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.
ive seen Chinese tourists deface trees so it’s not just America
Chinese tourists are in a league of their own.
I’ve read the article and a lot of the opinions stated in this thread. You gotta let go of this one, dog. People live their lives the way they want to, and as long as it’s harmless to others it’s not anybody else’s business.
That said, way too many generalizations both implicit and explicit here, including in the article itself. It sounds like the aim of the article and comments made are just looking for someone to be angry at. But I’d wager that those people actually out experiencing, even just existing in, nature are not the ones to whom that anger should be pointed. Redirect your focus, don’t attack your fellow people.
As long as they’re not defacing, degrading, or destroying anything, its nobodies business how another person appreciates nature. Wtf is this gatekeeping bullshit?
If you read the article, a large portion of it is dedicated to people defacing and degrading the nature.
Hell the title card image is a tree with a bunch of initials carved into it.
Overall the headline blows, because the article had a large chunk dedicated to Native American Cultural Appropriation and other related criticisms.
Edit: My bad, I didn’t see OP’s message. Your comment is a pretty good take on OPs commentary. I’m not quite sure how OP tied that message to this article, this article is not really solarpunk focused.
I just read the article. I recommend doing that, it is quiet good.
To clarify, I’m replying to the OP, not the article.
I don’t understand why people frame hiking challenges as conquering nature. It’s clearly conquering your own internal limitations, not anything external. But framing aside, challenging yourself is a great thing to do.
Yeahhhh. I have always hated hiking with a group, because I want to stop and look at the neat flora and fauna, then everybody gets pissy at me for holding up the group.
Fuck me for wanting to know more about the shit that lives here, I guess.
As soon as you get into that hiking rhythm and are thoroughly into a cardio workout, you aren’t noticing shit around you. Most of the time when you are hiking you are less present in the natural world than you would be if you were sitting inside calmly looking out the window watching a stretch of woods.
Hiking is fun, it is good for people, I am not bashing getting out and walking in nature but honestly for me walks in the woods are so much more fulfilling than most hikes these days for me. I can walk at a slower pace and focus on remaining present and aware of the forest around me. Often times I will just sit and do nothing for 20 minutes and just enjoy the feeling of the forest happening around me. Hiking to the top of a beautiful mountain after I got up super early to drive for a couple of hours and then rushed to the top pushing myself to the peak of my physical capability just doesn’t do it for me.
I don’t know, I think it is because of how many digital places I have explored and how many photographs and videos I have seen of stunning places on earth… going there myself is of course different but I find myself dogged by the question “Why?”. Why do I need to climb to the top of Everest to see it MYSELF?". It is kind of an ego thing but it is also about the fact that even if I did climb to the top of Everest I do think I would still, in the majesty of that moment atop the tallest mountain in the world wonder “…but why did I need to come here myself when so many others already have? With video cameras, cameras, notebooks… leaving trash and human impact everywhere on one of the most unique spots on earth with all the gear one could imagine. Am I exploring or trampling?”.
In many hikers I have known there is a severe hierarchy of landscapes that are worth spending time in and that are not worth spending time in. Hikers will drive hours and hours past vast landscapes they completely ignore to reach one particular place. In a way that is cool and expresses passion but in another way it is a statement about how blind these people are to the landscapes between them and the “ideal nature” that they desire in a superficial way. It represents a deeply unhealthy subconscious perspective on natural spaces as exotic and beyond our everyday. No, do the opposite, go for a boring walk in your community, go for a local walk up that hill that is kind of lame and take it slow, train yourself to see the beauty of the nature beckoning you into the moment already around you… Our desire to NEED the most beautiful mountain or natural vista is destructive towards nature itself even if it feels like we are in love with nature when we feel it.
Within me is not a hierarchy of landscapes, sure I love an incredible vista but a normal mediocre walk in the woods surrounded by normal woodland life in an unremarkable nature preserve near where I live is what I will think about on my death bed for sure… I don’t think I will regret I didn’t climb that last mountain on my list because that shit doesn’t matter.
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
“…but why did I need to come here myself when so many others already have? With video cameras, cameras, notebooks… leaving trash and human impact everywhere on one of the most unique spots on earth with all the gear one could imagine. Am I exploring or trampling?”
