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

91–100 of 187 posts

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

#91

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Victerius wrote: post #74
weeksie wrote: post #50

Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road. A mine? Sure. Logging? Yup. Oil exploration? Yeah. A gravel road to an airport in Alaska? Come on. I haven't lived in Rural Alaska in 20 years but I was born and raised in a fishing village. People in the lower 48 have no understanding of the vastness of Alaska and how small a concession this really is. These specious environmental lawsuits are why no infras…

Quoted post unavailable.

This "we don't negotiate with terrorists" type thinking is going to come back to bite you the nanosecond the tables are turned and it's some interest you care about that's seeking some tiny compromise.

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

#93

Post by asdfk-12 »

Victerius wrote: post #74
weeksie wrote: post #50

Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road. A mine? Sure. Logging? Yup. Oil exploration? Yeah. A gravel road to an airport in Alaska? Come on. I haven't lived in Rural Alaska in 20 years but I was born and raised in a fishing village. People in the lower 48 have no understanding of the vastness of Alaska and how small a concession this really is. These specious environmental lawsuits are why no infras…

Quoted post unavailable.

Your view seems fundamentally misanthropic - instead of autochthonous population having access to a resource that you take for granted, you would rather kick them out into an expensive urban area where their life is disrupted? All for a perceived risk to a comparitively tiny corridor?

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

#94

Post by asdfk-12 »

WalterBright wrote: post #39
ivanhoe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whole US were a wilderness once... you're basically punishing them for not destroying their nature earlier on, like the rest of us did...

We have to stop the destruction of the wilderness at some point, or we'll all die.

Please consider visiting rural Alaska. It might be more vast than you imagine. Please consider there are people in this community who need access to a critical resource that you likely take for granted. This particular example isn't a good 'hill to die on'.

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

#95

Post by asdfk-12 »

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.

This reads like imperialism. Do you think Alaskans should be able to have a say in whether land is developed or improved adjacent to where you live, say, in Alabama? Wouldn't make much sense to me..

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

#96

Post by EB66 »

Victerius wrote: post #74
weeksie wrote: post #50

Atrocious to me that anybody would want to block that road. A mine? Sure. Logging? Yup. Oil exploration? Yeah. A gravel road to an airport in Alaska? Come on. I haven't lived in Rural Alaska in 20 years but I was born and raised in a fishing village. People in the lower 48 have no understanding of the vastness of Alaska and how small a concession this really is. These specious environmental lawsuits are why no infras…

Quoted post unavailable.

I came here to say exactly the same thing. Development always begets more development.

The rural wilderness that I grew up in is completely unrecognizable today. Acres and acres of essentially untouched forest now replaced with human housing. Creeks have dried up and animal life is a shadow of what it used to be. We used to have otters, beavers, deer, and more but they're long gone now. That transformation started with mundane uncontroversial things like gravel roads and basic utilities. But it grew to encompass much more as more people moved in.

If you accept that the diversity and abundance of plant and non-human animal life has instrinic value then it's awfully easy to say that blocking further human development in wild areas is the "right" thing to do.

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

#97

Post by ironmagma »

Victerius wrote: post #76
macinjosh wrote: post #61

Gas is $6 a gallon, poor families are going hungry, but ok… Human life should matter more than some self-hating environmentalists’ desire for the earth to be some perceived paradise devoid of humanity.

> Human life should matter more than This logic will lead to the complete destruction of all natural environments on the only planet in the solar system to host life, and then to our extinction. "They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."

All you have to do is go to LA or Orlando to see this principle in action. There’s nothing human about a tarmac.

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

#98

Post by tomjakubowski »

rayiner wrote: post #88
kinnth wrote: post #5

Yes the resident logic is a bait and switch for further developments. Wilderness should stay wild. Leave it as is and do nothing. It's amazing how many powerful politicians and obviously lobbied individuals keep trying to change that.

Blaming “politicians” is a canard. People in Alaska want to develop their land for the same reason people in New York and California did—for economic development and jobs. If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land.

The land in question belongs to the federal government*... we already pay them not to develop it, with taxes!

*: subject to the land swap, which Carter argues is illegal

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

#99

Post by Vladimof »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #87
zackees wrote: post #23

I understand the need to protect the environment from the destructive effects of farming, which consumes fast areas of land. But an airport? Really?

What’s wrong with helicopters?

The thing I hate the most about helicopters is that their flying altitude isn't restricted even over homes...

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

#100

Post by bee_rider »

thrdbndndn wrote: post #90
DennisP wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Close to the land" does not mean "close to that particular land."

Sorry for being obtuse, I genuinely don't get what that means. Don't almost every single person live close to the land?

Carter had a fairly rural upbringing.
Post reply on HN