That's how my mom described the girlfriend I was pursuing in 1974. She lived 30 miles away. In rural Idaho that meant I skipped someone in our town of 3,000 and passed by the next town of 1,200 to go see my sweetie.

I persisted for three months before agreeing with Mom. The 30 mile drive made her Geographically Undesirable.

If you're pursuing a long distance relationship ask yourself how many thousands of potential partners you are flying over on the way to your rendezvous. If you live in a city you probably have more eligible partners within ten miles of your residence than there were total human beings within my 30 mile high school home town radius. Is there really no one for you in that group?

Of course, you can live with the environmental impact. It's just a value call.

If you're flying over "thousands" of potential partners then they are not considered local.

Considering the lengths modern working couples are forced to go to to preserve a relationship (job-induced changes of location, time apart while at work, etc) it seems logical to me, given your way of thinking, to simply do away with relationships of the even semi-permanent kind altogether. After all, if my husband is forced to transfer back to German for work and I don't wish to or have no hope of finding a similar job in Germany, it really proves quite inconvenient (not to mention ecologically unfriendly) for us to continue the relationship. Lacking stable relationships, it is unrealistic (and ecologically unfriendly) for anyone to have children, since the children would be forced to commute between parents, therefore causing the emission of lots and lots of carbon. It would in fact be more ecologically friendly for children to stay with one parent instead of visiting the other in cases of shared custody, since it would decrease the carbon emitted. I guess it's just fine for good old boys who want to marry their "geographically desirable" childhood sweetheart/neighbor and live in the same town for their lives to poo poo those who lead careers involving international moves and travel. It's just not realistic in this day and age. Otherwise, please, bring on the childless polyamory, sounds like fun!

You couldn't be more right. Putting close human relationships above the environment just shows how selfish and unreasonably sentimental people can be.

Think, for example, of the amount of waste parents and grandparents cause, especially as they become older. The CO2 emissions resulting from their use of wheelchairs and the automatic open button on doors... the gas wasted driving them to doctors' appointments or to the grocery store (they're not so fit to take the bus anymore, no?).... the amount of resources spent on producing medication to keep them alive... God forbid they should want to see their grandchildren, because then someone might have to get on a plane for that too.

So, a simple suggestion (or a modest proposal, if you will): why not just let them die? I mean, once a person can't survive on public transit and locally grown raw plants alone, send them out into the wilderness and let them pass away as nature intended. To be completely fair, however, this would have to hold for all the disabled, as well, and for any children who might become sick. (And I haven't even started to bring up the environmental ramifications of babies! Those diapers! Think of the wasted water needed to wash even the reusable kind!)

So many great points! I'd like to add that old people, or at least the ones I know, emit methane gas on a considerable level. As we all know the greenhouse effect of this undesirable process, perhaps we could offer free, or at least discount, euthanasia to interest parties of a certain age?

your assuming that there are desirable partners to be found locally, not always the case.

Soylet Green!!!!!!

re: OP - where does Slate keep finding such gold-plated schmeckels with so little to say?!?  I mean, I've met plenty of dull people before, but none of them pretended to be writers.  They went and did other stuff, that someone actually appreciated.