Less War. More Parks.

[MarkBC]

John Muir
Seems appropriate to mention here that there's a TV program tonight about THE force behind the creation/promotion of National Parks.

John Muir in the New World, a documentary being shown on PBS "American Masters" (check local listings)
(and no-doubt rebroadcast later as well as available to view later on PBS website)

I don't believe in heroes (heroes are all fallible humans -- principles before personalities)...But if I did believe in heroes then John Muir would be one of my heroes.

PS: If you're not a fan of the Sierra Club (which Muir founded) as it is now, remember that back when Muir was alive and campaigning for natural-lands preservation there was nothing to stop rampant land-abuse -- ok, land-rape.
[I also posted this on the "This National Parks Issue" thread, so sorry for the double-post, but I wanted to increase the chances that those who might want to see this would -- outside of the Member Private Forum]

 

[Hittheroad]

I may be an hour early but it seems we missed a great opportunity in this Rapture thing that did not come off. Many of the people opposing support of parks and protection of nature would have been sucked away if only it had worked. One of the arguments against protecting nature has been - why bother it is all about to end. Seems a good time for the rest of us to point out that there may be a flaw in this way of thinking.

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

I some how don't think we will change many minds. Maybe a better way would be give bunches of defense money to the betterment of america and have the defense

department hold bake sales to go to war. IMO

Frank

 

[JohnF]

I am new here. When I click the button at the bottom my post count will climb to 3.

In the past month my wife and I have visited 4 different national parks.

The nature of the very first post is political. You cannot post it and then argue that wish to keep politics out of the discussion. It is a much greater issue than a simple math problem. You see only the crest of the wave near you.

I do agree that given the social/political/economic system that we have in place in the USA that the intent of this thread in banding together like minded individuals into a group, the larger the better, is the proper move to make in order to make the changes as outlined. Bravo, and you have my support.

It is unfortunate that there is such a resistance to political debate but given my experiences where this sort of thing were allowed I cannot blame a moderator for posing such a restriction. Emotion too often pushes aside rationality and things can get out of hand fast. I know I wouldn't want to babysit a gazillion forum participants in all sorts of unkown states of drunkeness.

But if I could participate in such a discussion I would express why I believe many ideas I read in this thread may be flawed and perhaps why I think the National Park System should not exist. Rational debate can only improve the intellectual positions of its participants. Even if it is politics.

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

I am new here. When I click the button at the bottom my post count will climb to 3.

In the past month my wife and I have visited 4 different national parks.

The nature of the very first post is political. You cannot post it and then argue that wish to keep politics out of the discussion. It is a much greater issue than a simple math problem. You see only the crest of the wave near you.

I do agree that given the social/political/economic system that we have in place in the USA that the intent of this thread in banding together like minded individuals into a group, the larger the better, is the proper move to make in order to make the changes as outlined. Bravo, and you have my support.

It is unfortunate that there is such a resistance to political debate but given my experiences where this sort of thing were allowed I cannot blame a moderator for posing such a restriction. Emotion too often pushes aside rationality and things can get out of hand fast. I know I wouldn't want to babysit a gazillion forum participants in all sorts of unkown states of drunkeness.

But if I could participate in such a discussion I would express why I believe many ideas I read in this thread may be flawed and perhaps why I think the National Park System should not exist. Rational debate can only improve the intellectual positions of its participants. Even if it is politics.


Johnf,not to open a can of worms...but what type of organization would you propose we place our public lands ie national parks ,monuments,forests, ect.into???

Frank

 

[DLN]

Can open, this should be interesting.

 

[JohnF]

.. what type of organization ...


That is a good question. A little "cart before the horse" though. I only suggested that it is what it shouldn't be, which means we have to understand what it is first. MarkBC makes some good observations in the other thread that DD started when closure was threatened. If his observations are true, what do we expect of the system?

Can open, this should be interesting.

Nascar fan? The only thing you forgot was the little popcorn bag...

For the purpose of debate you've offered nothing. Zippo. I do not know where you stand, what you understand, what to ask you, or say to you. Participate. Reasoned debate is good for everyone who participates honestly.

Does your response mean you are happy with status quo? Some people certainly will be.

Ah, and I probably shouldn't go much further without an invite from DD because this is a really big socioeconomic debate; much bigger than just NPs; and I was serious when I said that given the current system his approach is the about the best you can do.

It all has to start with philosophy and most folks find that boring...

 

[DLN]

John,

You are new here and as such you might want to turn down the volume a bit. While there has been some political debate going on in this thread it is not the norm on this forum and we generally stay away from it.

