STEVE HACKETT confirmed for Cruise To The Edge 2024

    • Official Post

    Steve has confirmed his participation in the 2024 edition of the Cruise To The Edge.


    Personally, it makes me wonder why things like concert cruises still exist. It's quite obvious that such cruises are against any ecological standards today and have no idea why the likes of Hackett - or Marillion - still do this (especially when you think about songs like Scorched Earth etc)....


    Opinions?

  • Respectfully, I think extreme care is needed with these arguments because personal moral bias, or cognitive dissonance, or simply demarcation lines of convenience, can cloud judgement. I struggle to see how a line can be drawn between the cruise ship concept being 'bad' and regular tours with jets, trucks, hotels and mountains of equipment, being 'good'.


    In stating the above, I don't have an axe to grind either way. I agree that we should take better care of the planet, but these days the environmental discussion has been subsumed into and dictated by politics, and I am rabidly opposed to what's happening in the political arena. Anyway, that's not for a music forum.


    Back to the issue, I think the choices are:


    1. Carry on with concert cruises.

    2. If concerned with the eco/environmental issue, stop touring of any kind unless it can truly be done in a balanced, "sustainable" way (I can't stand that term), and not play at it and engage in virtue signalling like, say, Coldplay did on tour this year.

  • Agreed about "sustainable" being over used. Examples: Lithium, a major component in EV batteries, is a very finite resource. Lithium does not "evolve" in the same way as most other elements, so despite it's place among common elements, it isn't. It COULD run out by 2050 if not recycled with extreme rigour. A Tesla run in Wyoming, due to it's high reliance on coal power stations, would take 17.5 years to break even with a petrol carin carbon terms, taking the car's manufacture into acount.

    We're on the same page. If I allow myself to get going about this stuff, I'll be at it for hours, so I'll just add two more and try to leave it there -


    1. To the graph they love to roll out to illustrate anthropomorphic global warming, it's such a shame that they only focus on this century when we have ice core samples and other sources which allow us to go back thousands of years when opining about about climate and CO2. It is well-known to those who have studied it and those who care to look that average global temperatures have varied wildly since forever, including being much higher than now, and long before the industrial era. Same for CO2. It's politically inconvenient for these facts to be discussed. The people can be controlled; the sun can't.


    2. We have global leaders [cough], politicians [another cough] and the usual hangers on telling us how we must live while they attend their 'conferences' by private jets and limousines, and live the most opulent lifestyles with no regard for wider consequences. Quite why this hypocrisy doesn't make everyone's blood boil is beyond me (and it's not just on the environment either).


    Back to the music, as long as the focus is more towards the varied styles of the English/European bands, I think it will be a treat.

  • May I kindly request people to stick to, or return to, the actual topic of this thread?

    I thought we had.


    But, thinking about it, the subject of ecological impact was brought up by the original poster in the original post, the forum owner no less, so actually, I don't think we were off topic.

    Ian


    Putting the old-fashioned Staffordshire plate in the dishwasher!

    Edited once, last by foxfeeder: Thought about it! ().

  • Wow. For some reason, the comments in this thread remind me of a review (admittedly written by a precocious chancer) 31 years ago which questioned Rutherford's view (as espoused in Way Of The World) that, ecologically, "time is on our side". Wow. Just wow.

    • Official Post

    I thought we had.


    But, thinking about it, the subject of ecological impact was brought up by the original poster in the original post, the forum owner no less, so actually, I don't think we were off topic.

    Let me remind you, then, that this thread is about Steve's participation in the Cruise To The Edge and also the ecological ramifications of said cruise.

    Human fertility as you suppose it to be in fourty years is not part of the topic, neither is an electric vehicle wherever it is operated (except, perhaps, if it was driven on the cruise ship).

    Now that that's sorted, glad I could help you. You're welcome.


    Back to topic.

  • Cruise to the Edge is a music festival considerably more congenial than a muddy field. I'm a regular cruiser but am still restricted to school holidays for the next couple of years.

  • Wow. For some reason, the comments in this thread remind me of a review (admittedly written by a precocious chancer) 31 years ago which questioned Rutherford's view (as espoused in Way Of The World) that, ecologically, "time is on our side". Wow. Just wow.

    I think you are having a go at Climate Change deniers here, it's hard to tell as I never saw said review, as most here probably haven't. Just to confirm I'm not one, what I am is a realist who can see the "greenwashing" of stuff like carbon offset, carbon trading and the like. And as someone with a scientific background, I'm also aware of the nonsense of a phrase like "renewable energy" - it's not. It can't be, what it is, in the case of solar, wind, wave etc is "almost limitless (that will change when the sun dies, but we don't need to worry about that, we won't be here to see it.)


    Anyway, my thanks to the ever self-rightious Martinus for his "help"! ^^ To all: Please discuss nothing here except Steve on the Cruise and it's efect on the environment. Apparently "off-topic" on this forum is very tightly policed, though given SCD, Genesisarchive and other occasions where people have been allowed to do what the f*****g like makes you wonder.

    Ian


    Putting the old-fashioned Staffordshire plate in the dishwasher!

  • On the ecological front, cruising is harmful to the environment like most human activity. When I was born in 1960 there were 3 billion of us, now there are 8 billion, so inevitably there has been environmental degradation and a higher concentration of CO2 (and methane) in the atmosphere. Most people accept that it will take time to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

  • For what it’s worth I think a sensible discussion about the pros and cons of the cruise was perfectly reasonable in this thread and was invited by Christian’s (also perfectly reasonable) opener. Inevitably that discussion will widen into other things ecological, or else it wouldn’t be balanced. I wouldn’t take part, as, despite teaching about ecology for a number of years, I don’t feel qualified any more to make any statement about it until I’ve done more research, but I thought some interesting points were made along the way. I also think we need to get back to a situation where people can explore, discuss and have a good old argument about things without descending into disrespect or being stopped in their tracks. That’s the only way reasoned argument will ever displace strife.