The glaring issue I see with this proposal is the author supposes that people who say that they could “live indefinitely with sonic booms” have all the facts needed to make that assessment and are correct, or that they want to live indefinitely with sonic booms.
People could “live indefinitely” with ionizing radiation (and non-ionizing, I might add), but that does not mean it does not impact their health or wellbeing. There are detriments outside of the immediately obvious “loud noise bothers someone”, such as property damage, ecological destruction, environmental concerns, health impacts, passenger safety, etc.
People could “live indefinitely” with ionizing radiation (and non-ionizing, I might add), but that does not mean it does not impact their health or wellbeing. There are detriments outside of the immediately obvious “loud noise bothers someone”, such as property damage, ecological destruction, environmental concerns, health impacts, passenger safety, etc.
I couldn’t disagree more with this.