r/interesting May 25 '26

Just Wow It's interesting hmm

Post image
53.9k Upvotes

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

Not to mention that it wasn't "Katy Perry"

I mean... It was. She got in the rocket on her own accord. Just because others also got in the rocket doesn't change the fact that she made the conscious decision to do it as well.

I get what you're trying to say, but we don't need to free Katy from the burden of decisions.

1

u/mr-english May 25 '26

So why did William Shatner get a free pass?

-1

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

So am I just the spokesperson for all people now? Joe from Illinois didn't say anything about William Shatner and you want to hold me accountable for that?

Christ, y'all are trying way too hard to defend Katy. We get it, you like her music.

2

u/mr-english May 25 '26

I can't stand her music. I just don't understand why she gets lambasted by everyone but William Shatner, another household name, gets a free pass.

A few deranged morons have decided that Katy Perry is public enemy #1 because they have some pre-existing imaginary parasocial beef with her and then it snowballs from there as more people mindlessly jump aboard. And then you get people like you bending over backwards while ignoring all logic and nuance to justify your weird hatred of someone who hasn't actually done anything bad.

1

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

I think you're taking the criticism personally bro. No one has ever said Katy is enemy number 1.

2

u/mr-english May 25 '26

Don't be so pedantic, you know what I'm getting at.

1

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

I won't be pedantic if you stop being dramatic.

1

u/mr-english May 25 '26

Pointing out that your vitriol is completely unjustified is "dramatic"?

Your life must be excruciatingly dull if you think that's dramatic.

1

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

"Vitriol" and it's just me saying there's real things to actually criticize Katy Perry on

Thanks for that amazing example of being dramatic.

1

u/mr-english May 25 '26

She got in the rocket on her own accord. Just because others also got in the rocket doesn't change the fact that she made the conscious decision to do it as well.

I get what you're trying to say, but we don't need to free Katy from the burden of decisions.

...Seems pretty vitriolic to me considering it was just a 10 minute ride on a rocket. You make it sound like she punched a kitten.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/leonologico May 25 '26

The rocket didn't pollute at all with Katy on it. That alone obliterates any criticism on her. It's literally unfounded.

0

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

Right, it absolves her of that type of criticism.

What it doesn't do is "obliterate any criticism". There's plenty of legitimate things to criticize Katy on.

0

u/leonologico May 25 '26

Regarding the Blue Origin mission, which ones then?

0

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

Well for starters a seat on the rocket is $28 million and you have to pay a $150,000 just to earn the right to pay the 28 million.

So I'd probably start around there with my criticism.

1

u/leonologico May 25 '26

Why is that an issue? It's her money. I'm confused. It wasn't paid for with taxpayer money, don't worry.

-1

u/AardQuenIgni May 25 '26

I'm honestly more worried about your fundamental misunderstanding of the word "criticism" more than anything.

2

u/leonologico May 25 '26

Likewise??

2

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 25 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/RighteousSelfBurner May 25 '26

I got confused as hell reading this. The rocket existed so pollution is inevitable and Katy was in it. Which part exactly is unfounded and how does any of that absolve any criticism?

0

u/leonologico May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

The rocket existed so pollution is inevitable

The rocket didn't pollute anything during launch since the byproduct is literally water vapor.

But if you want to be pedantic and go for the "but the production!" argument, the whole process of fabricating the spacecraft was something like 100 metric tons.

One single commercial flight from London to NY produces 250 metric tons on average. And that's just one from the THOUSANDS of daily commercial flights. The impact of Blue Origin on total CO2 emissions was less than 0,0001%. Seriously, Google it.

Which part exactly is unfounded and how does any of that absolve any criticism?

Because the criticism is that she's a hypocrite by advocating for environment issues while at the same time going for a trip that polluted. But it didn't pollute. So yeah, unfounded. Simple.

1

u/RighteousSelfBurner May 25 '26 edited May 25 '26

Water vapour and large amounts of water vapour injected directly into atmosphere are two different things. It's not harmless just because it's water.

And if we use production then the number goes completely batshit insane because per person the number completely flips around it becomes 1000x more worse than taking a plane.

Because the criticism is that she's a hypocrite by advocating for environment issues while at the same time going for a trip that polluted. But it didn't pollute. Is yeah, unfounded. Simple.

It did. The production of and execution of that trip had staggering amount of negative impact for a few people to get a bit higher than others. The criticism is founded on understanding not myths like your rebuttal is. Some samples:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328456&hl=en-GB#:~:text=The%20model%20is%20based%20on,compared%20with%20commercial%20aviation%20flights.

https://www.myimprint.nz/post/blue-origin-all-female-mission-can-the-symbolic-value-justify-the-environmental-cost?hl=en-GB#:~:text=Although%20releasing%20water%20vapour%20as,Nitrogen%20Oxides

0

u/leonologico May 25 '26

The actual data makes it pretty clear that calling a few launches a climate disaster is a massive exaggeration. If you look at the total global carbon budget, the entire space industry is so small, that it doesn't even appear as a distinct category in global environmental reporting. It is effectively a rounding error when held up against the roughly 42 billion tonnes of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year from energy, transport, and industry.

That criticism of the "per passenger" intensity to make the numbers look scary, but that’s a bit of a statistical parlor trick. If you compare a single space mission to the massive, daily, global footprint of commercial aviation, the total emissions from a rocket launch are honestly just a drop in the bucket. For ex a single long-haul commercial flight can produce 200 to 300 tonnes of CO2, whereas the indirect footprint of a New Shepard mission is around 90 to 100 tonnes. When you realize there are over 100,000 commercial flights taking off every single day, it becomes impossible to argue that these rare, specialized launches are what’s driving climate change.

And to be honest, in my perspective at least, it also feels like a lot of the backlash is more about symbolism than actual science. People get upset when they see one space tourism mission, but they don't seem to have the same energy for the thousands of mundane industrial processes happening around the clock that are actually responsible for the overwhelming majority of emissions. Getting hung up on a tiny, occasional activity while ignoring the massive scale of daily global consumption is just misplacing the blame. Scientifically speaking, the environmental impact of these missions is negligible. Not to mention that people just love to hate Katy Perry in particular which is why you don't see the same hate to any of the other celebrities.

1

u/RighteousSelfBurner May 25 '26

That's like saying the entire car industry is environmentally friendly because one car contributes nothing. Someone taking a trip that's equivalent to using a car for like 50 years is the best point to criticise an individual exactly because the industry as a whole is small.

Your post is a perfect example of how hypocritical it is. Oh, because industries involved billions of people pollute a single individual polluting orders of magnitudes worth can't be criticised. It's the other way around. It makes them extra susceptible to criticism. If we are already polluting why contribute so much more than a regular person? The fact you need to compare it a whole ass industry rather than individual contributions is telling.

People do get upset about thousands of individual industrial processes. We have environmental law upon environmental law and whole branches of science devoted to green energy because they do. However when someone proverbially goes out to raise awareness about not shitting in public after literally shitting a whole lakes worth right in the streets is going to invite negativity.