Joshua Tree on U2 album cover destroyed:
Kids knock down 16 million year old rock formation: https://military.id.me/news/idiots-ruin-18-million-year-old-...
One man accidentally killed the oldest tree ever:
World's most isolated tree knocked down by drunk driver:
So sad how an act of stupidity by as few as one person can eliminate something of beauty that's been around longer than tens, hundreds, thousands of their lifetimes.
> Kiidk'yaas (meaning "ancient tree" in the Haida language), also known as the Golden Spruce, was a Sitka Spruce tree (Picea sitchensis 'Aurea') that grew on the banks of the Yakoun River on the Haida Gwaii archipelago, in British Columbia Canada. It had a rare genetic mutation that caused its needles to be golden in colour (rather than the usual green). Kiidk'yaas was considered sacred by the Haida people
> Kiidk'yaas was felled in January 1997 by Grant Hadwin as an act of protest against the logging industry.
That makes zero sense. He killed an awesome, special tree to protest killing of trees. What a loser.
For example, all those interesting formations and places that disappeared 1000 years ago - so we've never seen those in the first place - are those also losses?
By that logic, wouldn't be any form of natural change be huge tragedy, an endless sequence of losses?
I, for one, know nothing of this tree other than what I have seen just now. It's entirely possible that a trained arborist (which most cities and counties employ) looked at the tree and decided it needed to be taken down or coppiced. In fact I would argue that it's much more likely that happened than anything else.
I'm actually a little disappointed that the article jumps to weird conclusions in an attempt to be insightful.
You mean "the oldest tree now" is always alive.
To do any damage at any speed you'd notice would be a self-correcting problem as whoever tried it would be destroyed. It's definitely not a problem you're going to see within your lifetime.
> Pebble still would have to apply for permits before building a mine in Bristol Bay. Two public hearings will be held in Alaska on the topic this week. And the public has until October 17 to comment on Pruitt's proposed policy reversal before it could be finalized.
Looking at the "before" picture, the tree might itself be a spray formed when an older tree was cut.
Also, the tree could probably have been saved. It didn't look like a cut that would have destroyed the entire tree. A good arborist could have removed that without overly damaging the rest of the tree.
The stumps are all left at unusual angles. Those aren't the result of typical notching and felling techniques. Those were cut intentionally. My guess is they were notched above that and then cut down to that height.
It may be intentional coppicing?
I finally find out why the "copse of trees" at Gettysburg is called that. Thank you.
You didn't coppice it when you removed it. Coppice is when a tree is "topped" like a haircut and then it grows back.
Not all trees are suitable for coppicing, but the ones that do grow back vigorously and are great for firewood / lumber.
Two examples come to mind. Last year, the USFS extended the lottery permit season in the Enchantments by six weeks due to increasing popularity, no doubt fueled by the incredible pictures of it littered across Instagram. Iceland is a top destination for photographers (for good reason) and I traveled there two months ago, no doubt influenced by the pictures I've seen. But it felt like the country was beginning to get ruined by me and my fellow tourists.
It feels like we're beginning to lose the hidden gems as more and more photographers rush to be the first. But even the non-hidden gems are beginning to get exposed more and more often. But I see the same spots being visited by all photographers and I don't see how they'll handle the continued influx of people:
* Banff NP
I maintain an active mountain images account, but when I post from somewhere untouched, I'm deliberately vague as to the location.
I'm watching the same thing happen with a tarn on Mt. Rainier. People are figuring out its location, and soon it will be highly trafficked. Most of these places look untouched precisely because people have gone to some trouble not to touch them.
Some overuse is a worthy trade, if, when at the ballot box and the cash register, nature-aware humans make the deliberate choice to sacrifice in order to preserve that which remains.
It's tough because I'm a big fan of getting people outside, and this renewed interest in visiting national parks could in theory drive more funding and interest in wildlands preservation, but in the meantime has drawn hordes of people who don't always respect the place they're visiting.
There are microcosms of the instagram top spots phenomenon you've listed all over the place as well. This past summer I went to visit a backcountry waterfall in my hometown where locals used to cool off, and could not believe how many people there were there, some clearly from far away, taking pictures of themselves in front of it. The instagram location tag for it has thousands of posts, for a place that is pretty but not really spectacular.
