Crazy idea that John Muir's legacy is stupid.
To Christensen and others, however, Muir's notion that immersing people in "universities of the wilderness" — such as Yosemite — sends the message that only awe-inspiring parks are worth saving, at the expense of smaller urban spaces.
Critics also say Muir's vision of wilderness is rooted in economic privilege and the abundant leisure time of the upper class.
Gawker (surprisingly) fires back a great response.
Conservation of natural land is a gift that keeps on giving. Even if the poor of today are unable to enjoy our national parks, their children and grandchildren may be able to. The parks will still be there!
To the extent that John Muir's legacy is the awareness of the importance of conserving natural lands, it is as relevant as ever. (Go to any beautiful natural area that is being rapidly developed into condos and chain stores if you have any doubts about that.) Preserving the legacy of John Muir is not dangerous. Abandoning it is.
Photo by me