Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:25 pm Post subject: Industrial Tourism and a Public Park
Since I am the first one to post I will start by answering some of Rachel’s questions.
Have you visited any? What stands out in your memory?
I have visited a few national parks. The most recent one I visited was Arcadia National Park. I loved it there and want to return because it was so beautiful. One of the things that stood out to me besides the beauty was the big RV’s in some of the campsites. The RV’s really are a small house on wheels. Many of them have tables, stoves and tvs in them. It seemed very like what happened in Arches National Park. “…have now been consolidated into one master campground that looks, during the busy season, like a suburban village: elaborate housetrailers of quilted aluminum crowd upon gigantic camper-trucks of Fiberglass and molded plastic; through their windows you will see the blue glow of television and hear the studio laughter of Los Angeles…” (274) National parks were created so people could have a place to get out of the city and immerse themselves in nature and see all the beauty. I completely agree with Abbey when he talks about industrial tourism being a threat but especially when he says “the chief victims of the system are the motorized tourists. They are being robbed and robbing themselves.” (276) This quote seems to summarize one of his main points well and the reason it is necessary to ban motorized vehicles from the park not only to better conserve the nature but to make it an even better experience for everyone.
People seem to love the idea of nature but when it comes down to it are not willing to put all their electric gadgets away and leave their cars behind for a few day at the risk of being slightly uncomfortable in a tent and tired from walking. I feel like because of this many people truly do not know what nature is and have not fully experienced it. I am not saying everyone is like this but I think it is safe to say that most people are like this. What is the point then of having national parks where people can visit if people either stay in their RV’s most of the day or zoom through the parks in their cars only to stop for a little while and continue on? Would’nt it just be better to have the National Parks off limits to people and just have them to conserve the environment? Or maybe like Abbey said motorized vehicles would not be allowed in any national parks? What do people think?
Gigi asked, “wouldn’t it be better to have the National Parks off limits to people and just have them to conserve the environment?”
Well, I think it depends on how we value nature. Part of the brilliance of Abbey’s essay is that it outlines different belief systems, rather than make assumptions about how we value nature. I think the articles we’ve read so far fall into three camps, which are:
I. Intact ecosystems have inherent value regardless of how they affect humanity. Nature self-justifies. We are responsible for protecting nature as a moral obligation.
II. Intact ecosystems are valuable insofar as they benefit us.
a. Their spiritual and recreational value counts as well as their practical uses. (Most people, I think, believe this- at least most folks at CSW).
b. Only their practical uses count (eg, wetlands prevent flooding, mountain forests prevent erosion and watershed damage, core reserves make sustainable resource management practical, etc)
III. Nature can and should be “completely subjugated” to the needs of humanity, or in the case of Abbey’s engineers, “not man, but industry”… just as the camp I believes that nature is an “intrinsic good”, camp III advocates for “all forms of construction and development [and] the eradication of the last wilderness”.
I don’t want us to get hung up on which one of these beliefs is “right”. I think we should simply consider how these ideas and the conflicts they generate affect culture and how we interact with the land.
Coming back to Gigi’s post: I think Abbey is a good example somebody who believes nature should only be enjoyed on its own terms, only by people who are willing to work for it. The more you are willing to schlep through mud and mountains and mosquitoes, the more opportunities you ought to have to be alone with natural beauty. When I went to Yellowstone NP, nearly all of the badass thermal features and mountains and crystal-clear lakes had been made car-accessible. They were also overrun with people.
Who ought to have access to the nicest parts of a park? The people that most “need” to enjoy nature- the ones who are afraid of getting out of their RVs- are the ones who eff it up, either by encouraging the govt to build roads or by the behavior that they often bring into parks- littering, teasing bears, and such. The ones who “deserve” nature are so few that if the govt caters to them, they are practicing a sort of eco-elitism.
So if we don’t build roads into National Parks, few get to enjoy them. If we do, they become a whole lot less enjoyable.
I think this discussion (so far) brings up some interesting, more broader points. First of all are we assuming that nature is only Nature (with a capital N) as long as humans are not around to touch it? If this is true, it seems to me like we’re running out of Nature spots around the world, because natural parks are becoming more and more places of entertainment for humans and less and less like pristine exhibitions of Nature, as the reading pointed out. (There’s also a difference between national parks and government preserved land).
