Quote:
Originally Posted by SLCforme
OK, I respect that opinion, however, the Great Salt Lake ecosystem actually is one of the most valuable and unique on the planet. Literally, if we don't protect that ecosystem and wetland environment, it will reek havoc on the migratory patterns of numerous species of bird, causing population crashes and altered routes of migration at best. Not to mention the fish and amphibian populations, but those are more of a local issue as opposed to the international implications of destroying the migratory bird habitat. Besides, no one is denying the public access to this land, in fact there will be a trail that skirts to preserve so people can walk, bike, or ride horses through it and enjoy the unique ecosystem. Wilderness areas and National Parks are not fenced off to keep people out, they are specifically designed for both preserving the natural environment and for allowing people to recreate in those areas in a natural environmentally conscious way (in my opinion, National Parks are far too developed and should be left in a more natural state).
I guess our difference on the issue probably boils down to what each of us considers a "useful" purpose. I think preserving natural ecosystems is a VERY useful purpose, not only for every other species of life on this planet besides humans, but also FOR humans. I believe that without wild natural places a very real part of the human psyche will wither and erode.
Perhaps that is a romantic, head-in-the-clouds attitude, so here is something more concrete. The west doesn't have enough water to support too much larger of a population. Yes there is water about and it can be pumped great distances, but what happens when we have extended droughts so even the pumping isn't enough? How about if a natural disaster hits and takes out the pumping capacity? People can go quite some time without food (especially considering how fat the average person in the developed world is) but not without clean water. My point is: How smart is it really to modify the environment to such a great degree that life as is hangs in such a delicate balance such that everything has to work just right or else life is no longer sustainable? I think it is much smarter to adapt yourself to your environment, at least to some degree, than to try to change your environment to fit with your own desires.
Ok, I have rambled wayyyy too long.  |
<I appalogize in advance for lengthening this disscution on this thread, I realize it is somewhat off topic.>
I agree with almost everything you have said. I have great respect for the ecosystems around Salt Lake. As a kid, for some reason, I always loved going to the Great Salt Lake, I love hearing the storys about how nice it and Utah lake, once were, and it is dissipointing to me how polluted they have become. I think the environment around here is one of SLC's greatest assets.
That being said, I think there is alot of opportunity for our city because of our natural resorces and environment. Take a look at Dubi, or Las Vegas both of these citys probubly have very limited natural resorces yet look at how developed they are (when I say developed I'm not talking about sprawl) I think I read that Las Vegas is one of the top three tourist destinations in the U.S. When you look at all the resorces SLC has compared to these two citys, what oppertunities exist for us. We have oil shale, a great ski industry, worlds largest open pit copper mine, beautiful mountins, ect.
I think we can develop our city and state in an enviromentaly responsable way. Take a look agin, at Las Vegas, as successful as that city has become economicly, Nevada is not exactly known for being an urban state. When I think of Nevada I think of Deserts and wild mustangs, not Las Vegas. I'm not saying I don't want Natinal and State parks, I'm just saying there aso need to be places where we can develop.
Like I said in my last post, over 75percent of our land is already under Federal of State control. I think there needs to be a sence moderatin when it comes to locking up our lands just as ther should be when talking about development. When I pointed out that most of that land is all desert I was not trying to say it is any less valuable then other lands. I love the deserts of Utah, I think those lands are part of what makes Utah what it is. I just don't think those lands are in too much danger of being completely paved over. It just seems like a waste, to me, to take all that desert and say no one can build anything, anywhere on it.
Sorry, this post is way too long, I hope it makes sence. I better Shut up now.
Prev
Here's to Chase and all Rockefeller holdings developing a presence that will out-grow Utah One and have the need for a new tallest in the next few years to come.
The new Chase sign does not improve the Utah One building at all in my opinion. I'd say quite the opposite. Oh well, what's done is done, so they say, and I doubt anyone involved in that decision cares about my opinion anyways
Linear Mode
