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

Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

alaskapublic.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#141

Post by yellowapple »

brian_cunnie wrote: post #64
WalterBright wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His work on Habitat for Humanity, for one. It's not virtue signalling for Jimmy, he's out there swinging a hammer alongside everyone else. His work in ensuring fair elections in various countries, for another.

Agreed. He works hard to make the world a better place.

It ain't too late yet for him to do a second term. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who'd want one - he seems to be doing a fine job as an ex-President - but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the average politician.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#142

Post by kortilla »

Victerius wrote: post #125
dereg wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this anything other than a slippery slope fallacy? Can you provide some examples of where the development of a rural, gravel road led to unstoppable, cancerous development?

It's not a fallacy. We have plenty of evidence. Human development, when not constrained by war, natural disasters, disease, lack of local resources, or inhospitable climate, is exponential. Every human settlement ever started small. One road. One house. Then two houses. Three houses. One day, the land on which New York City sits today was rural, and then a road was made. The rest is history.

Survivorship bias. Massive chunks of the Midwest and west in the US are littered with dying populations. All of this “exponential” growth you’re referring to is in a small subset of cities.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#143

Post by jacobolus »

rayiner wrote: post #140
jacobolus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, your claim is that because businesses would be happy to be gifted public resources for their own private profit, therefore generic “people” would like it because businesses = groups of people? And you think “gentrification” (i.e. private sale/renting of private property in low-income neighborhoods to yuppies) is essentially the same as the President unilaterally deciding to sell part of a congressio…

No, my point is that businesses developing undeveloped land creates profits for businesses but also jobs and economic activity for the local community. And while some people don’t want that economic activity to happen—just like they don’t want Silicon Valley workers moving into San Francisco—most of the community is happy to have the money coming in. The distinction you’re pointing to—federal versus private ownership…

Lots of things “create jobs and economic activity” (for at least someone, in the short term): Ponzi schemes. Mob protection rackets. Dumping untreated toxic sludge in the local river. Burning down the rainforest and replacing it with palm oil plantations and cattle ranches. Establishing a pharmaceutical monopoly and then jacking the price up by 1000%. Opening child-labor sweatshops. Prostitution of sex-trafficked slaves. Kidnapping for ransom. Medical research on unwilling human test subjects. Child porn production. Black-market organ sales. Judges conspiring with for-profit prison companies to send innocent people to jail. Selling small arms to mass-murdering foreign paramilitary groups...

Hand-waving away all of the details because you think “jobs” outweigh “the legal particulars” is a free pass to support pretty much anything you personally prefer (or personally profit from), irrespective of its harms.

I’m sure it would create a lot of short term jobs if we leased Yellowstone to the Disney company to develop into a theme park. But “maximizing short-term local economic development” is not how we make decisions about what to do with congressionally established nature preserves.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#144

Post by cato_the_elder »

themitigating wrote: post #54
cato_the_elder wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

How is he responsible for the hostage crisis?

How much he was responsible for it happening, it's debatable. But he certainly bears some responsibility for its protraction.

Carter himself said: "I wish I had sent one more helicopter to get the hostages, and we would have rescued them, and I would have been reelected". [1]

The hostage crisis isn't the only thing he handled poorly. He also failed the improve the ailing economic situation.

[1]: LA Times: "Jimmy Carter has one very big regret. Most presidents are right there with him." https://archive.ph/Rmu3f

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#145

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

asdfk-12 wrote: post #89

'Adverse development' is the term they use for the King Cove community's road to access an airport for emergency medical services. A group of rural Americans need access to a critical resource. They aren't building an open-pit mine. 'Trustees for Alaska' seems to be another majority out-of-state funded greenie organization that prioritizes a twisted anti-human agenda where if they got their way, entire villages would…

> entire villages would be eliminated

Entire towns have been relocated for the greater good. Some examples are to build dams and reservoirs. Butler, Tennessee. American Falls, Idaho.

Grand Coulee Dam forced the relocation of 3000 people.

So many others, like these:

https://www.uncharted101.com/the-submerged-towns-of-america/

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#146

Post by ajross »

rayiner wrote: post #139
ajross wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but Businesses are very clearly not the antecedent of the "they" you used upthread to reference "Alaskans". You can't make a nativist argument about the rights of the local population and then try to extend that to a Texas-based petro-behemoth wanting to drill new holes.

There’s tons of people who want those “Texas based petro behemoths” to “drill new holes” for the exact same reasons folks want San Francisco based ad behemoths to build offices in their city.

And there's "tons" that don't, aren't there? So... maybe we should do this democratically and let the elected government decide what happens with federal land and not resort to this kind of "who matters more" nonsense?

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#147

Post by yellowapple »

drekipus wrote: post #38
ivanhoe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We destroyed our local wilderness long time ago to make our lives safer and easier and more comfortable - and now we're judging others for wanting the same for their town...

Yes because we realise the mistakes

Then we should be leading by example. I know there's a lot more I could be doing to preserve and restore ecosystems local to me before I've any right to demand the same of folks thousands of miles away.

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#148

Post by [deleted] »

jfoutz wrote: post #137
Retric wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s vastly more expensive than the road. But this court case has also strayed well past being just about this specific road.

Is it? Lights, transponders, and equipment to keep the runway free from snow. let's assume $5.00/sq ft to lay down gravel - 5280 ft/mi * 60mi * 10ft wide road is about 3 million. That's pretty generous given the remote location, need to ship the heavy equipment. I really don't know, but you could dodge a lot of lawsuits and shave an hour off of time to trauma center. Which, as I understand it, is the real goal. get h…

[deleted]

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#149

Post by cato_the_elder »

yellowapple wrote: post #141
brian_cunnie wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. He works hard to make the world a better place.

It ain't too late yet for him to do a second term. He doesn't strike me as the sort of person who'd want one - he seems to be doing a fine job as an ex-President - but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the average politician.

> It ain't too late yet for him to do a second term.

He's going to be 100 years old in 2024. [1] If that's not too old for being a president, we might as well elect dead men.

Given our decadence, that would significantly increase the quality of average politician.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter

Re: Jimmy Carter asks court to defend Alaska’s ‘unrivaled wilderness’

#150

Post by yellowapple »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
notch656a wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well connected, wealthy person with no real worries about their own access to medical professionals and no real roots in Alaska feigning to act for the good of nature but in the process acting against the interest of these communities? Say it aint so.

The Alaskan wilderness belongs to all of us. The people there are welcome to enjoy the wilderness. Not pave it.

The Alaskan wilderness first and foremost belongs to the people who have been living as part of it for generations. They are in a much better position to balance wilderness preservation v. the needs of human habitation than you or I. We are welcome to visit, but they are the ones calling it home - and have far more of a vested interest in preserving and stewarding it than we do.
Post reply on HN