I came across this nightmarish article today. This is only one more example, we see them daily, of something that should worry us all, and about which I wrote a piece not too long ago. Your thoughts?
Alberto, I agree with you that many of the places that are available to us that allow us to be "one with nature" are being found by people we consider a problem. The two places that are my favorite places to go have that issue. At one of these places I often find myself waiting until adults with small children pass by -- "look, alligator" -- and wait for the birds to come back. At another, a wildlife drive, there are speeders, people who throw things at alligators to make them move so the kids can see them, people who litter, and more.
Nevertheless, I cannot say that these places or any other places belong to me or to photographers or to birders or to any other group. If they are public land, they are public land. This issue is becoming more predominant, but so are many other social issues. We all have many reasons to worry.
I respectfully disagree with you and those before you about modern music and modern books. I believe formal music was formal largely because the times were formal in the sense of rules (whether followed or not) and class. I read most of the classics as a child and young teenager. I found them fascinating. At this point in my life I find certain modern books equally fascinating. You mentioned having been a college professor for over 30 years. For that reason only, I will say that I had an extremely successful academic career, including college beginning in 1965.
I also disagree that a reason to look forward to something is partly that it is something most people will never be able to do. This is beyond extremely centered on oneself, and that's just not the way I think.
In my opinion we need to each do the best we can with our abilities and our resources. We need to find mentors if we need them. We should mentor others if we have that ability. Others are every bit as important as we are.
It is not too late to teach children a love of nature. My two grandchildren are 3 and 6, and they would never even consider chasing a bird or a squirrel or any animal. But other children chase every animal or bird they see, and they will likely grow up that way. I think knowing how to interact with nature is not about social media. I think it is how children are raised.
I could write a lot more, but I'll stop with this. No one that I know personally uses social media for the reasons you mentioned, but I know other people do. I would love it if only nature lovers could access nature sites, but public land is public land, and I don't think there is any democratic way to decide which of the public can access it. And I don't consider myself better than anyone else.
Alberto, I agree that social media unfortunately attracts people to places that would otherwise be less known and motivates people to behave stupidly or badly to get attention. Regular media, private industry, and even government, however, all contribute to places being overrun with people who behave badly. Look at what happened this spring in the California deserts when media hyped the wildflower bloom. The state of Utah has spent millions of dollars on ad campaign featuring its five national parks, and Zion is now overrun and abused as discussed in news articles last week. To me, social media is just part of the problem (as I think you allude to in your blog post). The big problem is the way people behave. The more people, the bigger the problem, but I swear behavior gets worse by the day. It both bothers and confounds me how people visit natural areas (whether local or distant), presumably because of their love or appreciation for nature, only to have no reservations about trashing or abusing it.
I think the vast majority of people are appreciative and respectful of our parks. This is based upon watching tourists during my many visit to Yosemite valley. But perhaps Yosemite is different. It's almost a shrine to many and it's likely different in the more remote areas. Many of these landscapes are on federal land which the locals resent. Those that feel that way will often treat it like their own and harm it when nobody is around. Spray graffitti on the rocks. Build campfires in nondesignated areas. Enjoying the outdoors means different things to different people. I actually think people are far more environmentally aware now than before. It's just that the planet has become crowded. I just read that the British physicist Hawkins feels mankind is doomed on earth unless another inhabitable planet is discovered in the next 100 years.
Scott, I fully agree that social media is only part of the problem. You will get no objections from me about private industry being a big part of the problem. Besides tourism, airlines, “hospitality” industries etc., let’s not forget that social media is driven by a minuscule minority of old-fashioned capitalists, sometimes masking as progressives, making astronomical profits off people’s naïveté or outright ignorance. And I fully agree about the guilt of government, that is what happens when government abrogates its fundamental responsibility of protecting property that belongs to all of us, and instead of that puts business considerations (often in the interest of the same people who are in government) above everything else. And I agree, the fundamental problem is the way people behave - that was indeed my point. Social media makes it worse by enabling bad behavior, for some reason it brings out the worse in people. Which brings me to a point that both Barbara and Igor make: I strongly disagree with the idea that, because public lands belong to all of us, people can do whatever they want, destroy whatever they want and ruin the place for the rest of us and many generations to come. Let me give you two examples. Assume that you live in a condo complex, with some common property. There are rules about what you can and cannot do with property that you co-own with your neighbors. If you break those rules, there are (or should be) consequences. Second example, you have the right to drive a car. You do not have the right to drive while intoxicated (in my book, even a milligram of alcohol or any narcotic substance counts, and this is the way that much of the European Union is going), ignore red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, drive on a public road that has been closed for whatever reason, etc. If you do enough of this sort of thing, your driving privileges (and they are privileges) will be suspended or eventually revoked. The same sort of argument applies to public lands (and in my view should also apply to private lands, as we are all just transient tenants). There should be, in fact there are, clear rules about what you can and cannot do. If you violate them there must be consequences, fines, prison, revocation of your rights to enter public lands. The problem is enforcement, which brings me to the “elephant in the room” problem: overpopulation. The Earth cannot sustain 7 billion people indefinitely. There is simply not enough water to grow the necessary food, not enough energy resources to purify sea water (if you try to solve the problem that way), not enough rare metal resources to produce enough wind turbines and solar panels to produce energy to purify sea water (if you want to get out of the bind that way). I could keep going but you see the idea. I laugh (so as not to fall in total despair) when I see these arguments being countered with the magic of “technology”. Technology is an abstract concept. Applying technology to solve a problem requires raw materials, that are usually mined (i.e., they are non-renewable). The more complex, and apparently magical, the technology is, the rarer the necessary raw materials tend to be. Back to square zero.