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
Within me is not a hierarchy of landscapes
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I can’t speak for SuperSquirrel, but I certainly advocate for that.
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.
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?
Well actually your body does, as we begin to enter into a cardio workout state our brain releases drugs making us feel good and encouraging us to exercise more and push harder. The entire time someone is hiking/running there brain is saying in their head “go go go go go go”. This is a very obvious aspect of 99.99% of hikers to me? Why do you think most hiking groups have so much trouble waiting up for slower people? It is because we always eventually succumb to that headspace of pushing harder and getting higher, even if the pace of someone slower is justtttt a bit slower than us we will walk at the speed our body demands even if it creates social conflicts.
https://www.rutgers.edu/news/researchers-find-runners-improve-performance-narrowing-visual-focus
A simple way for runners who want to enhance their performance is to focus on the finish line rather than taking in their surroundings, a recent study has found
A team of psychology researchers at Rutgers University-New Brunswick, New York University and Creighton University, who investigated nearly 1,600 runners, call it “narrowing one’s visual attention.”
In an investigation of nearly 1,600 runners, scientists found that narrowing visual attention – zooming in on the finish line rather than taking in the surroundings – serves as a powerful self-regulation strategy that can boost both effort and performance.
When your body is working hard your awareness plummets, this is just an aspect of being a human being. You can balance it while hiking, but almost no one does because it is mentally exhausting to keep holding your feet back from tackling the exhausting challenge you know is ahead… and even if you do you simply will never be able to be anywhere as aware of the nature around you than if you had taken a slow walk instead.
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
Well yes I agree but given the obsession of car culture in most places in the world, this is actually MUCH harder to do than people assume. The mass migration of everyone using personal ICE vehicles to “connect with the outdoors” is, when seen holistically, a process of strangling natural spaces not honoring them.
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
Yes I am, explore the landscape you are surrounded by absolutely.
Well actually your body does, as we begin to enter into a cardio workout state our brain releases drugs making us feel good and encouraging us to exercise more and push harder.
That’s not an absolute in any way, though. If it was, you’d have the same issue on any walk and you’d just wind up sprinting through the forest or local park or whatever as fast as you can because that too is a physical challenge
This is a very obvious aspect of 99.99% of hikers to me?
I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but that’s definitely not my experience. Across both my personal friends and family and random people I bump into while out and about hiking myself, there’s a broad mix of the kind of people you describe and people who are doing it in a much more relaxed and casual manner. Why do hiking groups push harder? I don’t know, I only ever go either by myself or with friends and family. To borrow the term instrumental play, such instrumentalisation is common across many hobbies. If you start playing a videogame then the online lobbies might be sweaty as hell, but that doesn’t stop you playing it casually so long as the game gives you plenty of stuff to do and engage with that doesn’t require the online lobby. A lot of people will be playing that game much less instrumentally, but they may be much less visible. I would argue that a mountain or similar does, in this analogy, generally have plenty to engage with other than physically testing yourself
It really depends on the hiking group and I think it’s important for people to be up front about their goal. I’ve had some groups that just want to go constantly and I think that’s ok, just not my favorite.
My favorite groups are the ones who want to listen to me geek out on this really cool looking spider or talk about how that native plant over there can be used to stop the itch of mosquito bites. Or my buddies who I used to go bouldering with. That group loved talking about rock formations and how a giant rock got into its specific place.
I’ve had way more experiences with the latter group.
I think local culture also has a hand in it. I’m in the Pacific Northwest, and we’ve got a serious hiking culture up here that is both obsessive and gatekeep-y.
I have been on hikes with rockhounds, and that’s been great, but they don’t call themselves hikers.
I spent a month in Seattle and know what you are talking about. I’m in the Pacific Southwest, so we have a lot of hikers here as well. It’s not always easy to find that balanced group.
I can’t even follow trails let alone stay with a group. I like just wandering around, I always find neat stuff.
I try to stay on trails, but that’s because theres a lot of trails up here that go through protected wetlands, and I don’t want to trample an endangered plant or something
I’d follow trails if it was somewhere like that. I’m out west though, big mountains, massive forests, seemingly endless desert.
This is a clickbait/ragebait headline, which has little to do with the article itself.
The article itself is essentially a travel blog post about this guy’s vacation and the very emotional emotions he experienced during it.
