Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Antarctica Again?  (Read 30150 times)
Boghb
Guest
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2007, 08:42:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I am grateful for the opportunity to express a view, and my post was not intended as a personal attack against Michael.
Logged
soslund
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 76


« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2007, 03:55:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I said it once before, and I'll say it again: if you don't want to go, don't go.  If one finds it offensive to go (financially? "carbonally"? whatever?), then stay home, or go somewhere else.  However, please don't berate those of us who have gone, went again, and will likely go in the future.  And, please, don't try to reduce going or not going to a formula: "X" number of passengers x "Y" length of vessel x "Z" amount of fuel burned, etc.  This is simply ridiculous, and does border on, well, Michael said it best, Bull Sh*t.  

I prefer the engraving above the arch at the northern entrance of Yellowstone: "For the enjoyment of the people".

Tourism to Antarctica is closely monitored.  Let's enjoy this amazing planet.  Personally, I found the experience a "religious" one.  Camera or no camera.  Listen folks, it ain't just about taking photographs.  There were many times when I set the camera down, sat down, and just tried to take it all in.

Indeed, let's move on to something more productive.  Speaking of which, I think I still have another couple more thousand images to cull through in Lightroom.

Thanks Michael et al, I had a blast on both trips.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 04:03:25 PM by soslund » Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2007, 04:21:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I want to go,,can I?


BlasR
Logged

jorgedelfino
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2007, 06:11:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I understand why Michael would like this discussion to end.

There is an inherent contradiction in people hauling tons of equipment around the globe in search of a nice picture, and claiming that they want to save nature and natural things.

Obviously pointing out this hypocrisy puts a damper on Michael's efforts to promote his exotic workshops (the latest promotion touts total luxury in the middle of African wildlife: how's that for saving nature!).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110539\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with Michael, that's bullshit! showing the beauty of nature can and help develop awarenes  about the protection of the planet! If can afford to do it in style so what! that first picture of the earth from space is an example.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8104



WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 04, 2007, 06:30:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree with Michael, that's bullshit! showing the beauty of nature can and help develop awarenes  about the protection of the planet! If can afford to do it in style so what! that first picture of the earth from space is an example.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree, too. Ansel Adams made a pretty positive impact when he took a bunch of his prints with him to show congress. Should he have stayed the H*** out of the wilderness?
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8236



WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 04, 2007, 07:15:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree, too. Ansel Adams made a pretty positive impact when he took a bunch of his prints with him to show congress. Should he have stayed the H*** out of the wilderness?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, but that was before the days of Discovery Channel wasn't it?

I do personnally not believe that the trip led by Michael had any measurable negative impact on the environment in Antartica, and such trips will remain harmless as long as they stay controlled, which appears to be the case today.

Shell, Esso,... all use the environment to market their earth killing businesses, and I'd perssonnally rather scream at them than at Michael. The scale is millions of times higher.

However, the actual positive impact of such a trip on people's awarness of environment problems is IMHO just as small as the negative impact on environment. Let's face it, we at LL are basically all environmentalists already.

Anyway, our attendance at LL is leading us to overstate the importance of all this. This workshop is in the end just one business initiative among millions of others, and a very attractive one.

What's the problem really?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #86 on: April 04, 2007, 08:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I would disagreee, Bernard. I think the more people we can getting spreading around decent pictures of of what we have, and what we're losing, and talking about it, the better off we are -- that's the way you build a popular consensus for something.

As for degrading the environment with these trips, that's the kind of inane claptrap for which I have no patience at all, and which freezes legitimate efforts to do something positive; it's the kind of sophomoric bs you only hear from the I'm-more-correct-than-you crowd, who only wear clothes made out of inorganic dirt. You want to know how much people care right now? We could make a large cut in CO2 simpy be passing a law that we drive 55. We could make a large cut by limiting automobile engine size to 2 liters. We could fast-track high-tech super-safe nuclear generation sites and eliminate hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2, to say nothing of acid rain. We could eliminate private jets. There are all kinds of things that *could* be done, that really wouldn't inconvenience people much, and that would actually have some effect. Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.

JC
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8909


« Reply #87 on: April 04, 2007, 09:43:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I would disagreee, Bernard. I think the more people we can getting spreading around decent pictures of of what we have, and what we're losing, and talking about it, the better off we are -- that's the way you build a popular consensus for something.

As for degrading the environment with these trips, that's the kind of inane claptrap for which I have no patience at all, and which freezes legitimate efforts to do something positive; it's the kind of sophomoric bs you only hear from the I'm-more-correct-than-you crowd, who only wear clothes made out of inorganic dirt. You want to know how much people care right now? We could make a large cut in CO2 simpy be passing a law that we drive 55. We could make a large cut by limiting automobile engine size to 2 liters. We could fast-track high-tech super-safe nuclear generation sites and eliminate hundreds of thousands of tons of CO2, to say nothing of acid rain. We could eliminate private jets. There are all kinds of things that *could* be done, that really wouldn't inconvenience people much, and that would actually have some effect. Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.

JC
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are serious dangers, John. Macquarie Island, about halfway between Tasmania and the Antartic is (was) an amazing, pristine environment with penguins, seals and breeding albatrosses. Unfortunately, the ecological balance is slowly being destroyed by rats and rabbits. The island is slowly becoming defoliated with consequent massive land slides. Tourism has been stopped. The damage already done might be irreparable.
Logged
CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 386


WWW
« Reply #88 on: April 04, 2007, 09:45:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Eliminating photographic trips to Antarctica would have about as much effect on the environment as my buying and using Gas-X pills.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm freaking DYING here.            

Now I'm prolonging this after Michael told us all to shut up, but I'll state that this "carbon emissions" statement counting how many people flew down there is ridiculous.  There are tens of thousands of commercial flights worldwide daily; this was but one.  To say everyone would have stayed home and thus saved the emissions is a specious argument -- if I hadn't gone to Antarctica, I likely would have gone somewhere ELSE on vacation.

Besides, I'm not the one really espousing the whole "global warming" thing anyway.  I didn't go to "save the earth."  I went because I saw pictures from last year's trip, thought they looked amazing, and wanted to go myself.  But arguing about the fact that people are there and thus there's the chance of a shipwreck and an ecological disaster... c'mon where do you GET this stuff?  I guess the earth could get wiped out by a meteor tomorrow as well and we'd all be screwed.

BUT, at least I could say I went and saw Antarctica before I died  
Logged

Boghb
Guest
« Reply #89 on: April 04, 2007, 10:02:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Gee, I'm really sorry I missed that Antarctica trip.  I must have been a real hoot being on a trip with all these mature, polite and articulate gentlemen.  Your sophisticated arguments have me thinking that concern about climate change is, as you put it, like cow dung -- thank you!
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4903



« Reply #90 on: April 04, 2007, 10:24:47 PM »
ReplyReply

OK. This looks about done, has little to do anymore with photography, and since some people can't play nice topic closed.

Michael
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad