4 ms·

Yes, we all like breaking into places in ways that 'nobody cares about', and we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to lo

Yes, we all like breaking into places in ways that 'nobody cares about', and we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for. But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet." And if you play confidence games like the author, you're making it more likely for other people seeking the same location to get caught and punished. Yes, the sunbeams that cut through the jagged broken windows of an abandoned train station are gorgeous, and the view from the top of a palatial tower is hard to beat. But it's also sort of like driving through a wetland or ignoring 'please stay on trail' signs in the wild; if we derive pleasure from these places and consider them special, showing them off and visiting them regularly without regard for conservation seems like a poor way to honor them. Honestly, I have trouble seeing the views espoused in this article as anything other than selfish. Even publicly-owned lands have limits on their use, because we all share these spaces. They don't belong to you, they belong to all of us, and that includes future generations who will have the same yearnings that we do. I'd be interested to hear other takes, but as an occasional trespasser, this manifesto feels disrespectful and I feel like it might paint the community of urban (and natural) explorers in a bad light.

larnmar 7y ago
Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone. If you find yourself saying “it’s okay that I break the rules” with a full awareness that if everyone broke the same rules it would be terrible, then you are exactly the kind of selfish asshole that is the usual answer to the question of “why we can’t have nice things”.
- silasdavis 7y ago
  Maybe certain nice things should be part of the commons anyway, or not exist at all. A luxury hotel by its existence occupies space and resource that could be put to some other use. Some people accessing it for free can be seen as a way of rebalancing that. I don't think the author would agree it would be terrible if everyone broke these rules. He is opposing rules he does not agree with. Rules made those who have accumulated land over a long period. There is clearly some nuance in how you might apply judgement on the justness of restriction of land, but it seems to me there are many cases it is largely unjustified and would not in practice cause harm to anyone to relax them. See for example the right to roam in Scotland.
- thablackbull 7y ago
  > Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. In Singapore, most people (80%) live in public housing. Some even have great views and allow the public to view as well, they just enforce quotas [1]. Thus, it seems to work as long as it was properly designed and intended to work that way - also helps that crime is virtually non-existent. [1] http://www.pinnacleduxton.com.sg/Public.html http://www.pinnacleduxton.com.sg/Public.html
  - fiblye 7y ago
    That whole system rides on your last statement. Plus that Singaporeans are generally raised to respect others and the space around them. Trying something like that in my own hometown, people would blast music from their phones because “hey bro we’re just having fun”, chow down and leave their garbage behind because “not my place so why should I care?”, and generally make a mess of everything. Letting anyone in would be an absolute disaster in some places.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has been studied. While I appreciate the wisdom behind Kant's categorical imperative, there are many activities in the world that lose all meaning and authenticity if you're not the only one, or one of the few, engaging in them. The current zeitgeist seems hell-bent on normalizing and averaging everything out, but assuming something is bad just because not everyone can do it seems to me like a recipe for a duller society. Related: > If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone. I think the problem here is the hotel choosing an obnoxious way of stopping it from happening. I think it should not be generalized into "if too many people do something, doing it will become impossible, which is bad", because arguably nobody doing it is even worse. It's like with non-renewable resources - yes, exploiting them now makes them inaccessible in the future, but not exploiting them ever is as if they didn't exist; the only utility there is is in the exploitation.
silasdavis 7y ago
You seem to be presenting a straw man argument about restriction of access for reasons of conservation and trying to generalise that to imply 'disrespecting boundaries' of any kind is therefore bad without justification. What about denying access to a hotel's top floor or a private beach is about conservation? There are far more many examples of denying the right to roam that are about preserving privilege or sheer arbitrariness than about conservation.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for. Actually, that statement isn't true regarding me. When I see something beautiful, I really like to share the experience (even if not at the same moment) with other people. Seeing something beautiful, but only being able to tell others about it, is a bit sad for me.
Invictus0 7y ago
> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. We're talking about abandoned buildings here. They are already practically ruins; I don't see how this applies. Even in your public parks example, we develop natural spaces so people can enjoy them even though doing so requires clearing some portion of the land for roads and facilities. Overall I agree that trespassing is selfish but I don't see anything wrong with that if it doesn't harm anyone else.
jandrese 7y ago
> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet." We're talking about abandoned buildings here. The damage caused by someone walking around is inconsequential compared to the damage caused by nature and the elements. This does assume that the trespassers aren't smashing the windows or chopping down structural members or something. But that's not trespassing, that's vandalism.
4bpp 7y ago
It's not like everyone has to go off the same trail, or up the same tower, or onto the same hotel roof. There are hardly any single things on this planet that would not be ruined if everybody did them, but we still use them with the implicit understanding that there mostly are sufficiently many fungible replacements. Just because "Don't let any sheep graze; actually, just stop eating" technically is one solution to the motivating example for the Tragedy of the Commons, this doesn't mean that that has to be the solution that we actually choose.