The title and post content are just weirdly judgemental nonsense. If you want to go into nature to lay under a tree and listen to crickets chirp, that’s great. Do that. But if you want to go into nature to challenge yourself, that’s also great, you can do that, too. If someone shows up at a trailhead and says “Imma run around this loop and try really hard”, then their experience will be different from listening to crickets chirp, but no less legitimate - they will feel their body moving, their lungs burning, their heart pounding. The wind on their face and their sweat on their skin. And they will finish with a visceral experience of being in that particular place, doing that particular thing, at that particular time. But importantly, they were able to have that experience because they set the goal “run around the loop”.
If someone shows up at a trailhead and says “Imma run around this loop and try really hard”, then their experience will be different from listening to crickets chirp, but no less legitimate - they will feel their body moving, their lungs burning, their heart pounding. The wind on their face and their sweat on their skin. And they will finish with a visceral experience of being in that particular place, doing that particular thing, at that particular time. But importantly, they were able to have that experience because they set the goal “run around the loop”.
Yes and you just described a totally internal experience that relies little on the details of the outside environment other than the burden and challenge it places on the body.
I am not bashing this type of pursuit I am saying it is fundamentally selfish and is a different pursuit than trying to actually connect with, observe and know nature by listening instead of pressing your body to its physical limit just to prove you can and get those sweet exercise drug chemicals going in your brain.
The person who spends time listening to crickets chirp will walk away with an externally rich memory of all the wildlife they listened to carefully, all of the rhythms of the forest and the unique creatures and events they happened to catch by being slow and quiet. The person who spent the entire time running will primarily remember the experience of running, the details of the external are just snapshots and set dressing to theme the run in their memories.
I am saying it is fundamentally selfish and is a different pursuit than trying to actually connect with, observe and know nature by listening instead of pressing your body to its physical limit just to prove you can and get those sweet exercise drug chemicals going in your brain.
That really comes off as very elitist, IMO.
Why?
By saying jogging through nature is inherently selfish compared to walking through it. I’d also say you pretty clearly look down upon those who like to exercise in nature based on your other comments here, and your framing of people doing it for ‘the drug chemicals’.
You say you’re not bashing them, but I’m not sure that defense works since you’re kind’ve framing a different way of experiencing nature as inherently inferior and ‘selfish’ compared to your preferred way, instead of framing it as two equally valid ways to experience it (as long as it doesn’t hurt the local ecology, or leave any litter).
The overall vibe I get is a sense of elitism that only your own preferred slower way of taking in nature and pondering it is the truly valid and meaningful way of experiencing it. But that’s just my 2 cents.
By saying jogging through nature is inherently selfish compared to walking through it. I’d also say you pretty clearly look down upon those who like to exercise in nature based on your other comments here, and your framing of people doing it for ‘the drug chemicals’.
I like drugs, I have no problem with taking drugs I just don’t like when people pretend they aren’t taking drugs when they are.
You say you’re not bashing them, but I’m not sure that defense works since you’re kind’ve framing a different way of experiencing nature as inherently inferior and ‘selfish’ compared to your preferred way, instead of framing it as two equally valid ways to experience it (as long as it doesn’t hurt the local ecology, or leave any litter).
Yes and you are framing this conversation in a way that if I criticize a broad cultural movement centered around the outdoors for being shallow this necessarily means I think I am superior. You allow no other perspective other than one that agrees with your own unless that perspective is relativistic about everything with no judgements possible at all.
I can criticize outdoor culture without being selfish or adopting a position of assumed superiority and even if I was those things it doesn’t actually negate the points I am making since I am arguing the overall selfishness of outdoor culture is even greater? We are all a part of this problem as we are all part of the same society.
I just don’t like when people pretend they aren’t taking drugs when they are.
There are many people who do not appear to experience ‘runners high’. I am one of those people, I have never experienced any noticeable pleasant side-effects from exercise itself, just a rather unpleasant burning sensation in my lungs. Regardless, I still ride my bike or jog to maintain my health, and I vastly prefer doing so amongst nature if I can.
you are framing this conversation in a way that if I criticize a broad cultural movement centered around the outdoors for being shallow this necessarily means I think I am superior.
