5 ms·

Can you explain the hate for rock cairns to me? I don't hike so I'm not creating them, but to me they seem to violate the letter of "leave no trace", but not t

Can you explain the hate for rock cairns to me? I don't hike so I'm not creating them, but to me they seem to violate the letter of "leave no trace", but not the spirit.

Spooky23 5y ago
Ultimately parks belong to all of us. People putting up these things are really planting a flag out of a sense of pride. The problem with emotional acts is that it provokes different responses in people. An innocent stack of rocks gets bested by a bigger one. The bigger stack gets bested by a wider one. The wider one gets trumped by a painted one, and so on. Look at the example of Mt Everest. Many parts of it are a high altitude garbage dump, turning a unique place into a sort of monument to the throngs of bored dentists looking for a thrill.
avidiax 5y ago
They destroy the natural environment. Perhaps not as much as if you cut down the trees and built a cabin, but you are still changing the natural landscape in a way that sticks out like a sore thumb.
- nzmsv 5y ago
  So only non-human animals are allowed to interact with the environment? Humans are not part of nature?
  - npteljes 5y ago
    Yes, I think this is the idea. That people go out in the nature, and want to see as few man-made stuff (or other people) as possible. I think it's especially bad in places where otherwise the nature seems undisturbed.
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      This concept is a bit weird if you think about it though. This is about Homo sapiens enjoying a model (according to Homo sapiens) of a world where Homo sapiens does not exist. This model world is confined to precise borders defined by Homo sapiens and other Homo sapiens are expected to play along and maintain this illusion. We Homo sapiens call that "nature" and love to drive there in our cars and walk around.
      - npteljes 5y ago
        I agree, "nature", as we talk about it, is definitely a spectrum. Like how much "from scratch" people make a spaghetti for example. Is it from scratch if you buy the sauce? If you make the sauce from store bought tomato and sauce powder? Only if it's from tomato and spices that you mix yourself? Or only if the tomato is from your own garden? Definitely interesting to explore these boundaries.
        nzmsv 5y ago
        The thing is, the argument against stacking rocks or playing music is intellectually dishonest. Other species have no qualms about modifying their environment. A crow on a tree won't shut up. A squirrel will not decide to carry a nut to a specific location in the name of sustainability. They are perfectly selfish and engaged in a war for survival. That is what species actually do, naturally. The people who are against music and cairns in parks are not protecting any natural law. They are protecting their specific terraforming project, a park. It is driven by a purely human concept of "sustainability" and cannot possibly be something that existed in a world without humans. Now, that is a nice terraforming project they are protecting (notice how "nice" is another human concept?) We also tend to spend a lot of energy protecting species that trigger the same neural pathways in our brains as human babies, even if the species would most likely go extinct without our intervention (pandas). What environmentalism actually does is act as a brake on our other terraforming projects, allowing us to go on terraforming longer and not turn our environment into something inhospitable. But even that is entirely anthropocentric.
        deleted 5y ago
  - pdpi 5y ago
    It’s polite to not redecorate somebody else’s home while you’re visiting. When you go to a park, you’re a guest at somebody else’s home.
    - hammyhavoc 5y ago
      The same could be said of areas where we cut down all the trees and named streets after them.
    - nzmsv 5y ago
      Sure, and I like my nature walks as much as the next person. I just find it weird that after pushing animals into what amounts to a reservation and doing as we please to the environment outside of these carefully drafted borders we worry so much about a stack of rocks. You know, a squirrel can carry an acorn around too and have an effect on where an oak tree will grow. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. The so-called home for these animals is as much our artificial creation as a factory or a nuclear power plant.
pdpi 5y ago
In some ways I’d argue it’s a particularly egregious violation of the spirit of leave no trace. Littering saves yourself the hassle of cleaning up after yourself. Leaving crash pads behind serves a need for safety. These are selfish acts that benefit you for practical reasons while ignoring the well-being of the environment around you. Rock cairns, while (probably) less damaging, serve no purpose other than leaving a trace for the sake of leaving a trace.
- speedybird 5y ago
  Isn't damage to the environment the most important consideration? Crash pads are made of polymer foams and doubtlessly degrade over time, polluting the environment. That seems indisputably worse to me that stacking a few rocks.
a_f 5y ago
Apparently they can also give a false sense of being on the right track, and lead to inexperienced hikers getting lost.

