that many people interpreted it as him wanting to ban all planes rides forever
No amount of tact is going to counterbalance peopleâs resistance to a perceived removal of a normalized convenience.
@@Dontreallycare5 thatâs definitely true, but I personally find âending taxpayer subsides to extremely environmentally bad industriesâ a far easier pill to swallow than âyou and all other average people will literally never be able to visit a different continentâ any day of the week
@@DwRockettHe didnât say that; chat was just being obtuse and ignoring him in favour of what they wanted to hear!
I think your point is often true of Vaush; Iâm just not sure how much it applies here. Iâd probably have to rewatch to have a solid opinion.
He could have focused on the green alternatives that with slightly less convenience would be infinitely better than air travel (high speed rail for the states on green energy would be a game-changer) but instead he decided to hunker down on the idea that international flights should be so disincentivized through higher costs that it shouldnât be an economic possibility for poor people (I will now see my only family once every several years instead of every few years)
â@@Dontreallycare5I think that take about planes is super west-centric. Try to travel from one part of Russia to another, for example, train takes literally a week of travel and you fucked if you want to visit your relatives in far east. The same thing with traveling between countries. Of course, you COULD travel to India from Ukraine by train, but it's a track through all of Russia AND China. I get the thing about subsidies and such, but flying is totally not about convenience in a lot of places.
Plus, international tourism is very important for broadening the horizons (when you live in fucking Russia or Kazakhstan, it's very important to see for yourself how people abroad live in reality, it negates propaganda a bit.
And another point: if you are just regular worker dude, who lives outside of EU (let's take Kazakhstan as example) and you want to visit France during your yearly 3-weeks or even 4-weeks vacation. You can travel to France by train, but that trip will take like a week on itself. Are you really expected to lose like two weeks of your vacation on travel? Out of your 4 weeks that are given for you to rest and stuff? Nah man, even if you magically improve infrastructure all over the world, travel time would be stupidly long, and just say to some kazakh worker "fuck you, stay in your stupid ruined post-soviet country" is not okay, imo
If you don't want to leave your country, doesn't mean other people don't
POV you try to tell socialists that being environmentally and social concious may require giving up some hyper-modern extreme luxuries.
Nah, this is something I will never agree on, sure, have trains instead of short haul, invest in transportation infrastructure... But artificially rising prices of intercontinental flights so people can no longer afford to take them is BS. Our world is more connected than ever, there is no way a world where regular people have to reserve 14 days (7 to go and 7 back) just to go from the US to Europe is the way forward
You will not survive the collapse
I like the idea of planes being expensive would force train infrastructure to be built. But we know that wouldn't happen, the government just wouldn't build it & people will either drive or never travel
ding ding ding. i would maybe get to see my friends halfway across the country for half a day to a day. 3 day drive down, evening & morning, 3 day drive back, boom theres all my vacation for the year gone
edit: also my literal parents lmao. theyre not just internet friends (altho thats valid too), i moved across the country for school & to escape texas
You really think that without planes people would just give up. Don't you think people being unhappy about needed to drive everywhere would radicalize them into pushing lawmakers to build trains.
â@@dragonapopAmerican political apathy is one helluva drug
â@@dragonapop No they fucking wouldn't. Do people not remember the massive train accident a few months back? What happened there? Biden forced the rail strike to end and it got swept under the rug. What people don't get is that for the wealthy, "fuck the poor, don't bother" is literally free.
It would force it because it's illegal to built that infastructure in the US
Yes we should have high speed rail.
Yes Vaush did a sh!t job here trying to express this.
To put it mildly.
Flights still need to be severely reduced anyways
(sigh) If only DBZ-like teleportation was a real thing...
Or Steven Universe/Star Trek Portals, lol.
That would be so sick
If only DBZ-like flaying was a real thing
@@Lambda_Ovine flaying?
Go to planet Yardrat and train for a year, you'll get the hang of it.
I don't think Vaush realizes how dangerous and unpredictable the ocean can get. especially the Atlantic in the winter. also ships really aren't that much better for the environment.
They fuck up whales
Homework: Watch the video again. Especially this part 10:22
You do know that there are now 100% electric boats now, right?. Plus ever hear of sailboats?
