Re: Remote area route descriptions
Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:37 am
Rightstar-
You've mentioned that social media will likely evolve, and I agree, and hope. What I'm not clear on is how you see it being used to "connect to the natural world". I think that's partially what we're seeing now, and that's the problem we're discussing in the extent to which we're opening up opportunities through shared information. Google would propose doing it through a vast network of webcams and selfie stations. I'd like to think that you have a more productive approach. I want to try to understand your thoughts. What I'm wrestling with is in how the participants interface and all benefit in a perfect scenario. I see three levels: 1) Nature itself (it can present itself at face value, but it can't actively advocate on its own behalf), 2) those that have the, call it advanced knowledge of places they've experienced that can opt-in or opt-out of sharing that info...call them the "stewards"/guardians/gatekeepers, 3) those that seek to expand their knowledge and their opportunities for a more unique interaction with nature through those with that greater knowledge...objectively, broadly, maybe a little unfairly, call this third group "users", which may or may not be a net positive in the long run. This is what we have now, and I think the resolution of how this plays out is at the crux of the debate.
The players won't change, so what has to or should?
You've mentioned that social media will likely evolve, and I agree, and hope. What I'm not clear on is how you see it being used to "connect to the natural world". I think that's partially what we're seeing now, and that's the problem we're discussing in the extent to which we're opening up opportunities through shared information. Google would propose doing it through a vast network of webcams and selfie stations. I'd like to think that you have a more productive approach. I want to try to understand your thoughts. What I'm wrestling with is in how the participants interface and all benefit in a perfect scenario. I see three levels: 1) Nature itself (it can present itself at face value, but it can't actively advocate on its own behalf), 2) those that have the, call it advanced knowledge of places they've experienced that can opt-in or opt-out of sharing that info...call them the "stewards"/guardians/gatekeepers, 3) those that seek to expand their knowledge and their opportunities for a more unique interaction with nature through those with that greater knowledge...objectively, broadly, maybe a little unfairly, call this third group "users", which may or may not be a net positive in the long run. This is what we have now, and I think the resolution of how this plays out is at the crux of the debate.
The players won't change, so what has to or should?