larnmar 7y ago

Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone. If you find yourself saying “it’s okay that I break the rules” with a full awareness that if everyone broke the same rules it would be terrible, then you are exactly the kind of selfish asshole that is the usual answer to the question of “why we can’t have nice things”.

silasdavis 7y ago
Maybe certain nice things should be part of the commons anyway, or not exist at all. A luxury hotel by its existence occupies space and resource that could be put to some other use. Some people accessing it for free can be seen as a way of rebalancing that. I don't think the author would agree it would be terrible if everyone broke these rules. He is opposing rules he does not agree with. Rules made those who have accumulated land over a long period. There is clearly some nuance in how you might apply judgement on the justness of restriction of land, but it seems to me there are many cases it is largely unjustified and would not in practice cause harm to anyone to relax them. See for example the right to roam in Scotland.
thablackbull 7y ago
> Indeed. Even the relatively harmless example of going up to a hotel floor to look at the view out of (I assume) the lift lobby is something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. In Singapore, most people (80%) live in public housing. Some even have great views and allow the public to view as well, they just enforce quotas [1]. Thus, it seems to work as long as it was properly designed and intended to work that way - also helps that crime is virtually non-existent. [1] http://www.pinnacleduxton.com.sg/Public.html http://www.pinnacleduxton.com.sg/Public.html
- fiblye 7y ago
  That whole system rides on your last statement. Plus that Singaporeans are generally raised to respect others and the space around them. Trying something like that in my own hometown, people would blast music from their phones because “hey bro we’re just having fun”, chow down and leave their garbage behind because “not my place so why should I care?”, and generally make a mess of everything. Letting anyone in would be an absolute disaster in some places.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> something that only works if you’re the only one doing it. Tangential, but I wonder if there's a name for this, and how much it has been studied. While I appreciate the wisdom behind Kant's categorical imperative, there are many activities in the world that lose all meaning and authenticity if you're not the only one, or one of the few, engaging in them. The current zeitgeist seems hell-bent on normalizing and averaging everything out, but assuming something is bad just because not everyone can do it seems to me like a recipe for a duller society. Related: > If a bunch of people start doing it then all of a sudden guests start noticing crowds of people outside their rooms, the hotel is obliged to post security guards to stop it happening, and bingo, suddenly life is slightly worse for everyone. I think the problem here is the hotel choosing an obnoxious way of stopping it from happening. I think it should not be generalized into "if too many people do something, doing it will become impossible, which is bad", because arguably nobody doing it is even worse. It's like with non-renewable resources - yes, exploiting them now makes them inaccessible in the future, but not exploiting them ever is as if they didn't exist; the only utility there is is in the exploitation.

silasdavis 7y ago

You seem to be presenting a straw man argument about restriction of access for reasons of conservation and trying to generalise that to imply 'disrespecting boundaries' of any kind is therefore bad without justification. What about denying access to a hotel's top floor or a private beach is about conservation? There are far more many examples of denying the right to roam that are about preserving privilege or sheer arbitrariness than about conservation.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

> we all like beholding beautiful scenes which a majority of people don't think to look for. Actually, that statement isn't true regarding me. When I see something beautiful, I really like to share the experience (even if not at the same moment) with other people. Seeing something beautiful, but only being able to tell others about it, is a bit sad for me.

Invictus0 7y ago

> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. We're talking about abandoned buildings here. They are already practically ruins; I don't see how this applies. Even in your public parks example, we develop natural spaces so people can enjoy them even though doing so requires clearing some portion of the land for roads and facilities. Overall I agree that trespassing is selfish but I don't see anything wrong with that if it doesn't harm anyone else.

jandrese 7y ago

> But there's a reason why most places discourage this sort of freewheeling exploration; when you visit a place and disrespect its boundaries, you often end up damaging it for the people who come after you. Even footsteps will eventually wear away stones, knock things loose, and disturb delicate habitats/ecosystems such as fungi. As the old saying goes, "plants grow by inches, but they die by feet." We're talking about abandoned buildings here. The damage caused by someone walking around is inconsequential compared to the damage caused by nature and the elements. This does assume that the trespassers aren't smashing the windows or chopping down structural members or something. But that's not trespassing, that's vandalism.

4bpp 7y ago

It's not like everyone has to go off the same trail, or up the same tower, or onto the same hotel roof. There are hardly any single things on this planet that would not be ruined if everybody did them, but we still use them with the implicit understanding that there mostly are sufficiently many fungible replacements. Just because "Don't let any sheep graze; actually, just stop eating" technically is one solution to the motivating example for the Tragedy of the Commons, this doesn't mean that that has to be the solution that we actually choose.