Once-in-a-Lifetime Experiences: Are They Sustainable?
Manage episode 456963142 series 2966694
It's the 22nd of December! Ready for Christmas, if you celebrate it? If you don't, hopefully you’ll have a good day on the 25th, whatever you do.
Your co-hosts don't see the questions before they press record. They approach it cold. There are enough experts out there. Stuart and William are just two guys willing to explore the unknown.
The first listener question today is set by Payton, in Philadelphia , USA - “Does pursuing ‘Once In A Lifetime Experiences’ in our individual lives really help counteract the collective impacts of climate change, or is it better to align our collective focuses for the collective good, as we hunt out the opportunities for change?”
Stuart begins by questioning the sustainability of once-in-a-lifetime experiences, suggesting that if they involve high energy consumption, they do little to contribute positively.
William responds by highlighting a scenario where someone flies thousands of miles to witness a unique event, consuming vast resources for a single occasion, which undeniably impacts the environment.
Stuart argues that every moment is technically a once-in-a-lifetime experience, thus reducing the significance of labeling certain events as such. William adds that these experiences are exclusive and personal, like weddings who most see as being unique when they are not.
Stuart emphasizes that genuine once-in-a-lifetime experiences are those that profoundly open one's eyes and are difficult to orchestrate artificially. He expresses a preference for focusing on collective benefits rather than individual, fleeting moments.
Ultimately, Stuart suggests prioritizing actions for the collective good over indulging in once-in-a-lifetime experiences, as this aligns better with addressing the collective impacts of climate change.
Hobbs, from Florida, in the USA offers up today's second question - “I’m sending this question just as the Paris Olympics is ending. What were your takes on it?”
William reported minimal engagement with the 2024 Olympics from him, being only marginally aware of the event's occurrence.
In contrast, Stuart shared his experience of viewing the 2024 Olympics, acknowledging a personal perception of the event as contrived and less authentic compared to past games. Stuart conveyed significant annoyance with the event, expressing relief upon its conclusion.
The discussion between Stuart and William then shifted to the environmental implications of hosting the Olympics. William highlighted the environmental impact resulting from the influx of spectators and participants traveling long distances.
Stuart posed a critical question regarding the sustainability of hosting the Olympic Games, does the environmental cost justify the event?
William echoed this sentiment by questioning the overall worth of the Games in light of their environmental footprint.
Stuart further questioned the motivations behind hosting such large-scale events, probing the authenticity of audience reactions and considering whether they are genuinely individual responses or influenced by societal pressures.
What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by sending an email to thepeoplescountryside@gmail.com
Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: Petition Link
Fundraiser For An Extreme 8 All-terrain Wheelchair: Just Giving Link
We like to give you an ad free experience. We also like our audience to be relatively small and engaged, we’re not after numbers.
This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice.
Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends Podcast Link , support our work through Patreon Patreon Link. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link:linktr.ee/thepeoplescountryside
561 episoade