@@lordevyl8317 Oh yeah, let's rely on rinky-dink sailboats to cross the f*cking ocean. I'm sure people would love waiting a month to get somewhere that normally takes a 4 hour flight.
@@lordevyl8317 Electric planes exist too. IDK what it is with some progressives and their weird phobia of flying. Was there some MAGA country airplane cabal I haven't heard of or something?
This hits hard because as someone who lives a continent away from their family, it's all I can afford to fly home once every two years. Making flights more expensive would kind of make my life unlivable. That said my boss flies constantly - in theory it's "necessary" for work, but somehow they were able to do all the same meetings and deals without meeting in person during covid so.... Btw it's not that relevant but I'm also vegan and I clean garbage in my neighborhood regularly. I get anxiety about climate change so I like to think I'm doing all I can, but obviously that's not really true, and every time I end up buying anything in plastic I get frustrated at myself and this world. I do think the time will come though when we look back at these days of artificial abundance like the excesses of the French court.
How would we cross oceans quickly? *We're bringing back zeppelins!*
Whats the point of quickly crossing an ocean if your destination is devastated by climate change?
@@caad5258 The same reasons we've had for all of human history. To buy their stuff and flirt with their women. đ
zepplins were also painfully slow. i like zepplins but they're just not very good
@@thefirstsalty3055 We're going to redefine how "fast" a lot of things should be if we ever have to transition back to pre-oil means of travel. I feel like air ships would be acceptable in that future.
@@thefirstsalty3055 rule of cool
I agree we should use trains WAY more to the point that we basically eliminate domestic flights but the idea that we just make it so international flights are turbo expensive is really ignorant imo. this would limit so many people in the working class from ever being able to take vacations (which is already difficult enough as it is)
You don't need to travel out of contry for a vacation. That you think it would be significant problem, speaks of privilege. Most people in U.S don't have a passport, or ever leave the contry anyway, because it's already too expensive, regardless of flight prices. You have enough money to travel aboard, take a longer time off and use a ship.
@@Sienisotaor⊠make the flights cheaper. Itâs actually possible to do that, especially if you make a reliable train system that connects the ENTIRE country.
Also donât act like it more people traveled by boat, the prices wouldnât be adjusted so that the rich could only really be able to afford it, and the working class still struggle to be able to use it. Why do you think they just wonât change how the privilege works?
â@@Sienisota All the working class people who save up to go out of country the one week they get can just get fucked then? Because you assume anyone going/wanting to go out of the country is somehow privileged.
That's a wildly narrow way of looking at things man.
Do you seriously think poor people are taking international vacations NOW?
Any progressive government attempting this would be thrown out of office đ
Socialists normally: "Revolution today!"
Socialists when someone proposes a good policy that doesn't require revolution: "NOOOOOO WE CAN'T DO THAT IT'S TOO UNPOPULAAAAAAR!!!"
True, but it's still the right thing to do.
@@Sneaker3719I gaurantee you that banning poor people from intercontinental travel is also extremely unpopular among socialists. This is just a stupid fucking take lol.
@@Sneaker3719 Yeah, that's how democracies work. If you suggest something unpopular, you get voted out. Most western countries do not assign dictatorial powers to their leaders except in exceptional circumstances. How exactly would you get this done? I would love to hear how you're going to explain to the middle class population that you're just going to make their lives worst by straight up removing a luxury and not get voted out of office in the next election.
I doubt any major shift in policy was welcomed by all. Look up videos of people bitching once drunk driving became criminalized. We can do better, or climate change we be humanity's great filter end.
I am a bit dissapointed about vaush's take as an eastern european who goes to university in the us. If his worldview was realised, i would have to pick between spending half of the hollidays traveling, buying a ticket with eastern european wages that is even more expensive or completely loosing touch with my home.
While i agree with the sentiment there have to be some exeptions and nuance in policy.
Funny, I'm actually waiting at the train station right now. It'll be an 8 hour train ride, about the same as if I had driven (as opposed to the flight which would have been 45 minutes), but avoiding TSA and the stress and anxiety that they cause is worth it alone. Also trains are significantly more comfortable (even in coach).
Also it's an out of state trip for $40, I've never personally seen a train ticket that would have been cheaper as a plane ticket to any of my destinations.
Trains are awesome.
Just needs to be better funded and expanded. Choo-choo to the future!
@@Matthew-ym8rb
California Zephyr
Vaush, Im usually with ya, cant agree on this one. Ill agree on the expansion of rail in the US, but creating a world where international travel is exclusively for the rich is not in sync with my ideology. Also, telling people "tough dont go" when someone wants to travel somewhere else in the world is really regressive, and not a good solution. At most Ill say there needs to be reform, and maybe *less* subsidy, but generally I'm against relegating an industry to the rich when said industry is something like travel; the comparison to "poor people cant own yachts either" is a false equivalency when flying is how many people visit family, or conduct business. I know, I know you will say then take a train, it doesnt MATTER that it takes 6 days to get to NY from San Diego...true, in theory yes, but until we have more paid time off freedom from work, taking a week each way to see mom in new yourk is not viable, i wish it was though, but it isnt. people simply need to fly because we arent given a lot of time, so my proposition would be to FIRST, give people more paid time off from work before we universally encourage travel on slower modes of transportation.
In fairness it's not like planes are the only viable option for international travel. We have cruise liners that can make the trip across the Atlantic in a week, imagine what we could do if real passenger liners had a market to serve that wasn't strangled by subsidized flights. Hell, maybe airships could make a comeback. The Hindenburg made the crossing in three days in *1936*, I'm betting we could beat that record if there was actually an incentive to invest in the industry.
Of course all that only works if people can afford to take that much time, so I totally agree we need to patch things up there before we worry about long distance flights.
I'm poor so Ive never flown so I'm doing outstanding
Yet more proof socialism is when poor.
Just kiding hope you're doing alright
Easy W.
Bad take, Iâm not taking some train to visit family in Mexico, itâs take me half a month to travel lmao, even for once a year, nah Iâd rather get on the evil bad plane
Know that Vaush hates air travel makes this argument immediately sour.
Besides, the rebuttal to international travel being primarily driven via air travel being âtuffâ is hilarious.
Someone else said it, wanting a true removal of planes is like wanting all plastics gone. Itâs an impossible task, especially with how integrated they are in our modern world.
well then we're fucked. plane travel is basically the worst thing you'll ever do in your life ecologically
Can you give me the time stamp where he said he wanted all planes gone?
@@diegomo1413 fair he doesnât say it directly, but wanting air travel something only the wealthy can afford and his overall tone implies that.
@@jamesmohabWe are fucked anyway, may as will trav by plane until then
Throughout the video, he keeps constantly repeating that he doesn't want flights to be banned. The disincentivisation of flights is going to be vital to reduce co2 emissions. Yearly holiday flights back and forth should not be as easily acessible as they are right now
the people in chat that said that mcdonalds is better than a any rice and beans burrito... I mean... you can tell when people don't know how to cook and never had the opportunity to get a real good home made meal in a long while. Not judging, it's getting more and more common that people find themselves in environments where they can't develop such an important skill as learning how to cook and season food. It's just tragic
Their only experience with Mexican food is Chipotle or Taco Bell.
rice and bean burrito lol
I get high speed rail for intracontinental travel of course, that makes the most sense. But basically shutting down international, or rather intercontinental travel, for everyone except the ultra wealthy is not only insane, but would be absolutely awful for everyone. Then him getting so aggressive in his âpoor people donât get to travel,â stance just made this one of his worst segments lol. Love you VOWSH, but this is a bad one
No way this man is saying âsucks to suckâ about long-distance flights for anyone that cant pay 3k for a ticket
He is, and heâs right to say it!
With the stipulation that we are also making an effort to establish economic equality and diverting funds to other public transit like trains, yes, he is saying that. And I kind of agree.
âââ@@thomase13He isn't fanboy very elitest of the rich streamer..this is a braindead take why it was a 30 min video when it could have been 2đ same arguement could be made for universal healthcare why should I pay more for others to get care?? Vaush doesn't want to pay for others poorer then him.
â@@pg9072 Are you actually comparing long-distance flights to universal healthcare? Talk about a brain dead take, lmao. Health care is a universal right, flying around the world is a luxury.
@@zagreus5773 Health care is a universal right?? no it isn't and freedom of movement isn't ..why should i have to subsidize one and not the other the same logic fanboy.
Vaush simping for trains once again
Which is extremely based.
â@@sapiensursus3034that's what I'm saying!!
Don't be ableist he's autistic
Based autism.
And..? We all should simp for trains.
The audio desync made Vaush look like a character in an old Godzilla movie lol
This is a very idealistic take. In our current global society, non-subsidized flights would be devastating for a ton of people.
Their continuation are devastating for everyone
@@andrewshotathompson5116 I'm sure all of the refugees who escaped their countries via flight would agree with you.
â@@andrewshotathompson5116There are many other things that contribute to climate change that are non essential.
Flying is not one of them. It *is* needed for long distance intercontinental travel. Trains could never replace that.
â@@lolusuck386you mean rich peoplem? Other usually don't have that luxury.
â@@michaelstodovski2219however the majority of long travel itself is non essential
Intercontinental flights, intracontinental trains
Is it just my device or is the audio out of sync?
Audio and subtitles
Oh god you people need to see the shit Ryanair in Ireland is planning, literally standing on a flight
Packed like sardines
If you donât want trains because you prefer to drive, fine. But if you donât want trains because you prefer to fly, you are the worst.
Love to make it too expensive for the working class to take a vacation.
Bruh international traveling for vacation is expensive as ****. There is no way any working class families would be able to afford hotels, restaurants, shops and other shit with meager wages let alone being able to pay overpriced tickets to Hawaii.
It mostly already is.
@@Purplenightshades Well if youâre like very poor itâs already too expensive, but you have low budget airline which can make vacations somewhat feasible for lower middle class peeps.
Basically making it so that working class immigrant families can't see their families even as a once a year occasion is shit messaging bro sorry that's an abhorrent take. Taking the money out of subsidies to alleviate household budgets in other areas (high speed rail opens up job opportunities etc.) in order to leave the possibility to fork out an transcontinental air fare even at the non-subsidised price, then maybe that would be a convincing argument. But as the message was delivered it basically just sounds like "You have family abroad in your country of origin? HAH, intersectionalism sucked anyway. We're building trains HERE."
one thing vaush leaves out about the meat thing is that: people who are against the consumption of meat often use the "only 10% of what we feed to cows turns into meat, there for 90% of what we feed to cows is wasted" but that is just factually incorrect. a lot of what we feed to cows was never and would never be eaten by humans, like grass or stuff that is unfit for human consumption but still good for animals. I agree that we invest way too much money into the meat industry but saying that "no meat = 9 times more food" just isent correct. meat does fill a niche
What an insane take
The editors are going to get an ass-whooping for this one...
no one else is mentioning the audio being out of sync, is my computer broken??
So just never travel overseas unless you're willing to wait weeks?
@@somad6997 but that logic, everything is colonial. We gotta save the description of oppression of colonial for things that actually are. Besides, as much as I dislike capitalism, I would like to see my family overseas
@@somad6997 to be clear, most things that people say are colonialist are colonialist, I just disagree on flying
â@@somad6997ACTUAL brain dead take
Yes.
@@abyssreborn4213 byt what if someone that isnt rich wants to travel but cant afford the weeks off for a boat trip?
I fully get and understand where Mr. Voosh is coming from. But I canât help that he already hates flying, and is just walking his conclusion back from that. Like there are legitimate concerns about air travel, this is not not a convincing argument though
Make more trains and boats. Trains are cool, and Iâm scared of heights.
The pigheadedness of chat in this segment was mind boggling.
Or would you say "mind HOGling" xxxDDDDD
More like Vaush did a very bad job of explaining his points.
You can't just say "F you if you are poor and have family living overseas, air travel should only be for the ultra wealthy" and not expect any pushback. And yes I know that's not really what he meant, but that was the impression everyone got because he didn't explain well.
Not a fan of being told that seeing my family is a luxury only the rich should be able to afford until the glorious magical revolution comes.
This point about intercontinental travel is undoubtedly the worst position Iâve ever heard out of his mouth
â@@JaeEunAI don't see a better way. Do youm?
The idea that you can see family half-a-world away with relatively little effort is a modern luxury, though. It just is. People who used to immigrate to far away countries (my father being one of them) went with the knowledge that they may never see their parents again. Airlines just shifted the cost to future, to our descendants and people who will have never benefitted from that luxury.
If flights had never become artificially cheap in the first place, you and your family would probably have not moved so far apart to begin with. Youâre incorporating the same logic as someone against student loan forgiveness
@@diegomo1413 all of my family moved via uhaul but nice try.
"If you want to travel across land quickly - train!"
"The majority of plane travels are distances that can be covered easyly with a good train network"
Ye, let me just take the continental train that goes across Asia/Africa/Eastern Europe... Great plan Vaush, spoken like a true American.
"Stop flying" - sure, when they make a good railway between the country I live and the country my parents live... As of now the only option for travel is plane, bus and car (all of which I've used). And that's Europe - an overall decently developed continent.
Atlantic, Pacific, and island flights should still be subsidised or state run. idc. the Airline industry is bad, but we can fix the climate without making flying economically impossible for the lower class. flights are a one time use of carbon. thats how it was in the mid-early days of state run airlines. they subsidised public interest routes.
i think it should be far cheaper to take boat+train trips, i should be able to get to Singapore and take a train to Europe, or even a wonder of the world tunnel/bridge project from Cape York, Queensland Australia to Singapore, then everywhere else.
but Short Haul, intercontinental flights, where possible, should be incentivised over long haul, intra-continental flights. you should be able to easily take flights from Brisbane/Darwin to Papua, Java, Singapore, and then take a high speed train, instead of doing a long flight to fuggin Dubai then to your destination
No we can't fix climate with flights. How does that workm? Flying even with carbon neutral fuel is bad for the climate as emissions in higher atmosphere have a worsening effect for the climate. Only way I see is hydrogen planes, but that will make it expensive even with subsedize.
@@KeVIn-pm7pu n-no, thats not what i meant, i said we can do other things to stop Climate Change without removing island/shore to shore flying, not by making more flights.
I'm due to fly from TN to PA in December, one way. Shit like this makes me wish that we had high-speed rail.
Valid take but impossible. People won't sacrifice flying, even if the world goes to hell. Sry, that's humans. You need a better solution or it won't work.
Honestly Vaush's worst take yet
When my grandma was raising my mother in the 60s, they marveled at the fact that they could have a meal centered around meat twice a week instead of once a week.
I fly often, mostly for work, and Vaush is right, it baffles me that it's still allowed.
In France a law passed to make sure that flights would be forbidden whenever there's a train that can do the same trip in less than 2 hours. The funny thing is though, actually a 6 hour train ride will be faster anyway because you have to get to the airport (which is far away from the city) way in advance, then the taxiing (at the start and the arrival) takes sometimes literally one hour, and then hou have to get from the airport to your destination. Overall a "1 hour" plane trip actually takes easily 5-6 hours.
This is a good policy that France implemented. But making flying unaffordable for transoceanic and intercontinentally flights is batshit.
We don't have a viable train system in the US, sadly. Someone Robloxes themselves using the train you're on/getting on (happens a lot)? 2+ hour delay. There's a fire that lightly grazes one of the tracks? 3+ hour delay for the inspectors to say it's safe and for the crew to put in a new engine at the LA station. At least a third of my train rides through Amtrack have had significant delays. With air travel, it's significantly less often I've noticed. With driving a car, it's pretty much nonexistent if you avoid traffic and it's WAY faster. Until we have reliable public transportation like Europe and China, I'll keep driving my gas-guzzling car and for cross-country travel, I'll take planes. Sorry not sorry
chat has clearly never experienced puerto rican rice đ
reminder to people who're cucked out for meat: people lived on diets of almost exclusively grains for hundreds of years and we didnt die off, meat is good, some of the nutrients in it are harder to get elsewhere but we're not limited to it.
Did this man just say electric planes will never be a thing?
electric vehicles are known for their inability to last long distances, they work much better for things that are on rails
@@pioneershark2230
Yeah, but NEVER??
@@makokenji4350
It's hyperbole, never in a reasonable amount of time to where we should even be hyped for it.
Cape air (a regional airline in New england) has stated they are buying 75 electric airplanes and expect to start flying them in 2024. At the moment it's only possible for short routes, but we as a species are working on it.
As a rule, I don't really like the idea of degrowth as a concept. It would be nice, but it's never going to fucking happen (unless ecological catastrophe happens). It's entirely possible to do what we do now in more responsible ways. Nobody said it is easy, but it's possible.
As a physicist who's looked at the math... anyone who says they'll *never* be a thing (even if that person is an engineer -- I've talked to those people) they're moronic and wrong. The tech is developing, even if we can't do it now. Short distance electric flights are very do-able right now.
One of the few non-media vaush Ls lol
This is a bad really take. Yes, we need to have a robust train system so travel on land is objectively better. Using planes in lieu of trains is not good. However, the only other option to go across oceans is ships, which simply aren't as convenient as planes. If we want a globally connected world, we need cheap travel. To make airline travel cheap, it should be limited to those factors to reduce overall industry costs and profit shouldn't be a primary motivator (which really shouldn't be in any sector in the economy).
Chat malding about six to eight days travel across the Atlantic.
Meanwhile ships 70 years ago were doing it in 2.5 days.
Certified get in the pod and eat bugs momentâą.
Meat is also inefficient on the water cost as well. don remember the stats my hydrology professor gave us, but its like 5 times the water needed for a burger vs the same caloric intake of plant matter.
Unironically could get a delicious beef spaghetti meal in Italy for 10 euro, meanwhile in America that same sized meal would be sold at a Hyper rich arse restraunt for 50 bucks. Even across the pond prices were more logical, while other meats were expensive fish was cheap af, Sushi restaurants were amazing, and cheap. Not to mention I could buy a 10 dollar large pizza and have essentially dinner, breakfast, and lunch meanwhile in the states that same size pizza would be twice the price and half the quality.
Italian food in Italy is so cheap due to it being mostly pasta and vegie focused. They have their meats, sure, but their proportions are filling and cost effective.
Without air travel, we might return to something called LOCAL CULTURE!
You're thinking of mass communications.
wtf is up with the audio and video being way out of sync đ
A problem with subsidies used badly is that it essentially eliminates every other option.
So in this case the cheaper planes and cheap shit burger patties/sugar substitutes become the only game in town.
And for the planes in particular poor people can't afford flying enough to make the subsidies worth it anyway.
I like how the agricultural map of the USA has Florida essentially labeled as "landed gentry playground/ renters gulag"
Vaush had to sit next to one baby on a plane and now doesnt want poor people to be able to travel like our feudal landlords
Rare Vaush L. 1, Electric planes might not be impossible, we're not at the end of electric tech development yet. 2, it's entirely possible to keep using combustion fuels for planes in a green world. And it's unlikely that it's possible to completely de-combustion everything anyway, for exactly the fuel density issues that he mentioned! I have personally looked into research that's going on regarding artificial photosynthesis to capture carbon dioxide and turn it into jet fuel, which would make any use of combustion engines green by default, as the fuel can't possibly put more carbon into the air than was used to make it!
I think youâre missing the point. Vaush is just saying to make the flights cost what they _actually cost,_ and biofuels would only make flying even more expensive and exclusive _unless_ they were massively subsidized.
"I'm not saying people should be isolated to their continent" _proceeds to make the case that ends up with poor people not being able to visit their families in other countries_
That's a luxury
I felt like Vaush failed to consider how much countries depend on tourism. If the tourism industry makes enough money, does that not compensate for the cost of subsidies.
cars
boats
trains
The chance of for example a German having family they care about in (insert neighboring country closest to place here) is FAR higher than them having family in the US or Canada.
Oh, and tourism? A large portion are from the same continent, and the rest often stays for a longer time so the cost of the flight isn't the critical part. d
@@jam9484 oh wow đźdamn i guess if you completely forget about the fact that paid time off isn't unlimited resource you could just take your sweet time on a boat.
jeez all of a sudden vaushs argument seems smarter when you ignore reality.
