Wow climberman, thanks for the thought out response. You definitely know loads more about the process(es) than I do.
My position on this development is similar to yours - ultimately I think it's a rather lame, fanciful idea, about tapping into people's delusions through manufacturing some contrived attachment to the environment, that we know perfectly well your average airhead celeb or stressed-out exec is incapable of feeling. But I agree with you that the greater environmental impact will be minimal, and I also think it very unlikely that this will set a precedent which will open the floodgates to more development in the area. It may well have some unforseen collateral benefits.
I think because most people are driven to dualistic modes of thought, there is a lazy tendency to assume that because someone points to some flaws, or is critical of a development, they must be a rabid, anti-capitalist, anti-development feral.
I understand the point you make all too well that it is impossible not to make some kind of footprint on the Earth. Living life demands it. Hell, I won't deny for a second that there are countless areas in which I could reduce my environmental impact, plenty of which I'm too lazy to do anything about. Like most active people, I'm a bit of a gear freak. I have issues about (what I call) overbolting, yet have said I hate the look of rock with too much vegetation on it and want to develop "Moss-away". Like you say, this is a crazy contradiction.
But I'm not in denial of this, I don't see it as my god-given, democratic right to keep living exactly as I am, as do the majority of people out there who have seized on the opportunity to brand anyone who questions their own practices as hypocrites. Environmental impact is always a question of degree, not whether or not there is one, as has swiftly become the crucial premise for those who abuse the hyprocrisy line to justify continuing their own behaviour.
It will certainly be interesting to see how successful the joint is.
|