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

The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#91

Post by shiroiuma »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #79
pstuart wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other Portland tree fail was where the city did plant trees they didn't bother to care for them: https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/08/09/trees-planted-by-the-c... It would be nice to see more government collaboration where citizens can assist in ways that will actually stick.

It's not a "tree fail" to remove some trees if it means a substantial conversion of passenger car to bus and bike use which reduces CO2 consumption. If the bike lane causes one person to give up their car and commute by bike, that's worth hundreds of trees per year . The same is true for solar. There are a lot of cases where cutting down a few trees for a solar array means a substantial increase in CO2 offset, more t…

Instead of chopping down trees to build a bike lane, they should simply take lanes away from the road and make those into protected bike lanes. This has multiple benefits: 1) leave the trees alone, and keep the street looking nice, 2) not waste more space on vehicles, 3) make biking safer, 4) discourage people from using cars by making it more inconvenient for them.

The other thing they can do is to restrict parking: replace parking lots with parks (and more trees) and more buildings.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#92

Post by rantallion »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #86
gambiting wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been there? The land in that area is rock with about an inch of soil on it, like most moorland - it would not support a forest, it never did(within the last couple thousand years anyway) . Romans didn't build the hadrians wall through a forest after all, the area was already barren then. And no one is directing me to feel angry - the tree did hold a special place in my heart, I've been to it with my dad…

> The land in that area is rock with about an inch of soil on it, like most moorland - it would not support a forest, it never did(within the last couple thousand years anyway) . Most deforestation around Hadrians wall started because of the massive wall construction efforts (it was the HS2 of its day, the largest project the Romans had ever done) and to clear land so it could be defended easily. http://mandalaprojec…

From the article you linked:

> The solution in Germany was a series of forts and fortifications, called limes, which used timber from the great central European forests and ditches to prevent tribal incursions. In contrast, large forests did not exist in Northern England and a great wall was built using stone...

That suggests there couldn't have been that many trees to fell in the first place. The terrain simply doesn't support it up here, about all it's good for is grazing, which is why you'll see field after field of sheep in Northumberland and not a lot else.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#93

Post by [deleted] »

andrewstuart wrote: post #29

There was a local project here on the railway lines. As part of the project they had to cut down a long row of giant pine trees in the park next to the train line. So when the railway project was complete I took my 8 year old son to the native nursery about bought ten mountain ash seedlings. Together we planted them in a long line in the park. Here's pictures of how big mountain ash gets: https://wilderlands.earth/st…

[deleted]

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#94

Post by Nursie »

desas wrote: post #78
doctorpangloss wrote: post #10

In my community: I love the cutsie pootsie Victorians everywhere, the time-capsule 1910s look. Some people want to make it easier to demolish this stuff and build whatever house you want - the rule is you have to keep the facade or whatever - and I sympathize with that. But nobody gives a fuck about the brutalist structures being torn down, like the VA in Chicago or the Federal Building in Boston, because they're ugl…

> nobody gives a fuck about the brutalist structures being torn down, like the VA in Chicago or the Federal Building in Boston, because they're ugly In the UK we have listed some of our most famous brutalist buildings for protection. This includes the Barbican Centre in London and the Corbusier inspired Park Hill in Sheffield - the largest listed building in Europe. It's not without controversy though.

I find it amusing and mildly horrifying when people tried to start movements to save buildings like the Tricorn centre in Portsmouth.

The Barbican seems like a good candidate to keep around, because it has some thought gone into it, and people seem to like it, use it and like the accommodation.

Most of the rest seem to fall into the realm of "sad, cheap city-centre retail blocks" and "places to warehouse poor people". Both of which suffered from being soul-crushing, and seemed to just court anti-social behaviour of various forms.

I suppose there's also London's South Bank area. As someone that used to work in the middle of it, the thing we always said was the best thing about working in South Bank was that we could look across the river at basically anything else...

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#95

Post by shiroiuma »

antisthenes wrote: post #70
jmyeet wrote: post #67

Humans are weird. It's wild to me how sentimental people can get about a tree or incensed by, say, someone kicking a dog (neither of which are good, for the record) yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering. Worse, that suffering is often painted as a moral failure by those who are suffering, almost like they deserve it. They can even cheer it on. I will never not find that bizarre. And…

> yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering. A lot of human suffering is self-inflicted. There's also the point that humans have a higher bar for being able to take care of themselves. A human can and should defend themselves. A tree or a dog cannot. (and before someone decides to ackshually correct me, we've been breeding dogs for docility for over 10,000 years) > I will never not find…

>and before someone decides to ackshually correct me, we've been breeding dogs for docility for over 10,000 years

Some breeds were specifically bred for fighting, so I don't agree with this at all. Also, some breeds are bred for hunting, some for herding, etc.; these are not "docile" tasks. I think it's more accurate to say that dogs have been bred to be subservient to humans for 10k years. But even here, there's plenty of dogs specifically trained to be violent with humans: German Shepherds are notorious for this, as well as Rottweilers, which is why they're used for military/police work.

