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

Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#121

Post by m741 »

cbd1984 wrote: post #118
avn2109 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "...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.

You can simply drive to the rim. The entire path around the rim is paved and handicap-accessible. You can take a mule into the canyon. It's difficult to get to only in the sense that you must drive for several hours from any nearby city to reach the area.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#122

Post by sneak »

corin_ wrote: post #70
raldi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, and how is that significant?

In a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.

The works of men, and men themselves, are part of nature.

It is nothing short of hubris to believe otherwise. We, like all apex predators before us, will soon become extinct from this planet leaving only fossils in our wake.

Nature encapsulates us - not the other way around.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#123

Post by corin_ »

sneak wrote: post #122
corin_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.

The works of men, and men themselves, are part of nature. It is nothing short of hubris to believe otherwise. We, like all apex predators before us, will soon become extinct from this planet leaving only fossils in our wake. Nature encapsulates us - not the other way around.

Sorry but that's ridiculous. Yes, on a philosophical level you can say that, but the word "nature" is defined as excluding anything human-related.

> "The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations" - OED

Otherwise there would be no point having that word as it would by synonymous with "everything".

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#124

Post by snowwrestler »

cbd1984 wrote: post #119
snowwrestler wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If equal access for all is your primary concern, then what is the argument for preserving wilderness at all? Why not build roads into every wild area and escalators to the top of every mountain?

And what would the wilderness look like if we did that?

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#125

Post by coroutines »

cbd1984 wrote: post #117
lambeosaurus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the original guy meant they exist because humans voted to protect them for our enjoyment. I don't think we're protecting these sites (national parks) simply to exist. The land would be too useful for other functions to just "exist". They're protected and to some degree (imo) they should be made accessible so they can stay protected/respected :>

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#126

Post by sliverstorm »

sneak wrote: post #122
corin_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a conversation about whether or not to add man-made touches to natural beauty... you didn't mention modifying natural beauty, but an already man-made thing.

The works of men, and men themselves, are part of nature. It is nothing short of hubris to believe otherwise. We, like all apex predators before us, will soon become extinct from this planet leaving only fossils in our wake. Nature encapsulates us - not the other way around.

The works of men, however, didn't take 17 million years to develop.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#127

Post by sliverstorm »

nsxwolf wrote: post #35
Fede_V wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because those people have no business being there. Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top. I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. If you aren't a great climber in fantastic physical shape, just don't go to Everest. I have the same kind of contempt for people who…

That's mountain climbing elitism. The "great climbers" made it look cool, then others with more money than skill figured out their own way to do it, and had a great time to boot. I'm sure that drives elitists nuts, kind of like how I'm sure software hackers building with Arduino makes EE majors nuts.

I'm a mountain climber. I'm not Everest caliber. It doesn't sound like elitism to me to say that only experienced, skilled, healthy climbers have any business on a deadly mountain, any more than if I said only experienced, skilled, healthy individuals had any business being a test pilot.

It's not elitism that I can't climb this rock or that mountain. It's the simple limit of my abilities. That's the beauty of it, really, because I have the same opportunity as anybody else- get better.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#128

Post by sliverstorm »

willwagner wrote: post #116
unreal37 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A gondola to a mountain climber is hardly the same thing as a helmet to a motorcyclist. More like a city bus to a motorcyclist.

Helmets much more readily compare to ice axes, crampons, weather forecasting, ropes, anchors, avalanche beacons, pulleys, radios... and helmets! Mountain climbers are not against safety.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#130

Post by gnaritas »

Retra wrote: post #78
gnaritas wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because those people have no business being there. Says who? Who are you to tell people where they have business being? > Those mountains are for genuine climbers that can earn their ascent there, not idiots with too much money and no respect for a mountain, who have sherpas basically push them to the top. Again, says who? > I hate this ridiculously entitled attitude. Like the one you're showing telling othe…

Where are you going with this? People climb Mt Everest and die. Who says they shouldn't be there? You are free to be a rotten corpse, too, if you like. Good decision-making requires good judgement. If you think judgement is unfair, then go ahead and make dumb decisions. Though the whole point of having a conversation is to find out how to make good decisions, not to defend bad ones in the name of some misplaced 'righ…

People die climbing it, that's not a justification for saying people don't belong there when what's being suggested it not climbing but riding up in an enclosed environment to tour it. Your position has no merit.
Post reply on HN