CSW History class discussions Forum Index CSW History class discussions
Discussion and debate of topics for our classes
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 




Industrial Tourism and a Public Park
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CSW History class discussions Forum Index -> US Environmental History
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mjoyce



Joined: 03 Jan 2011
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have only been to one national park, Arcadia National Park in Maine. I was six or seven at the time, and I don’t think I really appreciated the experience....

This reading points out the hypocrisy of some of the tourists at national parks. “Oh, I would love to go to a beautiful national park and get closer to nature, as long as I have my RV, DVD player, motorboat, and gas guzzling devices.” National parks make money, and the acceptance of these devices is to attract more tourists. Abbey’s frustration with industrial tourism and how parks changed when the government made them accessable to cars is totally understandable.

I thought I would try to answer some of Will B’s questions:

Does land where humans cannot go exist anywhere?

I know there are a lot of historical sites that people are not allowed to go, because of the fragility/value of artifacts inside (and the need to protect the site), but I’m not so sure about land that humans are not allowed to go on it. I know there is a lot of conservation land that cannot be built upon/altered, but people can walk there if it is publicly owned. Some ecosystems that are being studied by scientists have areas that are closed of to the public. Also, most public lands have restrictions on how it can be used, and these restrictions may include not hunting, not driving on the land, etc.

Would there be value in setting aside land in which humans literally could not go, even on foot?
Since humans are a part of ecosystems, I don’t think taking humans completely out of the equation is the answer. Obviously cars/industrial things are not part of an ecosystem, so removing them would be beneficial.

The value of “untouched wilderness” makes me think about endangered species. If a species is endangered, should humans create a designated area where the species can procreate and repopulate without human interference? Or should humans be more involved (raising the remaining species in captivity)?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Free Forum






PostPosted:      Post subject: ForumsLand.com

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CSW History class discussions Forum Index -> US Environmental History All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Forum hosted by ForumsLand.com - 100% free forum. Powered by phpBB 2.