>>1766213I fail to see the problem here. The message in the OP (picture=BAD!) cowardly implied in its question makes little sense from both ideological and practical point of views. There's nothing about this particular geological feature that makes it objectively more worthy of preservation than any other natural feature in the US, and if you were serious about nature preservation (assuming you wouldn't outright ban people from leaving cities you fucking communist) you'd recognize that the more tourists concentrate in a small area the less the rest of the wilderness is affected. Also OP fails to mention that this was a gradual and slow process: first came the paved road, then some parking lots, then a cafeteria (with a toilet), then some more parking, then an tourist info center, then the hotel, then the museum, then some more parking, etc. The more the site becomes popular the more people come; the more people come the more infrastructure is built; the more infrastructure is built the easier it is to access the site; the easier it is to access the site the more the site becomes popular. Simple as that.
It seems to me that the real topic here is either A) you want to restrict access to this location to a clique, a arbitrarily defined small elite group of people in which (pure coincidence, I assume) you comfortably place yourself in or B) you have attached some "sacred-ness" to the object in question and are using your publicly displayed indignation to scout for like-minded people, a typical behavior of social animals.
To be clear I don't advocate to needlessly pave every patch of grass on Earth but neither do I post manipulative threads with the masked intent of triggering an emotional rather than logical response in the viewers. Be glad you live in one of the most underdeveloped (by land usage) continent on the planet that won't ever reach the levels of Europe and especially East Asia in your lifetime and stop being a faggot, OP.
