I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I have honest questions:
1. Countless plants, insects, birds, and even mammals die and decompose in these areas. Why is human feces any worse? Not to mention how many insects, birds, mammals and other fauna excrete waste in the areas. Again, are humans not allowed to be part of the biome?
2. While I have no doubt that some national parks can become crowded, I find the argument that we are destroying these parks to be an emotional claim rather than an empirical claim. The fact that humans release feces is natural. Words like 'pristine' are used to tug at people's heartstrings, especially those who didn't grow up in wild and rural areas.
3. This reminds me of my daughter’s lament: "Dad, it's unfair! San Diego is so expensive, I can barely afford to live here!" Me: "Well, there are many amazingly beautiful places you can live that don't cost nearly as much. You get to make that choice. Make the sacrifice to live there or don't, it's up to you. Similarly, there are many, many parks to visit. If Yosemite or Mount Everest are too popular for your liking, there are many, many options besides those 2.
4. Again, thanks for the article. It was well written.
Hi Kelly, thanks for the engagement. I have some thoughts.
1. Humans have not historically been a part of many alpine biomes. When you introduce large amounts of fecal waste to these environments, the natural processes that handle the relatively small amounts of waste which naturally occur are insufficient. The cold and elevation also significantly slow the decomposition of waste in alpine environments. I think "allowed" is an interesting word here--humans are not prohibited from being present in the biome by any means, but we must realize that our actions do have consequences and, in my opinion, we should do what we can to manage those consequences so that these environments continue to be enjoyable. Which brings me to:
2. The resource paradox: participating in environmental activities degrades the very resources upon which they depend. "To snowboard you need snow; to fish you need fish. Engaging in these activities, however, directly reduces our future capacity to enjoy them." I believe I laid out my claim about the degradation of the most popular national parks in quite an empirical fashion: the infrastructure that exists at the most popular parks is insufficient to handle the amount of traffic, which has exploded over the past thirty years. For what it's worth, I find it to be a self-evident claim that an overcrowded national park is less enjoyable; I'd rather be overlooking a vista alone than with 100 other tourists (see this satirical piece I wrote about the trouble with increasing access, Pave the 14ers https://passingtime.substack.com/p/pave-the-14ers)
3. I agree that there are plenty of less popular yet still spectacular parks, just as there as cheaper places to live than San Diego that are still nice. But as someone who lives in Boulder, CO, I think I have some authority to note that, yes, certain places may be more expensive, but that is most often derivative of public policy choices. In the case of Boulder, NIMBYism, bad zoning and housing policy have restricted the housing supply; in San Diego/CA, NIMBYism and Proposition 13's property tax impact has done the same. If we had better public policy, these spectacular places would be more affordable spots to live. Likewise, we should create good public policy around our natural spaces to properly preserve and manage them. That way, they can maintain the quality that makes them amazing in the first place.
Michael, I was eating lunch! Great article, I think the solution is that everyone should hold in their poops 100% of the time. Become wholly efficient.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this. I have honest questions:
1. Countless plants, insects, birds, and even mammals die and decompose in these areas. Why is human feces any worse? Not to mention how many insects, birds, mammals and other fauna excrete waste in the areas. Again, are humans not allowed to be part of the biome?
2. While I have no doubt that some national parks can become crowded, I find the argument that we are destroying these parks to be an emotional claim rather than an empirical claim. The fact that humans release feces is natural. Words like 'pristine' are used to tug at people's heartstrings, especially those who didn't grow up in wild and rural areas.
3. This reminds me of my daughter’s lament: "Dad, it's unfair! San Diego is so expensive, I can barely afford to live here!" Me: "Well, there are many amazingly beautiful places you can live that don't cost nearly as much. You get to make that choice. Make the sacrifice to live there or don't, it's up to you. Similarly, there are many, many parks to visit. If Yosemite or Mount Everest are too popular for your liking, there are many, many options besides those 2.
4. Again, thanks for the article. It was well written.
Hi Kelly, thanks for the engagement. I have some thoughts.
1. Humans have not historically been a part of many alpine biomes. When you introduce large amounts of fecal waste to these environments, the natural processes that handle the relatively small amounts of waste which naturally occur are insufficient. The cold and elevation also significantly slow the decomposition of waste in alpine environments. I think "allowed" is an interesting word here--humans are not prohibited from being present in the biome by any means, but we must realize that our actions do have consequences and, in my opinion, we should do what we can to manage those consequences so that these environments continue to be enjoyable. Which brings me to:
2. The resource paradox: participating in environmental activities degrades the very resources upon which they depend. "To snowboard you need snow; to fish you need fish. Engaging in these activities, however, directly reduces our future capacity to enjoy them." I believe I laid out my claim about the degradation of the most popular national parks in quite an empirical fashion: the infrastructure that exists at the most popular parks is insufficient to handle the amount of traffic, which has exploded over the past thirty years. For what it's worth, I find it to be a self-evident claim that an overcrowded national park is less enjoyable; I'd rather be overlooking a vista alone than with 100 other tourists (see this satirical piece I wrote about the trouble with increasing access, Pave the 14ers https://passingtime.substack.com/p/pave-the-14ers)
3. I agree that there are plenty of less popular yet still spectacular parks, just as there as cheaper places to live than San Diego that are still nice. But as someone who lives in Boulder, CO, I think I have some authority to note that, yes, certain places may be more expensive, but that is most often derivative of public policy choices. In the case of Boulder, NIMBYism, bad zoning and housing policy have restricted the housing supply; in San Diego/CA, NIMBYism and Proposition 13's property tax impact has done the same. If we had better public policy, these spectacular places would be more affordable spots to live. Likewise, we should create good public policy around our natural spaces to properly preserve and manage them. That way, they can maintain the quality that makes them amazing in the first place.
4. Thank you!
Michael, I was eating lunch! Great article, I think the solution is that everyone should hold in their poops 100% of the time. Become wholly efficient.
I look forward to the day when we achieve this level of efficiency.