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.
Some of this seems quite strange to me. I hope you don’t mind me asking a bit about it / challenging some of it
Regarding the balance of physical exertion vs awareness of the natural world around you: with the exception of seriously gruelling climbs, surely nothing stops you from climbing a mountain or otherwise going on a tougher hike at the same slower pace that you describe enjoying? I certainly don’t hurry up mountains when I climb them. I take detours if I see something interesting, stop to watch wildlife if I see it, break for lunch when I find a nice viewpoint (and take all litter with me, of course). It does indeed take me a lot longer, but there’s nothing wrong with that, I just have to account for it when I’m planning. What you’re describing seems to me more like going for a run through a local forest than going for a pleasant walk through it. Sure, there’s no way to do Everest casually, but Everest is not what most people who consider hiking to be a hobby they partake in are usually doing
I don’t think that videos and photos can meaningfully replace the experience of being somewhere yourself. I’m sure you would not consider photos of your local forest to be a replacement for your walk in that forest. It is absolutely worthwhile and important to consider the impacts of going somewhere, and if someone cannot go to a place without vandalising it then they probably should not go, but that doesn’t invalidate the power of a personal experience
With all due respect, there is. You’re not advocating for walks around industrial estates or by the side of a busy road or just doing laps of your own home. You’re right that there’s a great deal of good to see in places that are less obviously notable, and also that many people miss out on that good by failing to consider it, but I don’t think we do anyone any favours by pretending that there’s no such thing as a more interesting landscape
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.
Somewhat besides the point of the conversation, that’s a really nice photo. I normally 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.
There’s a reasonable disticntion 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.