[deleted]
Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
111–120 of 134 posts
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
A gondola ride to the top of Everest would be awesome. Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible. Anyway it's not as wild as it used to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Everest_economy
I don't get the argument here. Climbing Everest is dangerous, yes. Launching a rocket is dangerous. Going to the bottom of the ocean is dangerous. Putting your head inside a alligator's mouth is dangerous. Walking a tightrope across two tall buildings is dangerous. Space travel is dangerous. Sometimes, dangerous things should just be left alone by most people, not made impotent so any average person can do them. Dang…
I'm not really following your point.
Seeing a doctor used to be dangerous. Traveling to other countries used to be dangerous. So if I follow your logic we should get rid of all planes and travel because things that are dangerous should remain dangerous because reasons? And we should make sure surgery is still dangerous because reasons?
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the Great wall of China, that strange natural phenomenon, formed by tectonic forces over millions of years.
Why is that relevant? Would the Grand Canyon be less grand if it was only a couple millennia old?
"Would the Grand Canyon be less grand if it was only a couple millennia old?"
Yes.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of accessibility is to allow proportion of humanity to live normally , to do the same things that most of the rest can do; i.e. work, see a movie, and yes, take in a view. The reason to do that is that it improves the lives of the smaller proportion while at least not injuring the rest. (You believe only having stairs in a tall building would be a feature ?) Are you willing to make the argument that looking…
> Are you willing to make the argument that looking out from the top of Everest or tramming to the bottom of the canyon for an afternoon is something that everyone should be able to do? Yes, absolutely. Why shouldn't humanity aspire to that? > Grand Canyon development also has costs which would reduce the value of the site. Are those costs worth the benefits? My point of view is that yes, the benefits do indeed outwe…
Why shouldn't humanity aspire to that?
Because 7 billion people trekking to Everest would transform the character of the place so thoroughly that the reason people started doing en masse in the first place would be lost to history. Tragedy of the Commons 101.
The way we prevent these tragedies is via regulation. Needless to say, this demands time and expense that could always be used elsewhere, so if there's a natural barrier limiting access, then by all means, rely on that instead.
Once you open something to everybody, you've got to deal with...everybody. Generally speaking the people who are trying to profit from the initial development have zero interest in carrying the costs their ventures impose. Essentially, they're in the uncompensated extraction business and yeah a lot of people take a very dim view of that and will quite reasonably use any and all measures thay can to block what amounts to theft from the commons.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I somewhat disagree. I rode around it on a motorcycle from the bay last year. It was my first time seeing it. I hate crowds just like everyone else, and there was a crap ton of buses with even more people there, but I have to say -- I didn't expect much... "big whoop, grand canyon..." but when I walked up to the side in person, the shear size and strange 3d illusion the sight put on my brain, I just couldn't comprehe…
The whole point of the article is that the inside will be like the south side. The north side only works because it is remote—if you set up a gondola from the south side to the north side, then your "just plan a trip to the north side" advice won't work. It's even worse to do that to the real remote area, which is the floor itself.
The current canyon r2m "tourist" corridor is 17 miles long by maybe 1/2 a mile wide (of the 100+m miles length). Also if its only on indian land, the thing is on a side-canyon off to the east that is 80% out of theway anyway. You have to take 4x4 roads or trails over to Nankoweap. What is a pity is that area is supposed to be really nice, and is on the edge of the existing trail networks. So it kind of takes advantage of the National park whislt at the same time being incongrous with it.
The other irony here is that the indians surely had all of these same arguments about the US feds. Its just the table are turned on who is getting the $$ and the benefits.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
A gondola ride to the top of Everest would be awesome. Right now, 1.4% of the people who try to summit it die. That's ludicrous and totally indefensible. Anyway it's not as wild as it used to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Everest_economy
I don't get the argument here. Climbing Everest is dangerous, yes. Launching a rocket is dangerous. Going to the bottom of the ocean is dangerous. Putting your head inside a alligator's mouth is dangerous. Walking a tightrope across two tall buildings is dangerous. Space travel is dangerous. Sometimes, dangerous things should just be left alone by most people, not made impotent so any average person can do them. Dang…
I totally agree. Things like life jackets for sailors, ropes for climbers, and helmets for motorcyclists have made those sports impotent for the real men/women of this world who scorn safety. If you are not willing to risk it, just stay at home so the rest of us can unflinchingly face danger head on.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
In high school, every Monday my geology teacher Mr. Weinle would show slides from a national park he visited. One of them -- I don't remember which -- had an asphalt sidewalk running through it. He said "I was mad as hell when I saw this. This is nature! You should protect it!" Then he switched slides to the next picture he took: it showed a man with leg braces walking through the park. He held up his fingers and sai…
> They exist so that people can enjoy them No. They exist because they exist . It's a privilege that we get to appreciate them. We can't seem to lose the notion that the universe was created for us. When the earth is a barren ball of rock and humanity is long-gone, maybe someone out there will notice the irony in it all. > I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in…
No, the parks exist for humans.
The Universe simply exists. It's not guaranteed that any part of the Universe will be part of a park.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the point you're making. I've been to the Grand Canyon, and it's difficult to get to. Even off the main road, it's 30 slow miles over unpaved dusty, bumpy road to get to the Western rim. If night falls, you're in tough shape because the road is unlit. If you are low on gas, or need a break, there's no place to stop. Even in 2015, the canyon is hard to get to. But to turn it into a mini-Las Vegas would be a crim…
>> "...it's difficult to get to." I'm surprised that nobody else has brought this up: No less an authority on matters arid and wild than Edward Abbey has written extensively [0-1] on the inaccessibility and remoteness of the Grand Canyon. If I had to sum up his position on this topic, it might be "That's the point." [0] http://www.amazon.com/Desert-Solitaire-A-Season-Wilderness/d... [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Monk…
> If I had to sum up his position on this topic, it might be "That's the point."
Yes, because only the able-bodied should be able to enjoy the richness of the region.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
In high school, every Monday my geology teacher Mr. Weinle would show slides from a national park he visited. One of them -- I don't remember which -- had an asphalt sidewalk running through it. He said "I was mad as hell when I saw this. This is nature! You should protect it!" Then he switched slides to the next picture he took: it showed a man with leg braces walking through the park. He held up his fingers and sai…
There are asphalt trails in some side canyons of Yosemite Valley. They are asphalt because the trails are so heavily used that any normally constructed trail would require frequent significant (expensive) maintenance. Asphalt was the least worst option. But why do the trails get so much usage? Because Yosemite Valley has experienced heavy development, which allows a ton of people to stay there at one time. The actual…
Right. Giving the less-able access to those experiences would degrade them for the ones who should have them: The fully-able.
Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?
#120Irrigating the southwest in the first place was a Big Government mistake. That's the real disaster here. The Grand Canyon is pretty, but it's just a big ravine. Damming up the Colorado so people in Tuscon can have grass lawns is the real crime.
Yep. Those people who live there are so much worse than those people who live here, by me. Those monsters.