I had a similar experience to Will and Gigi’s when I was hiking Mt. Washington in New Hampshire. At the top there’s lots of obvious tourist attractions including a restaurant, gift shop, train depot and the end of a road. This bothered me a lot for some reason, especially as I saw the huge train rumbling down puffing out black smoke and people driving up the mountain in their SUVs. It seemed out of place and that those people were somehow cheating and missing the true Nature experience. In fact, it probably made Mt. Washington much more popular if you could get to the top without ever having to leave your air-conditioned car or break a sweat. This brought a lot more people up into the mountain that normally wouldn’t have been able to hike it.
Now onto Will’s question: who should have access to the nicest parts of national parks?
I’d like to say that the people who want to truly “enjoy” nature (i.e. hike up the mountain instead of drive, or step out of their RVs in Yellowstone) should be the ones to see it, but I feel like as soon as we start putting restrictions on who can and cannot “enjoy” the earth it gets uncomfortable. Isn’t the joy of nature that anyone can experience it? Why should we make judgment calls on weeding out the “bad” people from the good? So its not easy for me to give you a straight answer, so that was more of a response.
Will I have to say, you didn’t give a concrete answer to gigi’s question OR ask a question of your own. But you still brought up a few particularly juicy points. I agree with you that we really shouldn’t get hung up on which one of the 3 factions you talked about is “right”, but rather which ones are big players in how we interact with the land. But there is a counter to that argument, and it leads back to the discussion of the previous thread, which is that of human entitlement. Are we entitled to decide what’s good or bad for nature? Are we allowed to say “well, we need to subjugate the land to the needs of humanity and of industry”? In other words, if nature can’t speak up and tell us how to interact with us, how can we include nature in our considerations of hat But I’ll post nonetheless, and I’ll answer a few of Rachel’s initial questions.
I myself have never been to any national park (in fact, come to think of it, I’ve never been West of San Antonio in my whole life). But when I think of Yellowstone and other national parks, I really don’t associate them with people. I think of running rivers, trees, the old faithful geyser, and animal wildlife, but no humans. There’s also no industry present in these national parks. No man-made roads, no bulldozers, no deforestation, none of that. I always thought the whole point of having nationals parks was to have large patches of land that were as free from human interference as could be, but so that we could still observe it. I guess I was wrong. My question is thus: referring back to will’s point about the 3 factions, do you think we have to take into account what is “right” in these situations, or do we look at it as objectively as possible in terms of our interactions with nature?
alright. what the heck.
(as a preface, I read tomorrow's reading by accident before this one, and I think that HIGHLY effected my interpretation of it. But I'm going to try my best to leave that one at the door.)
So, I'm going to hybrid will and olivia's questions, because to me, they're two sides of the same coin.
Who deserves to enjoy national parks?
Isn’t the joy of nature that anyone can experience it?
The idea that "nature" is something to be "deserved" I find fundamentally flawed and counter-productive. Does anyone else feel that the more we quantify/qualify nature as "belonging" to (as Will first said) some kind of environmentally elite secret club the farther we get from integrating with it/understanding it?
"we have not agreed to drive automobiles into our cathedrals, concert halls…. we should treat our parks with the same deference, for they, too, are holy places."
YES, nature is a holy place, but humans dwell there, and they are a part of it. The past two park readings, through very different approaches, have made me feel like all national parks do is put a glass display casing around nature, and thus making it just as artificial as the presence RV's.
I fear the day when human are seen as so destructive to nature that we try and force two separate worlds to exist- one of nature, one of humans. That separation is not natural.
bbdfjlnaeghrs. Was I the only one who found this guy very smart but also self-righteous to a fault?
As we said in class, nature is not always good. Nature does very "destructive" things. Is it possible that nature destroys human progress in equal calibre and method that humans destroy natural progress?
Last edited by oliviabunty on Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
First of all, with all the fancy words Will used in his Categories, here is how I ‘translated’ them
I. Nature is good. No questions asked.
II. Nature is good if it does good for us (people) in spiritual ways or convenient ways
III. Nature is kind of lame, and we should change/destroy parts of it to benefit people more.
A.J., I am not sure 100% what you are asking, but I am interpreting it as if we should or should not fall into any of these 3 categories or just be objective. I don’t believe in objectivity, fake objectivity yes, but actually being objective I don’t think is possible. Also, there are definitely more categories that branch off of these 3. So in response to your question, I do think people should think about what is ‘right’ in these groups, because that is what defines them in the first place. I hope this makes sense at least a little bit to others, it does to me.
For humans not to take part in nature would be, in itself, unnatural. Just because most people hold human lives above those of other living creatures does not mean we are a supernatural species interfering with the land. In the reading, Michael Polllan explains how upset a town was when the forest was destroyed, described as ‘a tragedy’. My question is, do you think that land holds more monetary value than sentimental value? Why? Should it be one way or the other?