Claiming the way an entire subset of other people experience nature is inferior and shallow compared to yours is kinda the definition of a sense of superiority, yeah.
I have no problem criticizing people who litter in nature, or destroy it in some way, but putting every jogger into the same box, with disregard to the variability of those people’s respect and appreciation of nature just due to the way they personally enjoy it? Oof.
There are many people who do not appear to experience ‘runners high’. I am one of those people, I have never experienced any noticeable pleasant side-effects from exercise itself, just a rather unpleasant burning sensation in my lungs.
Have you tried exercising less intensely? I never got runner’s high until I started jogging in the low aerobic range, which is when you can speak in full sentences while running without getting out of breath (around 133 bpm for a 30 year old). If you’re getting a burning sensation in your lungs, you’re touching the anaerobic range (around 152 bmp for a 30 year old), which is too fast for a runner’s high AFAIK.
For me, coming out of competitive ameteur/high school sports, it felt unnaturally slow to learn jogging, even embarrassing at times, shuffling around at 8 km/h. Yet at the end there was regularly a runner’s high, and over time and mixing it up with higher-end aerobic exercises and anaerobic sprints, my aerobic running speed increased. I learned to be in conversation with my body rather than relying on external metrics, now I just run at a speed that feels natural and playful, varying from run to run based on how I feel in the moment.
Claiming the way an entire subset of other people experience nature is inferior and shallow compared to yours is kinda the definition of a sense of superiority, yeah
I am arguing our cultural framing around outdoor culture is inferior and shallow compared to a deeper more thoughtful relationship with the natural world and and an awareness of the living history of colonialism as it bends and warps our perspective our relationship with nature.
If you do not allow me this without labelling me as attempting to claim I am superior than you simply do not allow any kind of criticism of your beliefs/actions in this area. How else am I supposed to interpet this?
The person who spends time listening to crickets chirp will walk away with an externally rich memory of all the wildlife they listened to carefully
I’m planning to climb an El Cap route in about a week. I expect that my goal oriented pursuit will leave me with some equally rich memories of the sun beating on my back as starlings swoop past me. I will see hawks gliding on the thermals at eye level. The breeze across the face will be a welcome relief, and I will become intimately familiar with the bumps, edges, cracks, and seams in the rock as I search for placements for my hooks and pitons - my attention heightened by the potential to take a 100’ fall if I make a poor descision. And with my day’s labor done, I will lay in my portaledge dangling several hundred feet off the ground and look at the stars, marvelling at the beauty of nature around me and the joy of being in such an incredible position.
I am currently thinking about going out into the park near where I live and experiencing a beautiful sunny day as songbirds fly by me.
as starlings swoop past me
An invasive species introduced by someone with a vision about what nature should be not what it was.
I am currently thinking about going out into the park near where I live and experiencing a beautiful sunny day as songbirds fly by me.
That sounds very nice. I hope you enjoy that.
An invasive species introduced by someone with a vision about what nature should be not what it was.
I just think they’re neat
An invasive species introduced by someone with a vision about what nature should be not what it was.I just think they’re neat
So… you like the aesthetic of them and you aren’t interested in examining it any deeper?
Exactly. I am witnessing nature rather than egotistically analyzing it, making myself feel big and smart by categorizing living creatures into categories like “invasive”. I have moved beyond the need to do such things (it’s very impressive - are you impressed?), and now am able to appreciate the true beauty of nature and the connectedness of the world - unlike those big dumb dummies who keep insisting that “doing things” like “thinking” is a valid way to live
No I am not impressed you don’t examine the world around you with a curious and analytical mind.
I am not bashing this type of pursuit I am saying it is fundamentally selfish and is a different pursuit than trying to actually connect with, observe and know nature by listening instead of pressing your body to its physical limit just to prove you can and get those sweet exercise drug chemicals going in your brain.
Look at you proving your own point. So you’re saying that your way of hiking is inherently better and more meaningful? Yeah that certainly sounds like an out of control ego.
Not everyone enjoys things the same way you do. Not everyone finds meaning the same way you do. As long as they aren’t preventing others from enjoying the trail whichever way they use the trail is valid.
You seem to have strong opinions on how other people enjoy things. You also seems to want to dictate the proper way to enjoy what you enjoy. You also seems to think you can predict what memories will form in someone else’s mind. Check your own ego. I think the call might be coming from inside the house.