Can you explain the hate for rock cairns to me? I don't hike so I'm not creating them, but to me they seem to violate the letter of "leave no trace", but not the spirit.

Spooky23 5y ago

Ultimately parks belong to all of us. People putting up these things are really planting a flag out of a sense of pride. The problem with emotional acts is that it provokes different responses in people. An innocent stack of rocks gets bested by a bigger one. The bigger stack gets bested by a wider one. The wider one gets trumped by a painted one, and so on. Look at the example of Mt Everest. Many parts of it are a high altitude garbage dump, turning a unique place into a sort of monument to the throngs of bored dentists looking for a thrill.

avidiax 5y ago

They destroy the natural environment. Perhaps not as much as if you cut down the trees and built a cabin, but you are still changing the natural landscape in a way that sticks out like a sore thumb.

nzmsv 5y ago
So only non-human animals are allowed to interact with the environment? Humans are not part of nature?
- npteljes 5y ago
  Yes, I think this is the idea. That people go out in the nature, and want to see as few man-made stuff (or other people) as possible. I think it's especially bad in places where otherwise the nature seems undisturbed.
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    This concept is a bit weird if you think about it though. This is about Homo sapiens enjoying a model (according to Homo sapiens) of a world where Homo sapiens does not exist. This model world is confined to precise borders defined by Homo sapiens and other Homo sapiens are expected to play along and maintain this illusion. We Homo sapiens call that "nature" and love to drive there in our cars and walk around.
    - npteljes 5y ago
      I agree, "nature", as we talk about it, is definitely a spectrum. Like how much "from scratch" people make a spaghetti for example. Is it from scratch if you buy the sauce? If you make the sauce from store bought tomato and sauce powder? Only if it's from tomato and spices that you mix yourself? Or only if the tomato is from your own garden? Definitely interesting to explore these boundaries.
      - nzmsv 5y ago
        The thing is, the argument against stacking rocks or playing music is intellectually dishonest. Other species have no qualms about modifying their environment. A crow on a tree won't shut up. A squirrel will not decide to carry a nut to a specific location in the name of sustainability. They are perfectly selfish and engaged in a war for survival. That is what species actually do, naturally. The people who are against music and cairns in parks are not protecting any natural law. They are protecting their specific terraforming project, a park. It is driven by a purely human concept of "sustainability" and cannot possibly be something that existed in a world without humans. Now, that is a nice terraforming project they are protecting (notice how "nice" is another human concept?) We also tend to spend a lot of energy protecting species that trigger the same neural pathways in our brains as human babies, even if the species would most likely go extinct without our intervention (pandas). What environmentalism actually does is act as a brake on our other terraforming projects, allowing us to go on terraforming longer and not turn our environment into something inhospitable. But even that is entirely anthropocentric.
        deleted 5y ago
- pdpi 5y ago
  It’s polite to not redecorate somebody else’s home while you’re visiting. When you go to a park, you’re a guest at somebody else’s home.
  - hammyhavoc 5y ago
    The same could be said of areas where we cut down all the trees and named streets after them.
  - nzmsv 5y ago
    Sure, and I like my nature walks as much as the next person. I just find it weird that after pushing animals into what amounts to a reservation and doing as we please to the environment outside of these carefully drafted borders we worry so much about a stack of rocks. You know, a squirrel can carry an acorn around too and have an effect on where an oak tree will grow. The only way to not affect the environment is to not exist. The so-called home for these animals is as much our artificial creation as a factory or a nuclear power plant.

pdpi 5y ago

In some ways I’d argue it’s a particularly egregious violation of the spirit of leave no trace. Littering saves yourself the hassle of cleaning up after yourself. Leaving crash pads behind serves a need for safety. These are selfish acts that benefit you for practical reasons while ignoring the well-being of the environment around you. Rock cairns, while (probably) less damaging, serve no purpose other than leaving a trace for the sake of leaving a trace.

speedybird 5y ago
Isn't damage to the environment the most important consideration? Crash pads are made of polymer foams and doubtlessly degrade over time, polluting the environment. That seems indisputably worse to me that stacking a few rocks.

a_f 5y ago

Apparently they can also give a false sense of being on the right track, and lead to inexperienced hikers getting lost.