Here's a story about a similar location that blew up on the internet and suffered for it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/nyregion/blue-hole-swimmi...
I'm only slightly exaggerating.
In defiance of my above statement, I own this tree and it is my favorite tree. The forestry service cored it and it's at least 220 years old.
I'm not a hugely private person (I've had countless internet friends visit me over the years) but I'm not giving up coordinates to my favorite fishing hole. As near as I can tell, only three people know about it.
I really am partially serious about telling nobody. That's how things get ruined - from your favorite diner to your favorite hidden beach. Pretty soon your favorite diner is always full and there's trash on your once secluded beach.
I mind me of a fellow who briefly set up, on the Fourth of July, directly alongside me on the north brow of Federal Hill - he unlimbered a pair of tripods, a sack full of lenses, and a setup based on a D7100 that cost more for just the body than I paid for my entire kit. Then, after five minutes, he tore everything down again and strode purposefully off, leaving behind only a vague complaint about how "the atmosphere was wrong". I'm not sure what he meant, and since those few words were the only ones he said to me throughout his time on the hill, I have no idea how his shots might compare to my own  . No doubt they are much better, though.
Come to think about it, I haven't posted a new gallery since before the train wreck. I'll have to make some time this weekend and fix that!
Look at Yellowstone, or the country of Guatemala, where it's the interest by visitors that provides the necessary incentives to protect the natural beauty.
The same has (somewhat) worked to reduce the risk of extinction for many species of African mammals as well.
One day people saw his brother peeing in the holy Well of Zamzam. This is the most sacred water in Islam. They asked him why he was doing such a thing. “My brother is famous and will be remembered forever in the history,” he said. “I can never be as wise or as generous as him, so this is how I make sure I will be remembered forever.”
If the same thing happened but the story wasn't passed on, then it would not have been the right path to reach his goal.
For a modern reference, that is why I'm a strong supporter of not propagating the names of people committing things like mass killings for glory, like we've seen quite a few times.
For the tree http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TreasureRoom & http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MonumentalTheft & http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PricelessMingVase & http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenAreDelicate
For the vandal/brother http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThenLetMeBeEvil
For the photographer http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoSuchThingAsBadP...
For the stakeholders http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SurveillanceStati... & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons & http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun
For the authority http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RoyalsWhoActually...
For the work crew http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JustFollowingOrde...
For the quoted sage http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpiritAdvisor
For the blogger, op, and commenters http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GreekChorus
For me http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MrExposition
*These tropes have many other relevant ones within a couple of clicks and searches. I only mean this as a starting point, far from an omniangular dissection. Sorry if I've offended anyone (this kind of story cuts deep).
For you (if you're wondering (really how could I say?)) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LeaningOnTheFourt... https://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uuuploads/trai...
Meanwhile back at the ranch for Euereka's script http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeanwhileBackAtTh... & http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeasonFinale
It was also sacred in the religions practiced in the region before Islam, which is important because Hatim died before the birth of Islam.
Well limbs don't just crack vertically when they're cut horizontally. Either someone hacked at it vertically (no real reason), or that black spot is the mark of black canker, a willow disease. The only fix is to cut off the diseased limb in the dormant season. And it's almost the dormant season.
Why did all the limbs get cut off? Dunno, maybe it had to do with canker too. But remember, plants are not here for humans' amusement - they often require trimming, chopping, replanting, large culls to prevent disease spread, and all kinds of other treatment to care for them. The end result may be an ugly tree, but a tree that lives.
I could be wrong. But it's best not to dwell on the worst of things if you don't know what really happened.
someone is sitting at home, feeling worthless, like their life is pointless and they could disappear without anyone noticing.
but there's this tree everyone likes. people notice this tree. because you see lots of pictures of it, people must visit it often. it's a confluence.
if you were to, say, scratch your name into the bark, people would notice. you would have made some difference on the world, for better or worse.
if you were to cut a branch down, people would DEFINITELY notice. people would think about you, when no one would before. even if the thoughts aren't positive.
in other words, to not feel so small and meaningless.
What is doing something on a dare besides a play to battle the insecurity of being labeled a "coward"?
Which is the same as "knock, knock, ginger" or as:
> if you were to cut a branch down, people would DEFINITELY notice. people would think about you, when no one would before. even if the thoughts aren't positive.
