3 ms·

The access to nature is sold, including at national parks [1], just as access to the resources is sold. In both cases, there's a market need being fulfilled; t

by alehul 9y ago

The access to nature is sold, including at national parks [1], just as access to the resources is sold. In both cases, there's a market need being fulfilled; that's even more defendable for the resource extraction, as they're a business which must make an economic profit, or otherwise die. I'm not defending resource extraction above preservation, however the above poster did make a solid point on the morality issue. [1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-raises-entrance-fees-national-parks/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/u-s-raises-entrance-fees...

mikeash 9y ago
The access to nature is sold, but not by the people advocating for it. Imagine if people who advocate for cutting timber on public land proposed that the government should cut down the trees and sell the results, because they just love lumber and want everyone to have access to high-quality lumber.
- alehul 9y ago
  National park infrastructure to access the nature requires funding, and thus the selling of access is inherent, so indirectly, yes. I see your perspective that it's different as the lumber companies are telling the government "Hey, we should cut down all these trees, and I should sell them for profit!". The OP's point, though, is that the only reason the lumber company would make a profit is because there is a need for the lumber, and people will pay for it. It's still morally identical in terms of people having a desired use for the land, just with the corporation as a middleman.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    I see a huge moral difference between advocating for destructive resource extraction on public land where you'll be profiting from selling those resources to others, and advocating for non-destructive access to public land where you make no monetary gain, and your only benefit is the personal benefit all visitors experience.

by alehul 9y ago

mikeash 9y ago

The access to nature is sold, but not by the people advocating for it. Imagine if people who advocate for cutting timber on public land proposed that the government should cut down the trees and sell the results, because they just love lumber and want everyone to have access to high-quality lumber.

alehul 9y ago
National park infrastructure to access the nature requires funding, and thus the selling of access is inherent, so indirectly, yes. I see your perspective that it's different as the lumber companies are telling the government "Hey, we should cut down all these trees, and I should sell them for profit!". The OP's point, though, is that the only reason the lumber company would make a profit is because there is a need for the lumber, and people will pay for it. It's still morally identical in terms of people having a desired use for the land, just with the corporation as a middleman.
- mikeash 9y ago
  I see a huge moral difference between advocating for destructive resource extraction on public land where you'll be profiting from selling those resources to others, and advocating for non-destructive access to public land where you make no monetary gain, and your only benefit is the personal benefit all visitors experience.