GAHHH olivia, posting just before I get mine up! >.< I will answer your question too, mainly because it is such a good question~
Quote:
As we said in class, nature is not always good. Nature does very "destructive" things. Is it possible that nature destroys human progress in equal calibre and method that humans destroy natural progress?
Natural disasters don't only affect people, it destroys plants and animals and landscapes too. Like nature destroying nature. Not to soud corny, but it really is like the 'circle of life' (as mentioned in the Lion King) I don't think of human progress and natural progress of working against one anothers progress so much as the sort of go side by side, but occasionally trying to run eachother off the road.
I myself have never been to a National Park, only state parks. Most of my thoughts of pristine national parks are from Discovery Channel or Animal Planet but I know seeing them through a television does not give justice to seeing them in person. Watching programs about these National Parks are like commercials, you think about it. Each program shows you the beautiful and immaculate screensaver-like details of National Parks that makes the viewer say, “We should go there sometime!” What the tourist industry then hears is, “I want to spend money at your store!” This leads tight into Knaides question, “do you think that land holds more monetary value than sentimental value? Why? Should it be one way or the other?” Yes, I think that land holds both a monetary value and sentimental value, but monetary definitely outweighs the sentimental. Americans are always thinking, “how can something benefit us” which has slowly been morphed into “How can we make the most money out of this” This is very true for land. Behind all the beautiful nature, “untouched” wilderness, I see the the people who protect and regulate these parks having the big cartoon money eyes, the ones with the big dollar signs and the sound CHA CHING. Nation parks are just another form of tourism. As Abbey stated a lot in the reading, his views on roads were that it would lead to more tourists, less true wildlife. The first few paragraphs of the reading are about how Abbey appreciates the wilderness for what it is, especially the parts that have been untouched by tourists in their “upholstered mechanized wheelchairs” Abbey is right. True wilderness has to been experienced, and not just comfortably of ones automobile.
“….wilderness is a necessary part of civilization and that it is the primary responsibility of the nation park system to preserve intact and undiminished what little still remains.”
Is this what the national park system is doing? Or has it taken a less active role in preserving our wildlife?
Responding to Knaid's question, do you think that land holds more monetary value than sentimental value? Why? Should it be one way or the other?
I believe this question can't be answered because the concept of "value" is not quantitative but inherently qualitative. By dint of giving something any value at all is only relative to the conceived categorization (much like Will exhibited) it is compared to. Therefore, it is not the LAND that can demonstrate comparable monetary verses sentimental value, but the perspective of the viewer/participant/modifier. I think its fairly evident from the reading that, while the author would never use the word "sentimentality" (doesnt do nature justice in the same way "holy" does..) that monetary value and marketability holds little value for him as a reason to do anything to nature, most especially cater to the victimized addicts of industrialization.
it is this point here, his fundamental issue with focusing on this faction of people who must be allowed the convenience of their automobiles while still claiming to be "enjoying/communing with" nature, that leads me to my question:
wherein does accessibility ruin the thing to which one is being connected? Are things allowed to be inaccessible to some people without creating an idea of elitism?
Knaide’s question is, do you think that land holds more monetary value than sentimental value? Why? Should it be one way or the other?
Personaly I think that the land holds more sentimental value, but I think that they go together as well. A piece of land could be developed but in being developed (or not) it also has sentimental value. I have many fond memories of the land and house that that I live on. I gues im thinking about this as you can have a building (being the monetary value) and enjoying being in and around that building (being sentimental value).
But if you look at the queston “would you sell your land for coal mining, or would you keek it for sentimental value?” I gues that (depending on how much money I have) I would rather not sell it. Which means that sentimental value is more important because emotions rule your mind.
I go camping (real camping) often, but I rather go to a unknown unhighly visited wilderness areas where I can be alone with my companions. This does not mean that I do not go to national parks, I do, but I don’t like the people being in them. Once when I was very little I went to Yellowstone and that day the first and biggest snowstorm of the year hit. The park was closed down, and my family was inside with what few visiters were there. This was the best because we could do anything, with snow shows, and skies we went around the park because the roads were closed. Also no one was there so the snow was untouched and the animals came out. The last day we were there, thousands of people came into the park and messed it up with the shere amount of people and the fact that almost all had they some veriaty of snow machine.
The fact that I enjoy being electronically naked in nature is a very unique way of looking at these readings. I was wondering if some one who at the begging of the mode said that they were “definetly not an naturalist” could say how they veiwed the readings in reference to natural history?
wherein does accessibility ruin the thing to which one is being connected? Are things allowed to be inaccessible to some people without creating an idea of elitism?