But I completely agree about humans having a higher bar for taking care of themselves, and also we expect them to have a conscience and "do the right thing" and not cause needless destruction, and to work for the greater good.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#96

Post by npteljes »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #62

It makes me feel some solace that this tree was just a tree. We, humans, gave it significance. But that significance was imaginary. It was just a sycamore. It was only special because we told ourselves stories, and decided it was much more than a sycamore. Strangely, even though the tree isn't actually dead, we pretend it is, because it won't look like it did when we assigned it significance. So really, nothing of va…

First of all, feelings are not imaginary, even though they are non-physical, and despite many people not getting them, or having a bad relationship with some of them.

Second, the tree was a landmark. This significance gave it tangible value, as it would attract tourism, which will now be lost.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#97

Post by bluescrn »

shiroiuma wrote: post #91
KennyBlanken wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a "tree fail" to remove some trees if it means a substantial conversion of passenger car to bus and bike use which reduces CO2 consumption. If the bike lane causes one person to give up their car and commute by bike, that's worth hundreds of trees per year . The same is true for solar. There are a lot of cases where cutting down a few trees for a solar array means a substantial increase in CO2 offset, more t…

Instead of chopping down trees to build a bike lane, they should simply take lanes away from the road and make those into protected bike lanes. This has multiple benefits: 1) leave the trees alone, and keep the street looking nice, 2) not waste more space on vehicles, 3) make biking safer, 4) discourage people from using cars by making it more inconvenient for them. The other thing they can do is to restrict parking:…

Waging war on cars is waging war on the economy. The economy is our life support system.

Aggressively pushing bikes as the only future of transport is kind of ableist. Fine for healthy young people, in flat areas, on dry days. But not for the elderly, disabled, or unfit.

And public transport options need to be safe and comfortable. That doesn't fit with currently-trendy soft on crime policies.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#98

Post by dataengineer56 »

jacquesm wrote: post #35
andrewstuart wrote: post #29

There was a local project here on the railway lines. As part of the project they had to cut down a long row of giant pine trees in the park next to the train line. So when the railway project was complete I took my 8 year old son to the native nursery about bought ten mountain ash seedlings. Together we planted them in a long line in the park. Here's pictures of how big mountain ash gets: https://wilderlands.earth/st…

The trust in charge of the grounds will dig them up again, people have already done this. Which by the way makes the trust look both stupid and tone-deaf.

> Which by the way makes the trust look both stupid and tone-deaf.

People who are informed on the subject don't feel this way. It's a UNESCO world heritage site and no one wants the area to be littered with an assortment of "tribute" trees.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#99

Post by npteljes »

jmyeet wrote: post #67

Humans are weird. It's wild to me how sentimental people can get about a tree or incensed by, say, someone kicking a dog (neither of which are good, for the record) yet be completely indifferent to completely preventable human suffering. Worse, that suffering is often painted as a moral failure by those who are suffering, almost like they deserve it. They can even cheer it on. I will never not find that bizarre. And…

Basically we'd feel unbearably sad all the time, if we'd care about things unfiltered. So filtering must go on. After all, the existence of feelings is to support a social cohesion, which in turn enhances the chance of survival. It doesn't make evolutionary sense for feelings to not have bounds. So, there are bounds - feelings usually intensify with close proximity, and there is a bunch of mechanisms that quell feelings and empathy, like dissociation. What you're seeing is just these mechanisms in work. The very concept of fairness, and so unfairness, also only exists in humans. And we don't even agree on what that entails, just that all of us feel this to a degree.

Re: The Sycamore Gap tree held a particularly deep place in people's hearts

#100

Post by defrost »

bluescrn wrote: post #97
shiroiuma wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of chopping down trees to build a bike lane, they should simply take lanes away from the road and make those into protected bike lanes. This has multiple benefits: 1) leave the trees alone, and keep the street looking nice, 2) not waste more space on vehicles, 3) make biking safer, 4) discourage people from using cars by making it more inconvenient for them. The other thing they can do is to restrict parking:…

Waging war on cars is waging war on the economy. The economy is our life support system. Aggressively pushing bikes as the only future of transport is kind of ableist. Fine for healthy young people, in flat areas, on dry days. But not for the elderly, disabled, or unfit. And public transport options need to be safe and comfortable. That doesn't fit with currently-trendy soft on crime policies.

That's what was said about the horse and buggy.

Evolution's an actual thing, you know, both for living forms and for technology.

The circulation of resources, goods, and energy is our life support - the economic assumption that growth is unlimited and GDP is a good metric is just a fad of the last century or two.

Post reply on HN