My personal beliefs and opinions concerning the National/State Parks funding issue or for that matter on any other issue will be expressed when I decide it is appropriate, not as a response to someone wishing to open or continue a debate. As to the missing bag of popcorn and what I do or do not bring to the discussion it's not your place to set standards for my or any other members posts.

 

[MarkBC]

The thing is, argument -- or "discussion" as some will try to call it

-- almost never changes the minds of people who already have a strong opinion on a subject. People do it because they enjoy spewing their opinions -- period.

You might say "I'm not looking for an argument -- just 'reasoned debate'" But I don't believe it. People engage in "debate" to convince, i.e., to intellectually conquer. People don't like to be conquered even if the conqueror is benign. And so they resist...and things usually get unpleasant/unfriendly (e.g., "war").
Check this out: What is the likelihood that you'll change your opinion about the value of NPS? Pretty small, right? Why? Because you've already thought about the issue and know what you believe, right? Yep -- that's my point.

And the fact that you're already lobbing spitballs about "Nascar fan" and "little popcorn bag" shows your real goal:
"Let's git it on!" Please, grow up kid.

There are plenty of forums (fori?) out there that are all about argument (most of them, in fact) if that's what gets you going...shouldn't be hard to find.

To repeat: Political argument is recreation/ego-gratification -- nothing more. It doesn't change people's minds and so is pointless except as recreation.

(BTW: I'm not saying I don't enjoy argument -- I do.. I love my opinions and I think everyone else should love my opinions, too.

But this friendly and helpful Forum is not the place to convince people to love my opinions.)

 

[DirtyDog]

That is a good question. A little "cart before the horse" though. I only suggested that it is what it shouldn't be, which means we have to understand what it is first. MarkBC makes some good observations in the other thread that DD started when closure was threatened. If his observations are true, what do we expect of the system?


Nascar fan? The only thing you forgot was the little popcorn bag...

For the purpose of debate you've offered nothing. Zippo. I do not know where you stand, what you understand, what to ask you, or say to you. Participate. Reasoned debate is good for everyone who participates honestly.

Does your response mean you are happy with status quo? Some people certainly will be.

Ah, and I probably shouldn't go much further without an invite from DD because this is a really big socioeconomic debate; much bigger than just NPs; and I was serious when I said that given the current system his approach is the about the best you can do.

It all has to start with philosophy and most folks find that boring...


If I thought everyone could have political discussions while being absolutely respectful to other members then we would probably have more of these discussions. As is you seem to be getting upset before the discussion even started so I don't think it will work.

And that thread that I "threatened closure" on was way off topic and was allowed to go on too long like that anyway.

 

[JohnF]

You are new here and as such you might want to turn down the volume a bit.

Wow, already a wreck...

You've misinterpreted what I said. Be that as it may...

While there has been some political debate going on in this thread it is not the norm on this forum and we generally stay away from it.

I understand. I might argue that this is endemic in the nation; not that people aren't getting frustrated and vocal; but that people shy from the good honest rational debate that evolve ideas.

... will be expressed when I decide it is appropriate, not as a response to someone wishing to open or continue a debate.

Well then, what's the point of saying anything? Now don't go taking that wrong, I'm not prodding you into some emotion driven game of ad-hominem oneupmanship. That would be boring and ultimately useless. I am a good guy and sincere in what I have said. If you knew me personally we would probably be friends.

As to the missing bag of popcorn...

Now 'cmon, it's what you meant.

... it's not your place to set standards for my or any other members posts.


Excellent, a comment rooted in the ideas of rights, self ownership, and self expression. We aren't as far apart as you may be thinking. In fact, I think your comment sets a very good standard. I'm serious.

John

 

[Overland Hadley]

But if I could participate in such a discussion I would express why I believe many ideas I read in this thread may be flawed and perhaps why I think the National Park System should not exist. Rational debate can only improve the intellectual positions of its participants. Even if it is politics.



I may have missed it, but why do you think the NPS should not exist? Do you think there should not be public lands, or just a different way of running them?

I understand that the NPS is flawed, but NPS lands are not lowest common denominator land, and I think that is a good thing.

 

[JohnF]

I was writing my last reply when these two came or I would have included them.

The thing is...
Hmmm. I know what you are saying and understand the point. I have quite a bit of experience in online chatter and all too often it does become exactly what you describe.

In refutation: If what you say is true, then ideas would never evolve.

People do it because they enjoy spewing their opinions -- period.
false. Your post as an example. If you made it to spew your opinion and intellectually conquer me, and face it, you targeted me, then what have you to gain?

You might say "I'm not looking for an argument -- just 'reasoned debate'"

I accept either term as one is the definition of the other.

But I don't believe it.

I accept that.

People engage in "debate" to convince, i.e., to intellectually conquer.