You seem to have strong opinions on how other people enjoy things. You also seems to want to dictate the proper way to enjoy what you enjoy. You also seems to think you can predict what memories will form in someone else’s mind. Check your own ego. I think the call might be coming from inside the house.
Yes I have strong opinions about people enjoy nature, that does not mean I want to dictate the way to enjoy what I enjoy it means I am criticizing the motivations at the heart of some other people who enjoy a thing I enjoy.
I have checked my own ego, I have not claimed I am better than other people for enjoying nature the way I do, rather I am pointing out that the embedded assumptions in popular outdoor culture are problematic and we need to examine them. How is that being egotistical?
Criticizing someone’s motivations for enjoying a thing you enjoy is inherently placing yourself above the people you are criticizing. That is the essence of egotism.
You called people selfish for using hiking trails for exercise and personal lmorovement. That is saying that your motivations are better than theirs because selfishness is generally recognized as a negative trait and you are saying that their motivations are selfish while yours are somehow not
You enjoy a quiet hike through nature, taking note of the beauty of the natural world around you. Others might enjoy a run through challenging terrain and pushing their body past their previously believed limits. Still others might enjoy a noisy walk through the woods with their family as they trek to the perfect cook out spot to enjoy their time together. None of these is any better than the others. No one needs to be calling anyone else selfish for having these motivations.
If you had some other point you need to do a better job of communicating it.
Challenging yourself against nature is a valid way to appreciate it; it can help you humble yourself and get in tune with your body and build a connection to nature.
Nature does not have to be a shared experience to be valid, doing stuff by yourself is an ok way to experience nature, too.
You’re being pretty judgemental of how people like to enjoy nature, when you should be encouraging people to enjoy nature.
That isn’t solarpunk.
Nature does not have to be a shared experience to be valid
Yes it does, otherwise you are just moving around a living landscape remaining isolated from it. Going into nature is inherently a shared experience, that is my point.
You’re saying being by yourself in nature is being isolated from it? What are you on?
Going into nature is not inherently a shared experience, that’s just objectively like, wrong.
Also you know hiking and climbing and those things where you challenge yourself are usually group activities anyway, right?
Is this really an issue though? Whatever gets people a bit closer to nature seems good to me
Yes, yes it is. Just look at how the top of Everest is trashed by climbers insisting on conquering it and it is a perfect symbol of the broader outdoor movement in many ways.
When people relate to nature as something to be tested against and conquered/overcome they begin to lose the capacity to understand how they can have a meaningfully negative impact on nature from their actions because this entire perspective frames nature as an obstacle far bigger than us, hopelessly more powerful than us and so encompassing we are tiny in comparison. There is a rotting false, dangerous comfort and naivety embedded in the core of that belief. It reminds me of this catastrophically off base speculation in Moby Dick about how since Whales are so much more powerful than humans and the ocean is so big that we could never diminish their numbers in hunting.
But as perhaps fifty of these whale-bone whales are harpooned for one cachalot, some philosophers of the forecastle have concluded that this positive havoc has already very seriously diminished their battalions. But though for some time past a number of these whales, not less than 13,000, have been annually slain on the nor’-west coast by the Americans alone; yet there are considerations which render even this circumstance of little or no account as an opposing argument in this matter.
…
Wherefore, for all these things, we account the whale immortal in his species, however perishable in his individuality. He swam the seas before the continents broke water; he once swam over the site of the Tuileries, and Windsor Castle, and the Kremlin. In Noah’s flood he despised Noah’s Ark; and if ever the world is to be again flooded, like the Netherlands, to kill off its rats, then the eternal whale will still survive, and rearing upon the topmost crest of the equatorial flood, spout his frothed defiance to the skies.
Moby Dick - Herman Melville
How awfully wrong that quote was about the future of whales…
I agree that its not a great attitude; but exposure to nature seems like a good way to correct it. I’ve known people who didn’t care about climate change; until they realized it would effect the trail they like to go running on.
The trash left on hiking trails isn’t great; but its nothing compared to the damage corporations have done. If just a few more people discovered a love of nature, that could inspire tighter regulations on corporations
Sure, but my argument is that it isn’t just about being physically in nature, that doesn’t magically make it impact you, it can end up just hurting nature and driving you further into an internal quest that diminishes your capacity to witness the world around you.