I picked up on this whole accessibility/convenience thing too. And I also don't have a clear answer for you, but I want to try anyway. I think accessibility begins to ruin National Parks, in this case, when the focus is on getting there and being there, rather than experiencing the place. If it is so easy and so distracting to plan a trip, it takes the focus off the trip itself. When there is only one option, such as hiking and camping in a Park, the focus turns to the experiences one has there. I hope that was clear ish. Basically, I think accessibility ruins connections when the focus is on making the connections instead of what comes out of them.
As for the elitism stuff, I'd have to guess that it can, but doesn't always. I think this brings in the idea of privilege. Getting your license, for example, isn't something that is available to everyone. People over 16 aren't elite, they just are older and have a privilege. In another sense, when some people get something, and others don't, the question of, "why not me?" gets brought up. When people start asking questions, and there are no clear cut reasons for some people's accessibility, then elitism could come into play.
My question is:
What's the deal with convenience? Who gets to decide the best way to see nature is to work for it? Can't some people enjoy nature on TV as much (in a different way though) than people in the woods? It doesn't make sense that people in power get to choose or have a set standard for what is convenient or best for everyone. Why don't the people who use the land get the final say in what is OK? Shouldn't people in Alaska get to say they don't want drilling, or that it's ok to whale in moderation? Or people in Maine who snowmobile and hunt as part of their everyday lives like in the Barringer reading. hm.
I have never been to a national park, and until these readings I never noticed how much I associate tourism with national parks. When I think of the geysers and Yellowstone, I picture people looking at them. When I think of the Grand Canyon I think of people on a viewing platform looking out over the ledge. The two things are linked as one concept in my mind. I’ve always wanted to experience the vast wilderness feeling that a National Park seems to offer that I cannot experience in the town I live in, but I know I would just be one of those people in an RV and wouldn’t experience nature in its “natural” state.
I am gonna take a crack at Dylan’s questions.
“What's the deal with convenience? Who gets to decide the best way to see nature is to work for it? Can't some people enjoy nature on TV as much (in a different way though) than people in the woods? It doesn't make sense that people in power get to choose or have a set standard for what is convenient or best for everyone. Why don't the people who use the land get the final say in what is OK? Shouldn't people in Alaska get to say they don't want drilling, or that it's ok to whale in moderation? Or people in Maine who snowmobile and hunt as part of their everyday lives like in the Barringer reading. hm.”
I think it just boils down to land ownership. The people that use the land do not necessarily own the land; that is the case with the Native Americans in the reading about Yellowstone, and the same in the Barringer reading. It doesn’t matter who needs something if they are not the owner, the actual use gets to be decided by the owner. If the primary users of a land got to decide what happened to it, it is a possibility that none of us would be living where we do because the Native Americans would not have given consent to colonists creating towns and communities.
I am going to ask my question from the previous readings again because nobody answered it, and I think these readings just made it more relevant. My question is: Is there any benefit to having/protecting land that cannot be profited from? Is there any point to leaving wilderness wild?
Part of what's so great about Abbey is that he acknowledges the relativistic arguments that any sort of political/social propositions are subject to, but just doesn't really care. I think he recognizes that someone might ask, "Why should the people in power get to tell everyone what the most rewarding way to experience nature is?", or, "Why should the parks exclude people who need the accessibility that comes with cars?", or any other sort of question under the umbrella of, "Who are you to set up this hierarchy of value and virtue and impose it on us?" And so his work is more of a philosophical one- telling us in what lies the intrinsic good- than a pragmatic, socially-conscious, political one. He denies the relativistic arguments when he says of the industrial tourists and developers and their ilk, simply, "These people are lunatics." His argument hinges on this idea of inherent value in nature and unsullied wilderness. He spends some time trying to articulate it, and then goes on to talk about the NPS policy that should follow from it. Because if the intrinsic value is rejected, the conversation is sort of just over.
I guess one might say that Abbey's reliance on the assumption of his own enlightenment and wholehearted dismissal of any other arguments or viewpoints is...bad, but at a certain point of regression any sort of philosophical or political proposal relies on some assumption of an intrinsic, objective good.
I don't really have a good new question but my one from the last post was a lot more relevant to this one so i'll reuse it because it wasn't really responded to. (actually maybe that means it wasn't an interesting question. I guess if that happens again I'll know...)
If there's value in the untouched wilderness, would there be value in setting aside land in which humans literally could not go, even on foot? So there would just be a big swath out there where nature could run its course and undergo it's natural changes and we wouldn't know about it or see it, but it would be there? Also, does this exist anywhere?
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