In the other thread you make some observations, one of which is that people act in a self-serving way. Certainly "to conquer" is one motivation but I can accept others. The idea that DD brought up with this thread is that our National Park System is at risk. I believe that the problem is larger than just the NP system and proposed a debate. In economic terms, the cost of information is in general higher than most people will choose to expend for the standard of living that they choose to enjoy. I know this. Most people stick with status quo because they know no different. Being frustrated won't change things - education will.

What is the likelihood that you'll change your opinion about the value of NPS?

I accept that I am fallible. It is easy to change my stance, all you need is a good logical rational argument.

 

[JohnF]

I appologize for the continuation. I am new to this forum style and apparently there is a limit to the number of quotes accepted. I will be aware of that in the future.

Yep -- that's my point.
When you wrote that, was it to change my mind or had you intellectually conquered me? If the latter, I concede and am not interested in furthering the discussion.

And the fact that you're already lobbing spitballs about "Nascar fan" and "little popcorn bag" shows your real goal:
"Let's git it on!" Please, grow up kid.
Game theory. Believe it or not, it had to be addressed. The nature of the thread depends on it.
And I haven't had anyone call me a kid for quite some time.

There are plenty of forums (fori?) out there that are all about argument (most of them, in fact) if that's what gets you going...shouldn't be hard to find.
I catch your drift, and that's fine.

To repeat: Political argument is recreation/ego-gratification -- nothing more. It doesn't change people's minds and so is pointless except as recreation.
It is a cost/benefit proposition. There have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when societies, including ours, will not be so comfortable as to assume that debate is optional or pointless. We either evolve ideas or beat them back with war. It is our choice and I opt for education and evolution of ideas.

But this friendly and helpful Forum is not the place

I am hoping that someday the debate will fair topic in any forum.

If I thought everyone could have political discussions while being absolutely respectful to other members then we would probably have more of these discussions. As is you seem to be getting upset before the discussion even started so I don't think it will work.

And that thread that I "threatened closure" on was way off topic and was allowed to go on too long like that anyway.

Not upset, honest. Maybe a little direct and I plead guilty to play a tactic that perhaps this forum's participants aren't familar with. It was a challenge to participate (good for everyone) rather than make remarks from the sideline (useless always). Also apparently decent foreshadow...

I guess I don't know the thread that you "threatened closure". The past thread I was referencing was about the threatened closure of the national parks. Last April I think.

 

[JohnF]

I may have missed it, but why do you think the NPS should not exist? Do you think there should not be public lands, or just a different way of running them?

I understand that the NPS is flawed, but NPS lands are not lowest common denominator land, and I think that is a good thing.


Hmm. I was kinda going to wait to see how that last huge chunk I put out there was received before I decided whether to proceed.

To preface this: As I mentioned, In less than a month my wife and I visited four national parks. We are well on our way to filling our passport, having stamps from Hawaii to Virgin Islands, and Montana to ... uh ... well certainly Colorado. (gee, I don't know how far south we have been?) So I am a user.

The answer to your question is that I don't think the system behind the NPS is the better. Yes, best in the world so far. Some of the answer is in the idea that there really is such a thing as public land. We need to review the idea of public goods...

I think it would be great if folks would identify what they think the National Park System, and public land, are. For example, there is the idea that these lands cannot be used for profit making. I guarantee you Xanterra does not agree. There is enough money flowing through Yellowstone that there is no way it should need tax money to keep it afloat, yet you and I paint the hotel...

 

[Overland Hadley]

Hmm. I was kinda going to wait to see how that last huge chunk I put out there was received before I decided whether to proceed.

To preface this: As I mentioned, In less than a month my wife and I visited four national parks. We are well on our way to filling our passport, having stamps from Hawaii to Virgin Islands, and Montana to ... uh ... well certainly Colorado. (gee, I don't know how far south we have been?) So I am a user.

The answer to your question is that I don't think the system behind the NPS is the better. Yes, best in the world so far. Some of the answer is in the idea that there really is such a thing as public land. We need to review the idea of public goods...

I think it would be great if folks would identify what they think the National Park System, and public land, are. For example, there is the idea that these lands cannot be used for profit making. I guarantee you Xanterra does not agree. There is enough money flowing through Yellowstone that there is no way it should need tax money to keep it afloat, yet you and I paint the hotel...


Yeah, the whole "public" part of public lands sometimes feels like a joke. With the government here in Minnesota shut down all the State Parks are closed, I thought I was paying for my parks. It should probably be "government owned" not public owned.

I had never thought of the whole Xanterra profiting thing, and that kind of makes me mad. It would be best if their profits went back into the park system, but I am sure they claim that they do not turn much of a profit, but we all know how that works.

I wonder how it works in Canada with Crown land?

