Uluru climbing ban

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by mmm....shiney!, Nov 1, 2017.

  1. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Clawhammer, willrocks and kiona like this.
  2. kiona

    kiona Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    759
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast, Q
    I can think of far worse things that my tax dollar is wasted on. Just because the masses can't have unrestricted access to something doesn't mean it's not worth preserving.
     
    Killface and mmm....shiney! like this.
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    The preservationists would concur, they value locking up areas. Those that do not value preservation would justifiably be concerned that their money is being used to enhance the values of one group at the expense of others.
     
  4. l***g

    l***g Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    a blue sunday
    please, everyone can still visit it and enjoy it.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  5. SilverDJ

    SilverDJ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    3,449
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    This.
     
  6. ego2spare

    ego2spare Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,736
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Australia
    its a freaking nothing rock in the middle of absolute nowhere. who cares either way.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  7. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Value is subjective.

    In this case we have a group of unelected officials who are responsible in part for the distribution of funds provided by the Australian taxpayer making a decision to enhance their own values (cultural) at the expense of others e.g. tourists, many of whom are actually funding the national park in question.

    Yes, this issue on its own is not particularly important, but the various national park departments around the country spend hundreds of millions of $$ annually, and like all government departments they spend money enhancing the values of special interest groups at the expense of other people.

    It’s an ongoing problem with all publicly managed environment departments, it’s actually a misuse of money (though entirely legal). :rolleyes:
     
    bordsilver likes this.
  8. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
  9. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    A rock in the middle of nowhere that gets free money! ;)
     
  10. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    554
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think we can agree that the rock has been there well before any human, and will remain after all humans are gone.

    Humans talking about ownership/restrictions is like fleas arguing about who owns the dog.
     
    vrv8, BenKenobi, Skyrocket and 3 others like this.
  11. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    ^ bearing in mind though that ownership or property rights are critical aspects of being a human, it’s one thing that distinguishes us from animals and drives us to seek value (engage in economic activity with other humans).
     
  12. Killface

    Killface Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    1,061
    Likes Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya
    So say you and a tiny minority of people.

    Others would view it as a sensible investment in our country's heritage, which only incidentally (if at all) benefits any particular group. It is intended to benefit all Australians (present and future) in addition to all visitors to the area. And if it does benefit Aboriginal people, maybe that makes sense too, in the context of centuries of oppression and the potential savings flowing from improved economic opportunities.

    I believe the vast majority of Australians would consider this a complete non-issue, and many more would support government management of sites of significant (cultural and economic) value.

    (edit): and those who do not value preservation can go fuck themselves!
     
  13. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,550
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'd argue that if anyone has a claim to "ownership" of Uluru, it'd be the local Aboriginal people and they don't want people climbing it.

    If some people suddenly decided that climbing up the side of St Mary's Cathedral and abseiling down was a fun way to spend an afternoon, there would be a bit of a stink, right? I don't see how it's much different with Uluru.
     
    vrv8, kiona, wrcmad and 1 other person like this.
  14. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    554
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with the ownership sentiment. However Uluru (or Ayres Rock) is an iconic landmark that's been accessible to everyone for quite a while.
     
    mmm....shiney! likes this.
  15. willrocks

    willrocks Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    5,723
    Likes Received:
    554
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's different in the fact that Uluru wasn't constructed by humans.
     
  16. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Free-market environmentalism recognises that value systems are subjective, that ecosystems have varying levels of significance to different groups of people and that therefore, those that don’t share the value systems of the public managers and in this case the traditional owners, should not fund them.

    Preservation by the way is not a natural state of being in any ecosystem as natural systems are dynamic rather than static. Therefore, funding preservation is poor science and poor economics.

    Culturally significant to a wider community than just the local aboriginal tribe.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    bordsilver and willrocks like this.
  17. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Private property v public land.

    Let’s say they do have a valid claim to the ownership of Uluru and can make management decisions about its use to the exclusion of “non-owners", the logical conclusion is that they should fund their management process themselves rather than misusing taxpayer money.
     
    bordsilver likes this.
  18. Big A.D.

    Big A.D. Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2009
    Messages:
    6,550
    Likes Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Sydney
    So urinating in front of, but not actually on, the Cenotaph in Martin Place wouldn't be any more disrespectful than on any other part of the footpath anywhere else in the country?

    Pissing on Uluru, however, seems to have caused extinction of the local wildlife: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-09-29/tourist-poo-killed-rare-shrimp-on-uluru/1446342
     
  19. wrcmad

    wrcmad Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2012
    Messages:
    6,031
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Northern NSW
    I hardly ever agree with Big A.D. on any topic, but on this one I'm with him.

    I used to think exactly the same about Uluru, but then I actually visited last year. I arrived with 100% intent of climbing that rock... then after arriving learned the significance, and declined the opportunity. I noticed the only climbers were ignorant tourists, or ignorant Australians (bordering on bogans) with all the entitleist attitudes of a leftist welfare recipient.
    For me, it wasn't about preservation..... it's a fkn rock. But it was about respect... and a little respect can go a long way. ;)
    I'd guess you have never visited shiney?
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    The national park is funded by taxpayers. These taxpayers have varied value systems. The decision to ban climbing on the rock benefits those who share the same values as those who implemented the ban, whilst disadvantaging those who have a different value system, some of whom actually fund the park.

    The basis of free-market environmentalism is that those that get value should pay for it, those that don’t get any value should not be forced to pay for it. Our wealth is stripped from us without our consent and then redistributed to others, this is fine I guess if you’re in favour of whatever program is benefitted from this redistribution of wealth, but is destructive if the donor is not receiving value. Mis-using taxpayer funds to enhance outcomes for special interest groups creates conflict and retards prosperity.

    And for what it’s worth, I’ve been twice. My personal feelings about climbing the rock are immaterial to the topic, instead, I am viewing this issue through the eyes of a free-market economist, impartial and detached from any emotional involvement - because value is entirely subjective.

    Let the local tribe make it’s own decisions, but they should do so without the financial support of taxpayers. If they’re going to receive public funding then they have to enhance the values of all, not just a select group.

    Edit to add: this goes for all government programs/departments.
     
    bordsilver likes this.

Share This Page