6 ms·
Yes the resident logic is a bait and switch for further developments. Wilderness should stay wild. Leave it as is and do nothing. It's amazing how many powerful
by kinnth 4y ago
Yes the resident logic is a bait and switch for further developments. Wilderness should stay wild. Leave it as is and do nothing. It's amazing how many powerful politicians and obviously lobbied individuals keep trying to change that.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y agoThe residents in this particular area have been complaining for 30+ years (somewhat loudly) to the Alaskan government that they don't have access to basic commerce. There's no road! Jimmy Carter doesn't want to build a road to meet these people?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- macinjosh 4y ago
- rc_mob 4y agoThis logic leads to extinction of many animal species
- stefan_ 4y agoAnd yet more spawn. You know they started cataloging species to "document gods work"; rooted in ignorance and ever since Darwin we know that is futile, and mostly silly.
- ericmay 4y agoWhat I question is whether or not we really need to further develop a lot of natural spaces with sprawl and waste. I’m not sure why protecting untouched lands is “hating your own humanity” either. In fact I think it’s the opposite - it’s getting in touch with the core essence of being human, which is part of being in a natural environment, which we have less of because we have been tricked to think we more strip malls that are ugly and dumb compared to even the most barren in disturbed landscape. Hating humanity is destroying our history and our environment so we can pave roads and build another fast food chain. In a place like Iceland you’ll find undisturbed volcanic rock and moss. It’s more beautiful than all but the greatest brick house neighborhoods , monasteries built on cliff sides, castles, and Brooklyn Bridges. There are very few government run agencies or programs that get voluntary donations. NASA is one, our national parks are the other. It’s obvious.
- EB66 4y agoIs this sarcasm? Is there a single example in the history of mankind where mass human development has not led to the significant decline of plant and animal species in the surrounding areas? If you accept that the diversity and abundance of plant and non-human animal life has instrinic value then it's an awfully easy to say that blocking further human development in wild areas is the "right" thing to do.
- rayiner 4y agoBlaming “politicians” is a canard. People in Alaska want to develop their land for the same reason people in New York and California did—for economic development and jobs. If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land.
- tomjakubowski 4y agoThe land in question belongs to the federal government*... we already pay them not to develop it, with taxes! *: subject to the land swap, which Carter argues is illegal
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lovich 4y ago> If other folks value the wilderness so much, they should pay folks in Alaska not to develop their land. We did. Congress used our tax dollars to purchase Alaska and then later on carved out part of that purchase as this reserve. It is in no way more their land than it is the New Yorker’s or the Californian’s.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cudgy 4y agoWasn’t California purchased from Mexico? According to this logic, the only people that truly own land to develop as they please are those that own property in areas that were seized from Indians without compensation like the original East Coast states.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lovich 4y agoMore like, the national parks in California that are owned by the federal government aren’t free to be developed on. Again the Alaskans don’t want to develop their own land. They want to develop on the land that is jointly owned and that the rest of society wants to have remain undeveloped. When you don’t have sole ownership of a piece of property you don’t have sole say in its use. I am sorry that’s Alaskans feel upset that they don’t have the right to use our property as they see fit