I have another thread in here talking about cost, but just the mileage fees for a trip on a car you own can be a significant percentage of the cost of chartering a plane. If you rent the car it can cost significantly more.
Owning a private rail car is a bit like owning a superyacht; it’s not a particularly fast or practical form of travel but it can be luxurious and fun so people with money do it anyways.
It’s FAR more expensive than vans. For comparison, a fully renovated carriage could cost in the neighborhood of $1M, and Amtrak mileage fees are in the neighborhood of $5/mil. Renting a private car is around $15k per day per car, including mileage fees.
For comparison San Diego to San Francisco is a one day trip by train and about 600 miles. So, you’d be paying in the neighborhood of $2500 for those miles if you own the car, and $15k for charter. You could charter a private turboprop airplane to go that same distance for around $7000. Add in that some private car owners will string multiple cars together, and it can easily exceed the cost of just going by private plane even if you own the cars and charter the plane.
At the end of the day, it’s like having a superyacht—it’s rarely the most affordable or practical route but it is fun and luxurious so rich people do it anyway.
Man you seem to be very negative about this.
I guarantee you that most tourists don’t even leave the rim of the grand canyon at all. They walk around the visitors center for an hour and go home. Go more than 1000’ down from the rim and it’s not particularly crowded at all.
I can’t comment on Europe, like the previous poster—America has far more wide open wilderness than Europe does in general—but if in the USA there are still countless places where you can backpack for days without seeing a single person. There are also plenty of easier hikes with beautiful views that only see a few visitors a day. Just need to put in the footwork to find them. You won’t find them by staying at home and complaining about other hikers.
Well, they are half human so their human half’s genetic memory drives them to swing their arms unnecessarily
And wouldn’t you say the opposite of bearlandia is not-bear-landia?
Male birth control has to be safer and have fewer side effects than letting women carry the burden of birth control.
I mean, I don’t think this is such a high bar to pass.
Pregnancy is bad but I’d argue the consequences of 18 years of unwilling parenthood far outstrips the consequences of 9 months of pregnancy. The consequences for those 18 years impact both parties.
Furthermore, men have almost zero agency of what happens in the case of an unintended pregnancy. A man can’t say, “this would ruin my life, I am going to choose not to have the baby.”
That makes the risk quite high for a man, IMO, and the only way to take agency over that risk is male birth control.
Were you not here for the bit about the beans?
Yup. I regularly have to travel flagstaff to Denver, and it would take me over two days to make the trip.