Seen in the the Terrie reading, it is important to recognize that while we can debate over ideologies about how we define nature and how to go forth with our treatment of the Adirondack Park, there are people with immense wealth that run a lot of this show. This is not a new trend either, as we've seen in the Terrie reading. "The Association quickly 'earned a reputation as a rich man's club.'" Money in politics has decided the fate of the Park, and this is still a present fact in today's world.
When money is the prominent tool with which we make change in the world, it undercuts the hope that efforts of people like Bill McKibben bring us. Do we have a chance without the billionaires on our side? This still remains an issue and a question that is yet to be answered.
This NYTimes article speaks to how this power of money still runs politics today, and is definitely worth a read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/19/magazine/how-billionaire-oligarchs-are-becoming-their-own-political-parties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumMediumMediaFloated&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Yeah, I agree that this is a really important point to consider when we talk about land use issues in the Adirondacks.
ReplyDeleteWhen you think about it, the only reason there's so much preserved land in the park is because wealthy buyers accumulated land and preserved it that way. Unfortunately, while this has gone a long way in terms of protecting wilderness spaces, it can also work in reverse.
There is a quote in Terrie that we've discussed at length--it essentially says that the definition of wilderness, especially as it relates to the Adirondack Park, fluctuates depending on what we want wilderness to be and do.
Perhaps that quote would be more correct if albeit less politically correct if it read that the definition changes depending on what the Adirondack's wealthiest patrons want it to be and do.