Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#11

Post by Deadron »

jschwartzi wrote: post #5
tomohawk wrote: post #3

These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

Are they? A huge portion of my state is federal or state park land, and people flock to these places to get away from the cities and the suburbs. If Lee had his way, the federal government could start selling lands in places like Mount Rainier National Park or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These areas host numerous trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds, and the like. I can't help but agree with the auth…

Having moved from the seattle area to the state of maryland, the lack of parks and public land feels very depressing. You drive by giant majestic horse pastures, but the parks are so small that you can still hear cars driving by.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#12

Post by JDWolf »

jschwartzi wrote: post #5
tomohawk wrote: post #3

These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

Are they? A huge portion of my state is federal or state park land, and people flock to these places to get away from the cities and the suburbs. If Lee had his way, the federal government could start selling lands in places like Mount Rainier National Park or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These areas host numerous trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds, and the like. I can't help but agree with the auth…

well said

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#14

Post by bleigh0 »

Made me think of this:

At any rate, spring is here, even in London N1, and they can't stop you enjoying it. This is a satisfying reflection. How many a time have I stood watching the toads mating, or a pair of hares having a boxing match in the young corn, and thought of all the important persons who would stop me enjoying this if they could. But luckily they can't. So long as you are not actually ill, hungry, frightened or immured in a prison or a holiday camp, spring is still spring. The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun, and neither the dictators nor the bureaucrats, deeply as they disapprove of the process, are able to prevent it.

—from 'Some Thoughts on the Common Toad' by George Orwell. Highly recommend.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#15

Post by thr0waway5678 »

greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

Can you expand on this? I genuinely don't understand the "poor people are adjacent to trees" statement in the context of an entire country. Like genuinely this sounds like solid comedy unless I'm missing something here.

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#16

Post by [deleted] »

seattle_spring wrote: post #6
greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

I think "nature" in this article refers to actual natural treasures (Grand Staircase, Yosemite, etc.), not just some random forest on some rolling hills.

[deleted]

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#17

Post by megaman22 »

thr0waway5678 wrote: post #15
greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

Can you expand on this? I genuinely don't understand the "poor people are adjacent to trees" statement in the context of an entire country. Like genuinely this sounds like solid comedy unless I'm missing something here.

When you're a broke white hillbilly, you hunt and fish and do stuff outdoors because its there, its cheap, and there ain't much else to do.

Source: Grew up broke hillbilly

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#18

Post by omegaworks »

jschwartzi wrote: post #5
tomohawk wrote: post #3

These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

Are they? A huge portion of my state is federal or state park land, and people flock to these places to get away from the cities and the suburbs. If Lee had his way, the federal government could start selling lands in places like Mount Rainier National Park or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These areas host numerous trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds, and the like. I can't help but agree with the auth…

Worse: We don't have the right to roam[1] here in the US and given how trigger-happy people are, the more land is privatized the more dangerous it is to explore.

1.https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/right-to-roam/

Re: We’re headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature

#20

Post by Alex3917 »

greggarious wrote: post #4

Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

And the fact that it has vast natural resources is part of why it's poor. If you can forage a meal of morels, trout, and ramps, what's the point of earning a lot of money to go to fancy restaurants? It's not like you're going to get a better meal than that even by dropping a couple hundred bucks in NYC. So you end up with lots of people who living on large parcels of inherited land but not making very much money per year, because that is actually somewhat sustainable, at least until it comes time for retirement or (more likely) you have medical issues that you can't afford to pay for.
Post reply on HN