This went longer than I intended - thanks for your thoughts!
The Earth cannot sustain 7 billion people indefinitely.
As an assignment in college when we still used an abacus I read "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. Although his dates have long come and gone and a lot of the data was skewed with mankind advancements in farming, ranching, pesticides.....etc. It still had a core that over population is the undoing without severe adjustments world wide.
And yes, it does remain the 800 pound gorilla in the "smaller" room still left on planet earth.
Discussion
6 repliesNevertheless, I cannot say that these places or any other places belong to me or to photographers or to birders or to any other group. If they are public land, they are public land. This issue is becoming more predominant, but so are many other social issues. We all have many reasons to worry.
I respectfully disagree with you and those before you about modern music and modern books. I believe formal music was formal largely because the times were formal in the sense of rules (whether followed or not) and class. I read most of the classics as a child and young teenager. I found them fascinating. At this point in my life I find certain modern books equally fascinating. You mentioned having been a college professor for over 30 years. For that reason only, I will say that I had an extremely successful academic career, including college beginning in 1965.
I also disagree that a reason to look forward to something is partly that it is something most people will never be able to do. This is beyond extremely centered on oneself, and that's just not the way I think.
In my opinion we need to each do the best we can with our abilities and our resources. We need to find mentors if we need them. We should mentor others if we have that ability. Others are every bit as important as we are.
It is not too late to teach children a love of nature. My two grandchildren are 3 and 6, and they would never even consider chasing a bird or a squirrel or any animal. But other children chase every animal or bird they see, and they will likely grow up that way. I think knowing how to interact with nature is not about social media. I think it is how children are raised.
I could write a lot more, but I'll stop with this. No one that I know personally uses social media for the reasons you mentioned, but I know other people do. I would love it if only nature lovers could access nature sites, but public land is public land, and I don't think there is any democratic way to decide which of the public can access it. And I don't consider myself better than anyone else.
Scott, I fully agree that social media is only part of the problem. You will get no objections from me about private industry being a big part of the problem. Besides tourism, airlines, “hospitality” industries etc., let’s not forget that social media is driven by a minuscule minority of old-fashioned capitalists, sometimes masking as progressives, making astronomical profits off people’s naïveté or outright ignorance. And I fully agree about the guilt of government, that is what happens when government abrogates its fundamental responsibility of protecting property that belongs to all of us, and instead of that puts business considerations (often in the interest of the same people who are in government) above everything else. And I agree, the fundamental problem is the way people behave - that was indeed my point. Social media makes it worse by enabling bad behavior, for some reason it brings out the worse in people. Which brings me to a point that both Barbara and Igor make: I strongly disagree with the idea that, because public lands belong to all of us, people can do whatever they want, destroy whatever they want and ruin the place for the rest of us and many generations to come. Let me give you two examples. Assume that you live in a condo complex, with some common property. There are rules about what you can and cannot do with property that you co-own with your neighbors. If you break those rules, there are (or should be) consequences. Second example, you have the right to drive a car. You do not have the right to drive while intoxicated (in my book, even a milligram of alcohol or any narcotic substance counts, and this is the way that much of the European Union is going), ignore red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, drive on a public road that has been closed for whatever reason, etc. If you do enough of this sort of thing, your driving privileges (and they are privileges) will be suspended or eventually revoked. The same sort of argument applies to public lands (and in my view should also apply to private lands, as we are all just transient tenants). There should be, in fact there are, clear rules about what you can and cannot do. If you violate them there must be consequences, fines, prison, revocation of your rights to enter public lands. The problem is enforcement, which brings me to the “elephant in the room” problem: overpopulation. The Earth cannot sustain 7 billion people indefinitely. There is simply not enough water to grow the necessary food, not enough energy resources to purify sea water (if you try to solve the problem that way), not enough rare metal resources to produce enough wind turbines and solar panels to produce energy to purify sea water (if you want to get out of the bind that way). I could keep going but you see the idea. I laugh (so as not to fall in total despair) when I see these arguments being countered with the magic of “technology”. Technology is an abstract concept. Applying technology to solve a problem requires raw materials, that are usually mined (i.e., they are non-renewable). The more complex, and apparently magical, the technology is, the rarer the necessary raw materials tend to be. Back to square zero.
This went longer than I intended - thanks for your thoughts!
As an assignment in college when we still used an abacus I read "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. Although his dates have long come and gone and a lot of the data was skewed with mankind advancements in farming, ranching, pesticides.....etc. It still had a core that over population is the undoing without severe adjustments world wide.
And yes, it does remain the 800 pound gorilla in the "smaller" room still left on planet earth.