3 ms·

Because it's beautiful. Because we can and should preserve Earth's natural monuments. Because fragile and vulnerable species live there and nowhere else. Have

Because it's beautiful. Because we can and should preserve Earth's natural monuments. Because fragile and vulnerable species live there and nowhere else. Have you ever been to Death Valley National Park? I was never interested in it until my SO dragged me there. Never did I imagine it would be as incredible as it was. It is otherworldly; surreal; lunar (or martian - if you prefer). It almost feels like you are no longer on Earth. Ubehebe crater is a geological monument. The alluvial fans are so vast as to be almost incomprehensibly large. Surprise canyon is gorgeous. The racetrack playa is home to wandering stones that seemingly migrate of their own accord. Teakettle junction is a fantastic reminder of the trials of many generations of settlers. Badwater basin, Telescope peak, Artists' Palette, Zabriskie Point, Golden Canyon, the wildflower blooms, unique wildlife, etc. etc. are all amazing sights and features of a desert that's apparently not "much more worthy of protection" that are found nowhere else on Earth. Death Valley is a severely underrated and under-visited national park that is, in my opinion, far more impressive than Joshua Tree NP, for example. Or Pinnacles NP. Or Cuyahoga NP or Acadia NP or others. If I were you, I would go visit DVNP.

chr1 7y ago
The question is about choosing what to protect while we can't protect everything. There are enough lunar and martian landscapes on moon and mars. Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? My viewpoint seems to be highly unpopular here, but i didn't see any good argument why significantly reducing the number of deserts on earth is not a good thing. Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.
- wcarron 7y ago
  > Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? I don't even know how to address this. Are you suggesting that DV was "covered in trees" or heavily forested 10k years ago? That is irrefutably incorrect. > Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china. What? Again, you've never even been there. You have zero idea of "what features would be lost". You expose your ignorance more and more with each sentence. Educate yourself on the history, geology, and ecology of the area before you talk out of your ass about places you've never been to.
  - chr1 7y ago
    Not heavily forested but covered by a lake and vegetation very different from current one with many juniper trees see for instance ihttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41424512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/41424512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Manly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Manly. Do you believe it have always been a very arid desert? I have never been to death valey, and i live far enough from it to make traveling there not worth the time. But with the invention of books, images, and videos one doesn't have to be at a place to know about it. You seem to have a very strong emotional attachment to the place, but i would argue that it only adds bias to your judgement.

chr1 7y ago

The question is about choosing what to protect while we can't protect everything. There are enough lunar and martian landscapes on moon and mars. Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? My viewpoint seems to be highly unpopular here, but i didn't see any good argument why significantly reducing the number of deserts on earth is not a good thing. Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china.

wcarron 7y ago
> Do you think these places were less impressive/worse 10K years ago when they had forests and lakes? And why must we preserve them in current desolate state instead of restoring to the older state when they could sustain more life? I don't even know how to address this. Are you suggesting that DV was "covered in trees" or heavily forested 10k years ago? That is irrefutably incorrect. > Death valley doesn't even have any features that would be lost because of trees unlike for instance rainbow mountains in china. What? Again, you've never even been there. You have zero idea of "what features would be lost". You expose your ignorance more and more with each sentence. Educate yourself on the history, geology, and ecology of the area before you talk out of your ass about places you've never been to.
- chr1 7y ago
  Not heavily forested but covered by a lake and vegetation very different from current one with many juniper trees see for instance ihttps://www.jstor.org/stable/41424512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/41424512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_co... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Manly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Manly. Do you believe it have always been a very arid desert? I have never been to death valey, and i live far enough from it to make traveling there not worth the time. But with the invention of books, images, and videos one doesn't have to be at a place to know about it. You seem to have a very strong emotional attachment to the place, but i would argue that it only adds bias to your judgement.