If you have property on Mars...


This documentary keeps going on and on about how our national parks are ours, that they belong to each one of us.

Yeah, well, that's nothing to get that excited about, as I see it. It's more accurate to say the parks belong to those who can go there and experience them. The rest of us have no more benefit from them being ours than if we had property on Mars. What good is it to us if we can't go there?

If I told you you have ten thousand acres on Mars with vast valleys and mountains, would that thrill you? No.

You'd say, "So what? I'll never go there and see it. So what's the point?"

"But it's YOURS! You should be happy and proud!" I say.

You'd probably by then be looking at me like I am crazy.

"Truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply

This seems to be one of the highest ideals of the park system, that are parts of the US worth saving just to make sure they don't disappear, because forever is a long time. You may not see them, but maybe one of your children or someone you know and care about will see them. If someone kills the last bald eagle, does it matter because I have never seen one?

reply

Oh, I certainly agree that the parks are worth saving. No problem with that. I even wish more land were set aside for parks. But why should I get excited that the parks belong to me if I know I'll never get to see them? They shouldn't phrase it that way. Just say the parks are there for anyone to visit, or something like that. The parks are ours to visit, but that's the extent of what we can do with our ownership. We individually have no authority over them. So saying they're ours is kind of hollow. It's as meaningful as saying New York City is ours, too. I don't know whether I'm expressing this well enough to get my point across but maybe you get me.

"Truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

reply