The daily digest of Twin Cities culture | Secrets of the City

yeah, I kinda figured it might not be entirely appropriate... you're of course welcome to do with it as you please.

i don't think foreman will talk so much about environmentalism vs. development/exploitation, which is getting to be a pretty tired debate (and by the way, i've abandoned my "conservationist" label... call me an "environmentalist," i'd be honored).

to me, what it sounds like he'll be talking about is an interesting subject: the idea that the only worthy and effective arguments for wilderness conservation today are based on scientific research, national security, whathaveyou -- instead the more qualitative arguments about the necessity of wilderness to our collective and individual psyches -- is becoming more and more prevalent. personally, I do think the most important argument is about the role wilderness plays in our minds. even if Foreman is a little flakey, he'll probably have some interesting things to say.

Just because you've blocked something out, pretended it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it's not important or worth me giving a shit about.

Enjoy your concrete and steel and don't pay any attention to the occasional gnawing and longing for something not so sterile and alienating... Just quit asking us to drill for goddamn oil in one of the last places where there are mountains without names.

Or, just take your comments down one thread where invective is a bit more appropriate.

Your dismissive attitude as invective. I'm not going to battle semantics though.

Please back up your 95% stat. I don't doubt it's within a dozen percentage points of reality, but it's meaningless without some sort of source.

And anyway, undeveloped land is much different than wilderness. There are parts of Como Park that are "undeveloped." I'm not talking green space here. The wilderness I -- and Dave Foreman, I suppose -- refer to is large, roadless chunks.

For the record, I think this country is fucked if we lose our little remaining wilderness. We'll all go nuts. More nuts.

ps - the ever-urban MNSpeak probably isn't the best place for this discussion.

Whoops, I clearly don't have the hang of linking yet. Let me try again and put it here for good measure too:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/BG1556.cfm

Clearly this is not the forum for academic debate, but let me run this up the flagpole and see who salutes:

Wilderness is not essential to the United States psyche; subjugation of wilderness is.

I have to agree with gerg, the Heritage Institute is not a respectable scientific organization, and the author of this study has also claimed to be an expert in such diverse fields as disaster relief and transportation systems. The source cited for the 5% developed figure is conveniently not linked to in the Heritage article (despite most other sources containing a link) and a quick glance at the summary data from that report shows that many of the lands classified as something other than developed are indeed altered by humans and can't be considered 'wilderness'.

Oh, some day, maybe tomorrow, the Sun will either burn out or explode and life on Earth will end anyway.

It's a fact.

just heard him speak at EnviroThursday at Mac---his distinction between the conservation and environmentalism movements was well-taken, and he admitted he has lost credibility in lobbying over the years. he side-stepped a question about eco-terrorism (arguing the definition of 'terrorism' has morphed so much it hardly means anything anymore) and almost acknowledged that conservation could be viewed as a bourgeois luxury (almost). he touched on whiteness, internationalism and conservation, but did not address justice issues nor eco-imperialism. maybe he will tonight at patagonia?

He didn't address eco-imperialism? Oh NO!