Thanks for the thoughts, I will now start calling it Government Land as that seems a lot better of a description.

 

[Casa Escarlata Robles Too]

Hmm. I was kinda going to wait to see how that last huge chunk I put out there was received before I decided whether to proceed.

To preface this: As I mentioned, In less than a month my wife and I visited four national parks. We are well on our way to filling our passport, having stamps from Hawaii to Virgin Islands, and Montana to ... uh ... well certainly Colorado. (gee, I don't know how far south we have been?) So I am a user.

The answer to your question is that I don't think the system behind the NPS is the better. Yes, best in the world so far. Some of the answer is in the idea that there really is such a thing as public land. We need to review the idea of public goods...

I think it would be great if folks would identify what they think the National Park System, and public land, are. For example, there is the idea that these lands cannot be used for profit making. I guarantee you Xanterra does not agree. There is enough money flowing through Yellowstone that there is no way it should need tax money to keep it afloat, yet you and I paint the hotel...



JohnF,this I do agree with you on.There are private companies making a lot of money from our NPs.The amount they give back for the "lease" doesn't seem to be near as much as I think they should.IMO

Frank

 

[highz]

Yeah, the whole "public" part of public lands sometimes feels like a joke. With the government here in Minnesota shut down all the State Parks are closed, I thought I was paying for my parks. It should probably be "government owned" not public owned.

I had never thought of the whole Xanterra profiting thing, and that kind of makes me mad. It would be best if their profits went back into the park system, but I am sure they claim that they do not turn much of a profit, but we all know how that works.

I wonder how it works in Canada with Crown land?

Thanks for the thoughts, I will now start calling it Government Land as that seems a lot better of a description.


Hmmm, well, maybe this is the crux of the issue? Hadley, in your reply you have separated us (the public) from government. Yet, we supposedly elect that government to represent us. It's no secret that we aren't a pure democracy, and that we usually can only vote for representatives that get huge campaign contributions from Big Business, so your perception of being disconnected from government I completely understand and agree with.

Given this, it's not a surprise to me that the Dept. of the Interior buys into the profit model. The public does not get to have an equal say in any policy; rather, policy is often determined (or at least influenced) by large corporations. Nature's beauty has become a commodity.

Yet, the value of that commodity is based on a fundamental human desire for wilderness and natural beauty. So, if the National Parks protect the Great Places from development for that reason, is it a fair trade?

 

[JohnF]

Nature's beauty has become a commodity.

I would think that is always has been. Otherwise, in a free society, it could never have gained the support necessary to create it.

So, if the National Parks protect the Great Places from development for that reason, is it a fair trade?


What is it that you have traded? Ever since I have been socially aware they have existed and I have not been given an opportunity to make a choice.

 

[highz]

Preserving land for it's inherent beauty has not always been a commodity - not at all. It is recent! Witness the relative scarcity of parks in Europe, compared to here. Both Europe and the USA share a similar culture, with a history of private land ownership and the idea that God created the world for man's use. The main difference is the comparative length of our habitation on the two continents. Two hundred, even one hundred years ago, the majority of people in the US lived rurally, and the population density was still small, unlike Europe. Open land was abundant here, also unlike Europe . Both here and abroad the value of land lay in it's resources and only visionaries thought of preservation. But, when industrialization and urbanization started, only the US still had abundant primitive land. At that time, with the population shift to cities, people started to yearn for the beauty of the natural world that they lost. That's why our National Parks are a recent phenomenon that coincided with industrialization and urbanization. Europeans were in the unlucky situation that they had much less land for parks when they realized what urbanization cost them, so they have fewer public parks. Go hiking and camping in Europe and compare your experience there with what you have in the USA and Canada. That's the best way to see what I'm talking about.

The first US national park was created in 1872 (Yellowstone). That's not that long ago! We were just lucky that our continent is big and our population was still small enough when we came to the realization that natural beauty had value, so we could preserve parts of it. Interestingly, the Northern Pacific Railroad supported and lobbied for the creation of Yellowstone NP. They saw it as a way to profit from tourism - bringing people from cities to see natural wonders. So, capitalism has been a part of the parks from the beginning.

What have I traded? Paying for entry, paying for camping, paying to be able to hike in large tracts of land that are not broken up by fences and vacation homes. I am paying to keep these spaces mostly wild. That's capitalism for you. I don't think we need to pay for preservation, I may not like it, but that's how our brand of democracy works right now.

You say you haven't been given an opportunity to make a choice? I don't understand what choice you want, and I think you need to define it and your agenda, if you expect reasoned discourse. Do you want mostly private land like Europe? Do you want more land opened to varied uses and development with no rules and protections? Surely you must realize that every choice has implications. What are you willing to trade?