I am glad when people decide to care about climate change because their personal exercise facility is impacted but it is a shallow reason to care and it is fragile too. It is far better to invite people into nature in a way that actually deepens and radicalizes them.
In my experience, the more goal/achievement oriented a person is in their relationship to nature, the more likely they are to care for it.
Appalachian trail thru hikers, for example, are far more likely to know and follow leave no trace principles, and will enforce these principles on each other via informal social tactics. Hikers who cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save a few grams of weight would be appalled at the prospect of leaving their garbage behind at a campsite or on the side of the trail. The people who dump their garbage everywhere tend to be people who come to the forest for a party, or to have a picnic.
Similarly, the Everest climbers leaving all the trash are chasing the vague goal of “get to the top”. But high end alpinists leave no trash behind. They leave no fixed lines, and do not carry bottled oxygen, and so cannot leave the bottles. Whatever the underlying motivations, they want to achieve a significant feat, and they want to do it “in good style” - in a way that meets their community’s approval. And the community is quite clear that good style requires leaving no (or very little) trace. Climbing Everest with fixed lines and sherpa and oxygen would be embarassing for any serious alpinist.
In my experience, the more goal/achievement oriented a person is in their relationship to nature, the more likely they are to care for it.
In my experience the more goal/achievement oriented a person is the more hollow and superficial their relationship to nature is.
You are essentially using a “No True Scotsman” fallacy here on hiking and mountaineering culture. I don’t doubt there are lots of really passionate nature lovers who are deep into hiking and mountaineering. Of course there are, but the point is that the underlying ideology undermines the pursuit of connecting with nature in a way an overwhelming chunk of outdoor sports culture in the US seems oblivious too.
The people who dump their garbage everywhere tend to be people who come to the forest for a party, or to have a picnic.
These are not the people I am comparing to, I am comparing the obsessive peak bagging, personal goal oriented culture of outdoor sports to people who protect, spend time in and love the natural landscapes right outside their door instead of looking at instagram and fantasizing about climbing that one mountain they really need to climb to cross off their list that is hundreds of miles away. I don’t see the culture of most outdoor oriented communities in the US as anything other than weaponized FOMO meant to push people into an endless loop of needing to conquer more and more nature to prove themselves to their peers.
Anecdotally I have noticed that the people I know who are the most accomplished hikers and outdoor enthusiasts are the least capable of enjoying a boring patch of woods or nature because they compare it to the mountain peaks in their minds and the beauty of the space in front of them becomes bland in comparison. This is not the mindset of a true nature enthusiast, it is the mindset of a conqueror who isn’t amused by obstacles smaller than they have already witnessed and defeated.
To put it another way, I don’t see most outdoor sports culture in the US as meaningfully different than downhill skiing culture, that is these things are fun, beautiful, challenging and rewarding to participate in but they aren’t a process of becoming more intimately connected with and supportive of nature.
Frontier myths permeate outdoor narratives and media, shaping stories in ways that hinder meaningful self-reflection and critical analysis. These narratives often portray personal growth or enlightenment as achievable only through solitary, soul-searching journeys. This framing emphasizes the adventurer’s internal experience while neglecting the broader social, environmental, and historical impacts on the lands and communities they traverse. Even today, the individual setting out to the frontier and removing the self from collective traumas or responsibilities continues to be a common theme from films, documentaries, books, history, and magazines. Whether or not we actively subscribe to these narratives, we are all affected by them. They obscure a fundamental truth: that survival, success, and even adventure are not the result of rugged individualism, but of our interdependence.
to people who protect, spend time in and love the natural landscapes
Gotta say, No True Scotsman right back at you. Plenty of hippies around me like to leave their shit and beer cans around the hot springs they drop acid in - though I’m sure if you asked them, they would tell you about how intimately they connected with nature.
I don’t see the culture of most outdoor oriented communities in the US as anything other than weaponized FOMO meant to push people into an endless loop of needing to conquer more and more nature to prove themselves to their peers.