Is it just me or does that set up look like it saves so little space that over the entire plane you might fit in just one or two more rows?
I dont know why people keep freaking out whenever one of these mockup images are made. They're never actually going to do it.
I would bet money that the reaspn that airlines release these images is just to make you more satisfied with the current state of the uncomfortable seats
Damn this is a good segment
Is it out of sync for everyone else?
The best quote here was the one about it's like chat thinks we can save the environment without any sacrifices.
"My family lives all over the world" "tough" wow great argument
Answer: don't visit your family. Brilliancy as always from our leader Vaush xD
Be realistic, how often do you take intercontinental plane trips to see them now?
Love from a Shark3ozero and Xanderhal Fan!
You definitely should want people to see as much of the world as possible without having to just "deal with it bro" because we don't have tesla planes right now
the world is dying and your destinations will be underwater
@andre yeah in a few hundred years. You don't even know where I want to visit... nice effort though.
âââ@@olympusmons8439ew hundreds years"? Lol. Most of the catastrophic predictions you see from scientists are for 2050, and the remaining for 2100.
@randomthings1293 well then I guess I better get flying then before they are gone.
Yes letâs make long distance asylum immigration near impossible đł:
Vaush accidentally based
There is quite a dissonance here I feel like between Vaush's take on planes (get over it, global inconvenience is worth a 'better' planet) and his criticism of leftists for wanting to return to monkey being a bad sales pitch, and we shouldn't have to give up modernity or quality of life to obtain socialism.
The thing is, it is not just "inconvenience". Planes do more than just carry people - there are also cargo planes. Vaush's take would wreck the populations of entire countries and regions. I don't think people realise how absolutely devastating this change is to the entire world. I do agree we need more high speed rail though.
@@emilchan5379 Yeah, I don't think updating our train systems and having 'commercial' airlines are mutually exclusive transportation options. If anything, we could probably just nationalize both industries and provide better, more economic options for both, while just making trains a more convenient alternative for short-mid distance travel than planes, so it would cut down on plane travel anyway; then having planes be nationalized because it would probably strike a large blow to that industry by making trains better. Not that any of these things will happen, but still, I think it's a weird and bad argument on Vaush's end.
@@Yepmyaccount Yeah I get where Vaush is coming from, but this needs a lot more nuance than just removing subsidies wholesale.
I have a family in Vietnam, me and my siblings immigrated to different countries in different continents. Hard to take your argument seriously Vaush that I shouldnât visit them unless Iâm willing to have weeks to months off work to travel by a slow ass boat. I could meet them all last May thanks to air travel. And thatâs not having taken into account other arguments such as intercontinental ship fuel consumption.
If we could reduce flights to only Halifax to Lisbon and all the other shortest possible routes between continents that are inaccessible by train, that would be huge. Then build out a comprehensive HSR network throughout the continents. Sure it may take a couple days rather than a few hours but it would be way more comfortable and sustainable. Mandate more vacation days to compensate.
Oil and gas subsidies need to be 100% removed and put into green energy. Take airline subsidies money put it into government owned rail instead. International flights will still cost alot regardless.
Vaush saying plane tickets should be expensive made me go ???????? Like, are they not incredibly expensive already? I'm poor, haven't been on a plane since I was 5 and probably won't be able to afford to travel overseas for the next 5 years either. Don't make tickets more expensive than they already are. I want to travel, you dckhead đ
Cry more lol
@@andrewshotathompson5116 shut up, andrew
Agreed, Leyla!
Fucking L take from Vaush.
He's only bitching about planes because he hates flying. So sorry that most people don't think that flying should be a privilege only for the ultra rich. Vaush's takes on planes are as dogshit as Hasan's takes on Ukraine. Fuck that.
@@andrewshotathompson5116 Wow so convincing. This position is sociopathic.
@@garbandgulyberdimuhamedow4604 flight isn't a human right
Bad news for normal travelers. Good news for fart fetishers
You want more trains because it is ecologically sustainable when compared to air travel. I want more trains because I want to feel like I'm in Fullmetal Alchemist. We are not the same.
there can be hydrogen planes. those are green. your welcome.
I can't flap my arms fast enough to fly though.
Weakling
Skill issue