>in other words, to not feel so small and meaningless.
Aka negative attention, trolling, NS (narcissistic supply). Its all more or less the same league, explained by what I quoted from user 2bitencryption. 2bitencryption's entire quote explains the full process in detail. Kudos.
This is, of course, speculation. But this is a philosophical thread.
As for why, who knows, but my guess is we're looking at a physical world manifestation of the same personality that drives many (non-professional) internet trolls. Sadistic and attention seeking.
I personally know a real-life griefer who spends his time disrupting discussion boards. He's an intelligent and creative guy, but he sees his mission as being a counterweight to all the positive, friendly discourse that is going on. I'm glad he limits himself to online activities.
In some venues -- the multiple infamous flying penis attacks in Second Life, for example -- griefing can be fun and even beautiful. Rarely in real life.
This story is why.
Like the saying goes, call something paradise and kiss it goodbye. I blame the people who publicize these places as much as I blame the people who fuck them up. The assholes of the world cannot be trusted with beauty. They will always defile it or love it to death.
I think that's a questionable apportionment of blame.
But the Wikipedia article mentions the tree is sacred to the Comanche. Compared to what he would have endured at their hands hundreds of years ago, had he been caught by them, he's lucky :)
> our collective attention and obsession, amplified by the speed and intensity of the internet & social media, tends to ruin the things we love: authors, musicians, restaurants, actors, beloved movies, vacation spots, artists, democracies and even a tree that became too famous to live.
I think this is an important point. Yes public attention and mass media existed before the internet but we all know that modern social media has changed the way notoriety and reputation work. I agree with the author because I think that, for example, in the world we had during the 80's or early 90's Justine Sacco would still have a job and the US Presidential campaign would have been different.
Of course, if this were an act of coppicing, it's a renewal of sorts, and the tree will once again grow, more robust than ever, as the Phoenix rises from it's ashes.
Nothing lasts forever, folks. It's all going to be over before you know it.
edit: economical -> economic
There's the role of fame itself, which is related to, but not the same so far as I see, as power. Both are ordinal -- it's a lot better to be the most famous vs, say, the 10th most famous, in ways that having only, say, $90 rather than $100 isn't. But there's something you're giving up for fame -- particularly privacy and autonomy. There's a risk to it (and there are numerous artists, politicians, and businesspeople who've been attacked, kidnapped, or murdered).
In biological evolution, there was a stage at which the first carnivorous organisms appeared. Before that, it was pretty much OK to let it all hang out, and just sort of slime around on the seafloor, munching on plants. Afterward, defences (and some offences) like shells and pincers and teeth emerged. You needed to protect yourself.
And while such defenses still exist, most animals now don't have heavy body armor. It's too heavy, and too cumbersome. There's hide and fur, tails to swat away annoying things. But also social habits -- the grooming behaviours of primates and other animals in particular. "I'll pick parasites off your back if you'll pick them off of mine." Standards and norms of behaviour.
The problem of too much fame, especially for lifeforms which aren't aware of the problem or cannot defend themselves (or move or hide, as with trees, hell, even rock formations), is one that's been around for a while. It definitely pre-dates the Internet as mulitiple posts here note. I've run across items about geotagged images of rhinoceroses, or of rare plants, or other treasures.
There's this item from a few days ago:
As for how to deal with the problem socially, I think that may be the role of taboo. That's taking the matter beyond economics to an extent, as taboo puts an infinite cost or price to doing a thing.
That flavor of case cracking only works reliably for Sherlock Holmes.
I’m worried you might be creating a totem of your adversaries. In-group talks about their imagined version of the out-group, furthers polarization, prevents dialogue.
Why wouldn't we care about the acts carried out offline being influenced by our activities online?
Interesting speculation, but trees have been vandalized for centuries...
My 2 cents, I believe it belongs here because the question of whether social media is a net benefit to society is frequently debated here, and this article uses the tree as an example to argue that it is a net negative. There's some interesting discussion in this thread about attention-seeking vandalism in the context of the internet.
Seriously though, even though not related, this was a good article. I guess it goes without saying that if you care about something then don't obsess over it publicly too much, since the ruiners /will/ come.
Wikipedia has a section on the etymology of the B-tree name. One of the original inventors says "B" stands for "Boeing", "Bayer" (another inventor), and "balanced".