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

61–70 of 134 posts

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#61

Post by mcguire »

codyb wrote: post #41
npongratz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of people ascend to the height of Everest's summit every day, extremely quickly. I imagine that such a purpose-built gondola would, like modern jets, have a pressurized cabin.

Millions of people haven't even summited Everest (much less everyday, can you imagine? It's like Dane Cook's skit about thousands of firefighters). The numbers around 4,000 according to a quick google search. And it's a multi day trip with plenty of acclimatization stops. Not only that but 100s of those 4000 have perished. It's not some trivial walk around the park just because it's not considered one of the hardest…

"Millions of people haven't even summited Everest..."

Millions of people travel in commercial airliners every day, at altitudes greater than the summit of Everest.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#62

Post by johngalt »

I agree that the park is beautiful, and perhaps development should consider better locations. However the Grand Canyon national park is huge. Something like 2000 square miles. Anyone claiming that there should be no development, or that this will 'ruin the grand canyon' is incorrect.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#63

Post by cgh »

japhyr wrote: post #4

A gondola ride to the bottom of the Grand Canyon would be like a gondola ride to the top of Everest. These projects are deeply frustrating because all the developers have to do is get them built once - they can essentially fail as many times as they need to in order to get their project built. If you oppose this kind of project, you have to succeed in your efforts over and over again. If you fail once, the wild natur…

We fought a similar gondola project in my town and won. Developers wanted to build a gondola to the top of the Stawamus Chief, a big granite monolith on the edge of town. It got shot down. The fact that it's a provincial park probably helped. The gondola got built in a more suitable location, to the top of a nearby ridge, and now everyone is happy.

Hopefully the people organising against this Grand Canyon silliness see similar success.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#64

Post by mcguire »

raldi wrote: post #44
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…

One might similarly say people in wheelchairs have no business seeing the view from a tall building, or that only able-bodied seamen deserve to travel around the world.

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 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? That it's more important than preserving those areas for the future?

A while back, I had the opportunity to visit Blarney Castle in Ireland. As it turns out, the castle is an unreconstructed ruin; if you want to kiss the stone or at least take in the view, you have to climb a long, cramped, tight, steep spiral staircase. I'm old, out of shape, arthritic, and not fond of being the cause of a fairly large scale body recovery in the middle of a major tourist attraction, so I didn't go up. So far, I haven't noticed any consequences of the lack, and from what I enjoyed about the site, I'd just as soon they didn't strap an elevator to the side of the tower.

Everest tourism has costs, both in terms of sheer litter and in the lives of people who probably shouldn't be doing it anyway. Grand Canyon development also has costs which would reduce the value of the site. Are those costs worth the benefits?

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#65

Post by mcguire »

unreal37 wrote: post #56
sp332 wrote: post #10

Earlier 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…

Some dangerous things are worth doing, in spite of being dangerous. Some dangerous things are worth mitigating the danger so more people can do them. Some dangerous things aren't really all that worthwhile.

Wisdom is knowing the difference. Or something.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#66

Post by BCharlie »

"...who like the idea of enabling a large number of people to enjoy the great canyon’s very heart, a stunningly beautiful and remote site long inaccessible to the masses."

Don't they realize that being remote and inaccessible is a big part of what makes it stunningly beautiful? The moment you arrive there with 10,000 other people, the place will no longer have what you came there to see.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#67

Post by raldi »

mcguire wrote: post #64
raldi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might similarly say people in wheelchairs have no business seeing the view from a tall building, or that only able-bodied seamen deserve to travel around the world.

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 outweigh the costs. There's plenty of canyon for everyone. Let one section be for families, children, the elderly and lazy. There will still be plenty of trails for hikers who want to get away from all that.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#68

Post by mcguire »

johngalt wrote: post #62

I agree that the park is beautiful, and perhaps development should consider better locations. However the Grand Canyon national park is huge. Something like 2000 square miles. Anyone claiming that there should be no development, or that this will 'ruin the grand canyon' is incorrect.

2000 square miles is a circle with a radius of about, what, 25 miles? Have you ever been to the American southwest?

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#69

Post by anomicron »

shas3 wrote: post #60
unreal37 wrote: post #53

Earlier 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…

The 'western rim' is not inside the National Park [1]. The 'legit' Grand Canyon, the one covered by the National Park is very accessible (the rim)! [1] http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/skywalk.htm

SkyWalk is a tourist trap, expensive as hell. You are not even allowed cameras on the actual skywalk, so you have to buy their photos. The skywalk itself is an inslut to nature. I hope I knew a way of getting to the Canyon from Las Vegas without having to pay this robbers.

Re: Who Can Save the Grand Canyon?

#70

Post by corin_ »

raldi wrote: post #57
saganus wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he means the fact that the GW is man-made instead of a natural phenomenon.

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.
Post reply on HN