3 ms·

I don't mean for this reply to sound rantish... but this is pretty short term thinking. Not maintaining a tremendously valuable asset (nearly priceless) is a w

I don't mean for this reply to sound rantish... but this is pretty short term thinking. Not maintaining a tremendously valuable asset (nearly priceless) is a waste.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
People who don't hike or use nature recreationally tend to view it as completely useless. They do have a bit of a point. The asset isn't really being maintained. It's being maintained for human use as recreation. Overall you don't need to really maintain wilderness to preserve it. Overall you just leave it untouched. You would actually do a better job if you locked down the entire area and just spent the money on keeping everyone out as my own self fish usage of nature as recreation harms it more then it helps it.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  >You would actually do a better job if you locked down the entire area and just spent the money on keeping everyone out as my own self fish usage of nature as recreation harms it more then it helps it. That would work until a mining company wanted to extract oxygen from Yellowstone Quartz and met with zero public opposition to making use of "empty land."
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    oh good point. Public opposition is what stops it from happening not the word of law.
- exabrial 2y ago
  This is even more short term thinking and a bit of ignorance. Where do you think all of the ‘stuff’ around you came from? Everything starts as raw materials, most of them organic. And besides how selfish would it be to preserve nothing for the future generations.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    I'm literally saying preserve it by keeping everyone out.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      It's a political problem. If people can't actually use the wilderness, you will lose public support for keeping the wilderness. It will all end up being sold to the highest bidder and destroyed.
    - exabrial 2y ago
      This is exact opposite of preservation, forests don’t preserve themselves since humans arrived! This line of thinking has lead to crazy intense wildfires. Even grasslands require regular maintenance. Invasive species are the biggest problem. Fuel buildup is another. Ignoring the problem is the third.
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        Your claims are inconsistent. First you say I’m selfish then I prove to you I’m not by emphasizing my original claim was anything but selfish. Now your claim is forests don’t preserve themselves since humans arrived? First off my solution is to reverse the arrival of humans. Second your claims are inconsistent as they’ve changed. I don’t think you’re maintaining a clear and consistent thought process you’re just attacking me from every possible angle. We should be having a discussion here, don’t get defensive.
- jjulius 2y ago
  See: Designated wilderness areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wilderness_areas_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wilderness_areas_of_th...
tonymet 2y ago
I'm talking about the value of the land , not the maintenance costs

I don't mean for this reply to sound rantish... but this is pretty short term thinking. Not maintaining a tremendously valuable asset (nearly priceless) is a waste.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

People who don't hike or use nature recreationally tend to view it as completely useless. They do have a bit of a point. The asset isn't really being maintained. It's being maintained for human use as recreation. Overall you don't need to really maintain wilderness to preserve it. Overall you just leave it untouched. You would actually do a better job if you locked down the entire area and just spent the money on keeping everyone out as my own self fish usage of nature as recreation harms it more then it helps it.

whatshisface 2y ago
>You would actually do a better job if you locked down the entire area and just spent the money on keeping everyone out as my own self fish usage of nature as recreation harms it more then it helps it. That would work until a mining company wanted to extract oxygen from Yellowstone Quartz and met with zero public opposition to making use of "empty land."
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  oh good point. Public opposition is what stops it from happening not the word of law.
exabrial 2y ago
This is even more short term thinking and a bit of ignorance. Where do you think all of the ‘stuff’ around you came from? Everything starts as raw materials, most of them organic. And besides how selfish would it be to preserve nothing for the future generations.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  I'm literally saying preserve it by keeping everyone out.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    It's a political problem. If people can't actually use the wilderness, you will lose public support for keeping the wilderness. It will all end up being sold to the highest bidder and destroyed.
  - exabrial 2y ago
    This is exact opposite of preservation, forests don’t preserve themselves since humans arrived! This line of thinking has lead to crazy intense wildfires. Even grasslands require regular maintenance. Invasive species are the biggest problem. Fuel buildup is another. Ignoring the problem is the third.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Your claims are inconsistent. First you say I’m selfish then I prove to you I’m not by emphasizing my original claim was anything but selfish. Now your claim is forests don’t preserve themselves since humans arrived? First off my solution is to reverse the arrival of humans. Second your claims are inconsistent as they’ve changed. I don’t think you’re maintaining a clear and consistent thought process you’re just attacking me from every possible angle. We should be having a discussion here, don’t get defensive.
jjulius 2y ago
See: Designated wilderness areas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wilderness_areas_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wilderness_areas_of_th...

tonymet 2y ago

I'm talking about the value of the land , not the maintenance costs