5 ms·

"Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then do

by jcurbo 8y ago

"Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then don't say where they were taken. It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying." This is sheer nonsense and IS ridiculous gatekeeping. Ensuring people who want to experience beauty need to put in work for it? Some people may never be able to visit these places, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to afford or have time off to travel. You might as well say they should never look at book of photos either, or they can never look at a painting without becoming an artist first. Maybe they would never gain a love of the outdoors if they had never seen some of these photos first and wanted to see more? Now, I agree with the sentiment that there can be tourist overload on places, and that they should be managed well so they aren't destroyed. But 'digital leave no trace' is just nonsense. We should be sharing the beauty of the world, not restricting it.

Roritharr 8y ago
I agree, the absurdity of the notion of digital gatekeeping of beauty becomes apparent if we think what the first pictures of our planet from space have done for the ecology movement. People need to experience to connect. Take that away and living in air conditioned condos and driving big diesel SUVs to the next strip mall for your latte is just how the world is supposed to be.
ahelwer 8y ago
It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.
- eanzenberg 8y ago
  Literally the same argument was made when blacks tried to move into predominately white neighborhoods. “Oh it’s never been the same since, we had to leave to a more exclusive town.” As long as gates break down new ones will emerge. That surfing spot down thr road is now 5x busy as it was a decade ago? Doesn’t matter, those with means already moved onwards to the better exclusive spot on some remote island.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > invested in an activity Odd phrase. "Invested" in your own amusement? And that trumps others' right to be in the same place? The ones with "skin in the game" are the residents, owners, and/or official caretakers. If they want to let the unwashed masses in, as seems to be the case, who are you to overrule them? Instead of trying to exclude people, maybe we should educate people about what not to do and why not, providing facilities to contain the damage, hiring personnel to enforce rules and/or ameliorate damage as much as they can, etc. I've been an active hiker, occasional backpacker, etc. for many years. Longer than most HNers have been alive. I've seen plenty of the damage that crowds can do. But I still realize that turning public places into private preserves for the most privileged is not an acceptable alternative.
  - ahelwer 8y ago
    1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible. 2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. 3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org. 4. Educating people costs money. Providing facilities costs money. Hiring personnel costs money. Ameliorating damage costs money. These things all happen, but they cost money, and nobody is champing at the bit to pay. The approach many in the outdoors community take is indeed everything you suggest, plus an information diet to concentrate use on trails which have seen a lot of work and can handle the traffic.
    - 8y ago

by jcurbo 8y ago

Roritharr 8y ago

I agree, the absurdity of the notion of digital gatekeeping of beauty becomes apparent if we think what the first pictures of our planet from space have done for the ecology movement. People need to experience to connect. Take that away and living in air conditioned condos and driving big diesel SUVs to the next strip mall for your latte is just how the world is supposed to be.

ahelwer 8y ago

It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.

eanzenberg 8y ago
Literally the same argument was made when blacks tried to move into predominately white neighborhoods. “Oh it’s never been the same since, we had to leave to a more exclusive town.” As long as gates break down new ones will emerge. That surfing spot down thr road is now 5x busy as it was a decade ago? Doesn’t matter, those with means already moved onwards to the better exclusive spot on some remote island.
notacoward 8y ago
> invested in an activity Odd phrase. "Invested" in your own amusement? And that trumps others' right to be in the same place? The ones with "skin in the game" are the residents, owners, and/or official caretakers. If they want to let the unwashed masses in, as seems to be the case, who are you to overrule them? Instead of trying to exclude people, maybe we should educate people about what not to do and why not, providing facilities to contain the damage, hiring personnel to enforce rules and/or ameliorate damage as much as they can, etc. I've been an active hiker, occasional backpacker, etc. for many years. Longer than most HNers have been alive. I've seen plenty of the damage that crowds can do. But I still realize that turning public places into private preserves for the most privileged is not an acceptable alternative.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible. 2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion. 3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org. 4. Educating people costs money. Providing facilities costs money. Hiring personnel costs money. Ameliorating damage costs money. These things all happen, but they cost money, and nobody is champing at the bit to pay. The approach many in the outdoors community take is indeed everything you suggest, plus an information diet to concentrate use on trails which have seen a lot of work and can handle the traffic.
  - 8y ago