Outdoor recreation often slips into what I call an achievement-based relationship with nature. I’ve been guilty of it myself. Whether it’s “bagging peaks”, racing to finish the AT, or stamping the land with machines and monuments, the focus shifts from ecology to ego.
Being obsessed with Peak Bagging is not Solarpunk.
Nature is not your personal obstacle to challenge yourself against, it is a shared place of discovery you trample when you only see it as a place to endlessly, exhaustingly conquer.
I can’t speak for SuperSquirrel, but I certainly advocate for that. I found a killdeer nest in the back of an industrial park not too long ago. Got a pic, and then talked to the property owners about putting up some flags so it didn’t get destroyed. Good times.
Not only am I advocating for that but I am saying this is the only actual path to connecting with nature. The western/american idea of “going to the frontier” we insist on reliving over and over again as a fantasy never brings us any closer to nature even though we surround ourselves with the aesthetic experience of it, rather most of the time it distances us from nature even as we trample all over it.
I wouldn’t say “only”, but it’s certainly the most accessible for the largest amount of people.
Nice work! I do agree that there’s a great deal of interesting stuff in less visually-appealling places, but I wouldn’t want to tell someone that there’s no value in bearing witness to natural beauty on a grander scale than what can be found behind a warehouse
I wouldn’t say there’s “no value” in seeing natural beauty. I just don’t think that visiting tourist areas is more valuable than finding the beauty that surrounds you on a daily basis.
Some of this is probably because I don’t have the money to travel, and it was really bumming me out that I couldn’t go anywhere “valuable”. It took a shift in mentality to realize that there is also value in the stuff right outside my front door, like these pixie cups.
There’s a reasonable distintion to be drawn between tourist areas and areas that are just a bit wilder / grander / less-accessible, surely? The two categories can overlap, sure, but they’re not the same thing
Yeah, I think that the distinction can be drawn. However, when I read OP’s article, I understood it to be about the more tourist-y areas.
Ahh, I see where you’re coming from. I was meaning to reply more to OP’s comments on the in-the-moment experiences of hiking as opposed to the article talking about the ramifications that the hobby can have outside of that
See, I also interpreted OPs comments as being about more popular attractions, haha.
They spoke quite highly of the more wild nature preserve they visit and bemoaned the capitalist urge to take a beautiful and wild area, and turn it into a profitible tourist attraction that pulls the kind of hiker that doesn’t really respect nature.
Somewhat besides the point of the conversation, that’s a really nice photo. I nornally feel like my cheap phone’s camera is good enough with a bit of creative usage, but stuff like that lovely narrow band in focus really shows what it can’t do
Thanks! This was taken with my Note 8, which is a ten year old phone. It’s got dual cameras though, one for landscape and one for close-up shots.