Honestly, this sounds like you are just judging people for enjoying the outdoors in a different way than you enjoy the outdoors. I basically am one of those people you describe, but I have literally never posted on IG about what I do, and have not been active on social media for years. I do the things I do because going on epic, challenging missions is personally meaningful and memorable to me, requires me to challenge myself and see how I can overcome those challenges, and creates new relationships with others and deepens my existing relationships.
You can enjoy the sunshine in your local city park by sitting on a bench. Or you can play soccar with your friends. Neither way of interacting with nature is “wrong”
I do the things I do because going on epic, challenging missions is personally meaningful and memorable to me, requires me to challenge myself and see how I can overcome those challenges
Again you have explained your relationship with nature as almost entirely about you and your experience.
You can enjoy the sunshine in your local city park by sitting on a bench. Or you can play soccar with your friends. Neither way of interacting with nature is “wrong”
Both of those things are very different than participating in a culture of needing to conquer nature to prove yourself.
Again you have explained your relationship with nature as almost entirely about you and your experience.
And you are describing listening to crickets - which is all about you and your cricket-listening experience.
Both of those things are very different than participating in a culture of needing to conquer nature to prove yourself.
I could easily say that the people playing soccer are doing so to fulfill their ego goal of “conquoring” the other team and proving themselves. But if I did, the people who showed up to have fun playing soccer with their friends would look at me weird.
And you are describing listening to crickets - which is all about you and your cricket-listening experience.
No it is about me and the crickets, it is about placing the value of witnessing over the value of conquering something with my body. The latter is inherently more selfish than the former.
As an Appalachian I see much of the same harm Joe Whittle is witnessing and describing, however I see the root issue differently. The problem isn’t hikers, the problem is a white supremacist culture that devalues downtime. Perhaps I simply have a different perspective on what “hiking culture” is. But I see these assaults on our trees and our cairns through similar eyes. Too many Outsiders come to this land without any reverence for that the land does not exist in service of them, and that they are guests on it. They see the people who live on the land, be they Cherokee, Lenape, Melungeon, or Appalachian as being either backwards, in the way, or in some way mystically other from themselves. Something other than truly human, worthy of respect or listening to for wisdom.
Then again, I’m also realizing in this moment that I have sat and listened to Joe speak. We have eaten together. He and I share many of the same outlooks, and perhaps what I am experiencing right now is that I am not who he is trying to speak to through this article. I’m going to spend some time reflecting on this.
I will say this. The hiking culture I grew up in emphasizes the importance of both having hikes and trail runs where you have maintained goals that you seek to achieve, but also days where you are just out on the trail. You are not meant to leave any announcement of your presence to anyone else on the mountain. You are meant to leave the trail beautiful and enjoyable for others. You frequently hear “Take nothing but photos, leave only footprints” however the slogan I was presented was “Tread lightly and treasure your memories.” I much prefer our version. Do not tramp, tromp, or traipse. Walk, run, or bike with purpose. Not the purpose of achieving anything, I mean, but the purpose of taking consideration to all of the other denizens you are connected with in the woods. And if you are witnessing the world around you through a lens, you are not truly witnessing it, instead secondarily observing it.
Again, this is not to say you shouldn’t, if you enjoy taking photos in the woods, stop. Merely that you should spend some time in the woods without a camera, only the emergency beacon equipment you need in case you are injured.
JFC dude/dudette/whatever, calm down.
Does your hippy-ass even know what a camp-site police-call is? (hint: it’s not the one where law enforcement get’s involved, at-all) I’ll bet you hate scouting with a burning passion too.
I like my crickets chirping, frogs croaking, crows cawing, maybe even an owl hooting around sun-rise with a cigarette, an energy-drink, and a mild(or not) post-bourbon hangover. I’ll bet you have a problem with that too.
If that’s not the persona you’re trying to portray, realize its exactly what’s coming through in your comments.
You’re ego is sprinkled all-over the place here, and it looks a lot like self-fellation resulting in un-solicited jizz and excrement. I guess at least its bio-degradable, but you need a shower after this hike as much as any gym-bro, and likely smell worse for the lack of exertion-sweat to compete with all that “not”-ego.
What are you actually trying to say here other than attempting to shame me for daring to critically question your relationship to nature?
Oh noes, I matched your energy and like a quarter of the words you’ve spent expressing it. I’m the bad-guy now.
Imagine going into nature looking for bad-guys.
