[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] The world a viewshed



> Pretty grim dream,  and which homo sapiens should be killed off en-masse
by
> disease or catastrophe to yield this "dream-like" environment?  Should it
just
> be the urbanites in Manhattan, London, Paris, Atlanta, Chicago,
Stuttgard,
> Frankfurt, Berlin, Madrid, Tokyo, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Hong Kong,
Beijing,
> Ho Chi Mihn City, Mexico City, etc.?  Or should it be all those who are
unable
> to properly respect nature?

I think it's meant as another way of saying that I enjoy solitude, and is
not meant as plea for nukes, catastrophe, etc. It's also intended, I think,
with the same intent behind your queries, the implications of which I would
not advocate. Although I have my own, probably eccentric, opinions about
how to "properly" respect nature, I don't think I'm one to make that
judgment for anyone else.

> Not a bad idea, but only cosmetic really.  They would be better
protected, but
> eventually they would need replacement and maintenance, and digging them
up to
> do so would definitely cause and visual impact.

Yes, digging can create an eyesore ... we've been living with such in the
northern reaches of hotlanta while MARTA puts in a new rail line requiring
a tunnel or two.

I think that with appropriate attention to the neceesity of maintenance and
replacement, engineers could create ducts crisscrossing North America to
replace most of the right of ways. I know they could do it in town. I also
know that if they did, hurricanes, tornados, ice storms, etc. wouldn't
create the havoc they do now, and our view to the horizon, whether urban or
not, would improve substantially.

> Even if they were placed underground (and many of the gas pipelines are)
the
> gashes would have to remain...why?  So the pipelines could be maintained
for
> one, and two, if they were allowed to reforest, either by neglect or
design,
> the pipelines and wire conduits would be destroyed by tree roots (which
do a
> nice job of shattering stone over time.) The cuts would still have to be
made
> in order for the pipelines and powerlines to be laid underground as well.

Put them deeper?

> As far as skiing is concerned.

Since I'm no skiier, I appreciated reading your comments ...

> Yup, there is no way to avoid impacting any system you interact with in
> any way.  Even in observing a system you inevitably alter it by your mere
> presence.  Why don't we just all commit suicide and put us out of the >
planet's misery?  Ridiculous right? 

Yes, ridiculous ... which takes me to one of my eccentric opinions: since I
think homo sapiens are as much a part of nature as are lichens, aemeboe,
bears, trees, and dirt, I'm not as adverse to human development as my post
may have suggested to you. I don't think the distinction between "man made"
and "natural" really makes much fundamental sense in a valueless and
objective inquiry about ecology and I'm not certain it has any role to play
developing a "scientific" approach to "ecologically sound" development. 

> Neither swimming of surfing are environmentally
> neutral since swimmers wear sunblock which gets into the water ...
> I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.

My query concerned which out door sport was closest to neutral ... I don't
think I tried to make the case that swimming and surfing were 100% neutral.
But I'm not sure what "environmentally neutral" really means since it seems
to me based on the natural/artificial distinction which I am constantly
questioning.

> Iceman

Which one? Alpine? Kennwick? Cannadienne?  ;-)
Were *they* environmentally neutral???
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================