drones make unwanted noise and ruin the atmosphere of natural settings. does the world need your boring selfies from an aerial perspective? No. absolutely not.
Only worse than these snapchat plastic teeny drones would a V2 with built-in flood light, for added light-pollution. Let's spoil star-gazing, too! I feel the sudden urge to pick up a book about falconry...
N=1. There are signs everywhere at the Grand Canyon, but the guy flying his drone over literally hundreds of people at sunset a mere 50 meters from a visitors' center and rangers told me, "Oh, sorry, bro. I didn't know."
People also want to run noisy, polluting dirt bikes and side-by-sides on every trail, everywhere.
And people just like you say, "deal with it." And behold, we deal with it by setting access rules. Some wild areas have trails for motorized play, some prohibit it.
Welcome to living in a society. We deal with things by taking everyone's needs into account and finding an appropriate balance.
Eh, if only people were never bad actors and only used drones for that.
I was at a soap box derby a couple weeks back and they had to pause the entire event for fifteen minutes because someone was flying a drone down by the course area.
A couple hundred people were waiting on one person to remove their drone. Even after the announcers were asking the person to remove the drone they continued to keep it there.
> A candy maker had had the same property for over 60 years when a doctor moved next door. After eight years passed without incident between them, the the doctor built a consulting room right against the confectioner’s kitchen. The doctor then found that the noise from the confectioner’s equipment interfered with the doctor’s ability to work, and in particular to hear with a stethoscope. The doctor filed suit to force the confectioner to stop using his equipment. The court recognized that the confectioner might suffer some hardship – thus admitting to the reciprocal nature of harm that Coase would later recognize – but it argued that to avoid even greater (unspecified) individual hardship and inhibiting land development for residential use, the confectioner must stop (9.)
> Coase proposed considering how the parties might settle the dispute in a market transaction once the court made its findings; for space reasons I will present a simplified version of Coase’s argument. Though the doctor had won, in a market settlement he would be willing to allow the machinery to continue to operate were the confectioner to pay the doctor a sum that was greater than the doctor’s loss of income from having to either move or install sound abatement material. Conversely, had the confectioner won, in a market settlement he would have been willing to accept payment from the doctor to stop using the noisy machinery if the amount were greater than the confectioner’s costs to move the equipment or install sound abatement material.
The machinery in that case was shut down because it wasn't desirable in a residential area!
The confectioner was operating out of a house and the doctor wanted to practice out of a shed in his backyard.
So it would be entirely keeping with that outcome to declare that a park or whatever is intended for peaceful relaxation and ban noisy drones.
Of course you'd have to do it with a straight face knowing that the park already has young people in poorly muffled trucks zooming around all the time.
I don't know. The candy maker has been there 60 years and it didn't bother anyone. Does the doctor's right to operate sensitive equipment outweigh the right the candy maker has to use his machines like he's been doing for 60 years? It's not obviously clear to me one way or the other
It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the specifics. It's that most people normally have a visceral reaction one way or another. But in many cases there could be a voluntary solution where all parties are better off.
For instance, consider a noisy neighbor is throwing a party. Suppose I complain but he really values the party and offers me $100 to let him keep the party going another hour. He obviously values it more than $100 so he's better off as am I. Similarly I could pay him to shut off the party, in which case we're also both better off.
I didn't mean it literally like the drone payers should pay to use their drones in the park, although that's not a bad idea. The park goers could enjoy better service and accept some noise, making everyone better off.
I just thought it was funny seeing someone argue about this and it reminded me of Coase and his work
Source? I think the want to take a cool shot from a drone could actually make alot more teens go outdoors. I don't like drones either but incentivizing going outside through social media is an interesting concept and certainly beats them staying indoors.
Why do you want them to go outdoors, though? You could get more teens to go to the library by turning off all the lights and playing dance music at high volume, but it wouldn't serve the reasons that made you want them to go there in the first place. Instead of spreading the benefit of the library to more people, it would destroy the benefit of the library for everybody (and it would probably make a pretty poor nightclub, too.)
If you want kids to get a little bit of exercise and breath clean air, clean up urban air quality and create walkable cities with park space. Then people who want a busy social outdoor space and don't mind a lot of mechanical noise will have a place to go where their enjoyment won't interfere with the enjoyment of people who want to hear birds and insects and trees moving in the wind.
That's not society's problem. I'm not trying to come up with ways to incentivize Lil' Jimmathy to see the great outdoors at any cost. People can go outside and respect others' desire to enjoy peaceful, beautiful nature, or they can stay inside and scroll on their phones.
Interesting, I actually perceive it to very much be society's problem, and do consider it my responsibility to promote mental and physical health in my community. I found this post [0] useful in considering the difference between entitlement and responsibility.
