I suspect many rich people are desensitised to fun. They spend more and more, on more and more adventurous bs, out of sheer boredom.
Like how an addict’s tolerance to their drug of choice grows and grows. So you’re telling me not being ultra mega rich is allowing me to maintain my levels of fun. Huzzah!
Hedonic adaptation/treadmill.
Dibs for my new band! (Wish I were musically inclined)
It likely is. But with all the credit cards and consumer-loans being pushed today, anyone is susceptible to so called “lifestyle creep” where you get used to the things that come with spending more and more, and it starts to feel impossible to back to being frugal. Even if you are massively in debt and living beyond your means.
And still if money does stop being a concern for you, not budgeting your own attention can lead to an endless spiral of mindless consumption in search of good brain chemicals.
If only they knew how fulfilling using their obscene wealth to help people could be!
I think it would be pretty cool to see but in no fucking way is it worth trying to get there.
Specially if you consider its actually WAY WAY easier for us technologically to go into space than the god damn Deep sea atm. Specially if you want to put people down there so it needs a space with O2 inside and everything.
I’d watch a quick video clip
I get it. If I had stupid amounts of money and someone was like, “hey wanna go see the Titanic?” I’d be like, “nah, I saw it in theaters and it was too long. Oh wait you mean the actual Titanic?! Fuck yeah!”
-
You want to go see the Titanic?
-
Nah, it’s too long
-
No, I meant the actual wreck of the Titanic
-
I know. It’s like 270 meters…
-
I think visiting a part of history really helps a person appreciate what happened. Seeing something in-person is sometimes just so much more of an experience than a video. I personally would be pretty scared to go in a submarine but I can see the appeal to have a unique historical experience.
Why do people want to see a concert in person, or a famous building, or a piece of art? You can see the Mona Lisa anywhere in the world on your computer screen, why would you want to go to see the actual picture itself? There are better videos of a Beyonce concert on YouTube than you’ll get from a seat in the audience. A football game on ESPN has better coverage than a stadium seat. Why do any of that?
Because the thing itself is special. Viewing it through the screen isn’t the same as being there, as having your breath taken away as the sheer enormity of the moment hits you.
I did some basic scuba diving and the coolest thing I saw was definitely a ship wreck. I have pictures of the dive, but they simply don’t do it justice.
This was only at 17m depth though, so risk was okay as long as you have the right training and are smart about it.
The Titanic is legendary and must be amazing to see. The fact that you’re one of the few people to witness it, definitely adds to the appeal.
Do I think it’s worth $250,000 and/or the risk? Definitely not.
For others, that amount if money is just not and issue (sadly), and the risks were not explained clearly to them.
Because it’s cool
deleted by creator
The Titanic was only found in 1985. Imagine if we found the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 today intact at the bottom of the ocean. Also it wasn’t just some common vehicle like a Boeing 777, the titanic was the biggest luxury ship ever built at the time. So change Malaysian Airlines flight 370 with Air Force One for cultural parity.
It would be incredibly interesting for someone of our generation to visit it. But a young person in 2060 would just ask why anyone would find an old airplane wreck of any interest.
Also, it speaks to the imagination. It’s a brilliant tale of hubris; the ship touted to be unsinkable brought down by an iceberg.
They have a billion dollars and they can
I have a side-question: do they actually see the Titanic directly, when they go down there? It seemed from the pictures that there was only a computer screen in that submersible, and no window. Is it all about seeing it on the screen and feeling the moves of the submersible synchronized to it? That experience feels easily replicable from the surface…
pictures that there was only a computer screen in that submersible, and no window.
There was a Washing machine sized glass window Directly at the shitter so you could see out while having the “tasty” smell of fresh pee / poo directly under you.
Aaaah alright so the point does make more sense to me now. Particularly when you describe it so attractively. 😉
It still feels like visiting other people’s graves from a horrid and painful mass death, so definitely not for me even if it was safe and cheap, but at least now I get why some people do it, when, ya know, they don’t know what to do with their money and don’t mind dying.
Particularly when you describe it so attractively. 😉
Forgot to add a picture so for the toilet so yeah here it is you can see the window on the left of the Photo
So yeah… if you needed togo you had vision outside and if you wanted to look outside you literarily needed to sit next or on the toilet
I’m disappointed, there is no place I have ever seen I would have liked to poop in more than that one.
Seems like just the worst design. Imagine you’re in this tiny death trap, finally got to the shipwreck after waiting 2.5 hours, then someone is “oh I gotta use the bathroom” and sits down and closes the curtain.
I don’t understand why one would think there is no window. I’ve read a couple of comments like that. The thing is called “cyclops”, articles discuss the large porthole dome window, and it’s fairly visible in photos.
At the time I had only seen pictures from an angle where the window couldn’t be seen, so yeah it didn’t make sense to me at the time. I also had not read anywhere about the Cyclops name before just now, or read articles about the vessel itself. I’m not sure what there is to be puzzled about, we’re similarly not all similarly caught up, we just haven’t all read the same articles.
I thought it was a fairly prominent feature of the design, that’s all.
They have too much money and not enough sense.
One of the coolest VR experiences out there is called “The Blu.” It’s 3 short scenes underwater, and based on a pair of oceanography professors I demoed it to it’s incredibly accurate. I can definitely understand the draw to see something so foreign from what you would otherwise see, though personally I’d prefer a VR version to watching from a port hole in a tiny sub, even if I did trust the safety record.
It’s not just rich people are desensitised to fun. For example, an ordinary person see loads of content on YouTube and whatnot until a point they don’t find any vids interesting anymore, someone offered him a ticket to see the Titanic in person, they would think, hey why the hell not? At least it’s something new, it would be a once a lifetime experience.
Good question. It seems distasteful to gawk at, for one, considering 1500 people died horribly right there. Personally I also don’t have a desire to do outrageously dangerous things for entertainment. There are tons of less dumb ways to enjoy yourself. I appreciate the scientific expeditions that have gone and recorded videos and done a professional job. Some people have lauded the ones who recently died there as “explorers”, but they were not doing anything novel or scientifically useful.
I think some of it is the exclusivity— it’s hard af to there obvious. And some of it is the same impulse people have for going through abandoned buildings. They want to see the decay/ruins.
