Comment by jcurbo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jcurbo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Most people I know practice some variant of a digital leave-no-trace rule: don't post photos in publicly-trafficked areas of the internet, or if you do then don't say where they were taken. It's not so much gatekeeping as ensuring people who want to experience that beauty have to put in the work - read terribly-designed websites, meet actual people and gain their trust, or even take a backcountry travel class which hopefully instills a healthy respect for the environment you're enjoying."

This is sheer nonsense and IS ridiculous gatekeeping. Ensuring people who want to experience beauty need to put in work for it? Some people may never be able to visit these places, not everyone is so fortunate to be able to afford or have time off to travel. You might as well say they should never look at book of photos either, or they can never look at a painting without becoming an artist first. Maybe they would never gain a love of the outdoors if they had never seen some of these photos first and wanted to see more?

Now, I agree with the sentiment that there can be tourist overload on places, and that they should be managed well so they aren't destroyed. But 'digital leave no trace' is just nonsense. We should be sharing the beauty of the world, not restricting it.

I agree, the absurdity of the notion of digital gatekeeping of beauty becomes apparent if we think what the first pictures of our planet from space have done for the ecology movement. People need to experience to connect.

Take that away and living in air conditioned condos and driving big diesel SUVs to the next strip mall for your latte is just how the world is supposed to be.

It seems like you're assessing this in a very abstract way, as evidenced by your "what if we took this logic to the extreme" examples. I assure you your perspective changes once you have skin in the game and are invested in an activity which is substantially diminished by the introduction of a large number of uncaring people.

Literally the same argument was made when blacks tried to move into predominately white neighborhoods. “Oh it’s never been the same since, we had to leave to a more exclusive town.”

As long as gates break down new ones will emerge. That surfing spot down thr road is now 5x busy as it was a decade ago? Doesn’t matter, those with means already moved onwards to the better exclusive spot on some remote island.

> invested in an activity

Odd phrase. "Invested" in your own amusement? And that trumps others' right to be in the same place? The ones with "skin in the game" are the residents, owners, and/or official caretakers. If they want to let the unwashed masses in, as seems to be the case, who are you to overrule them? Instead of trying to exclude people, maybe we should educate people about what not to do and why not, providing facilities to contain the damage, hiring personnel to enforce rules and/or ameliorate damage as much as they can, etc.

I've been an active hiker, occasional backpacker, etc. for many years. Longer than most HNers have been alive. I've seen plenty of the damage that crowds can do. But I still realize that turning public places into private preserves for the most privileged is not an acceptable alternative.

1. You can indeed be invested in your own amusement, through sunk time & money for equipment & training, a social network of others invested in the same activity, and many things less tangible.

2. "Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion.

3. Unless you're talking about a national park, the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody, or at most a volunteer trail maintenance org.

4. Educating people costs money. Providing facilities costs money. Hiring personnel costs money. Ameliorating damage costs money. These things all happen, but they cost money, and nobody is champing at the bit to pay.

The approach many in the outdoors community take is indeed everything you suggest, plus an information diet to concentrate use on trails which have seen a lot of work and can handle the traffic.

> Rights" have nothing to do with this discussion.

Rights have everything to do with this discussion. You're trying to argue that other people have less right to these areas because they've enjoyed them less than you. One could easily argue the exact opposite, that you've exhausted your share and should stay away. It's not a very good argument, but it's still more morally supportable than the one you're making.

> the residents/owners/official caretakers of the backcountry are often nobody

The default owner is the government, the default caretaker is BLM. Or equivalent in other countries. They have the authority to determine who should or should not go on that land, for what purpose. You don't. Get over it.

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Under discussion is whether there is a moral imperative for individuals to publicly disseminate their personal knowledge of locations of natural beauty. Again, rights are not at all relevant, unless you're talking about the right of someone else to my personal knowledge. Given your wild misreading of the topic I won't engage with you further.

> ...whether there is a moral imperative...

Who said there was such a moral imperative? Not me. Not even you. I'm not misreading; you're misrepresenting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com