3 ms·
The point is, you misspoke, you would use it. By other factors I mean I prefer to judge it based on the impact rather than the concept. What would it mean to
by WhitneyLand 9y ago
The point is, you misspoke, you would use it.
By other factors I mean I prefer to judge it based on the impact rather than the concept. What would it mean to the environment, the beauty, the silence, the safety however insignificant you want to make it.
For you it seems to be an issue of principle, for me it’s matter of what would be the real and practical effects. If it’s as bad as you’re suggesting I’d be against it, but not for spiritual reasons.
- wcarron 9y agoWouldn't each and every person use it were it available? But we accept risk when we go into national parks. They are intended to be wilderness. They are not your town park and this is posted many times throughout them. The idea that it might "Save just one" makes it a viable option is false. Danger is a beautiful part of nature and destroying the last vestiges of Earth as close to beyond human influence as possible in order to cover edge cases is ignorant of the realities of life. We don't mourn the wing-suiters who crash into mountains on their flights. The same for the people who venture into dangerous territory. Otherwise, where is the limit for abdicating the responsibility of our own safety?