Bulding rest houses for tourist in national parks.

Round 1
joshua_13: "good evening!! according 2 me bulding houses in national parks is a severe loss 2 wildlife or the entire ecosystems. there will also be problems to we the human beings, we do not get enough oxygen, or there will be imbalance on atmosphere... i.e. imbalance in the ratio of o2 and co2. may cause less rainfall, as a result of this lack of water to the people....."

Ragnar_Rahl: "I think the raccoon in my backyard is telling me wildlife can live whether a house comes around or not.

Frankly if you don't build rest houses and encourage tourists, you're going to lose your precious national park, because there is no way politically speaking people are going to leave such wide open areas with no economic use.

"An imbalance" in the ratio of CO2 to oxygen would be a patent impossibility for the human species unless we all worked toward it as a goal, and I am entirely unaware of how it would lead to less rainfall. Even the global warming theorists (who have failed to provide for the scientific criteria for causation) tend to concede that more heat means more clouds means water rains more often, and make so far as I can see no reference to that ratio.

But most importantly, exploit the earth or die. It's not a threat, it's a fact. Either one transforms the earth's raw materials into the requirements of one's life, or one dies. To live, man must produce goods. Even the man who produces nothing relies on this process, he is a parasite on the labor of other men. If for some reason some human process becomes unsustainable, the solution is not to institute regulations that are by nature unsustainable (the nationalization of parks, for example, is an act of theft from whoever previously owned the land, and increases the number of enemies of the government, leading if such practices continue to its overthrow and the use of the land again), but rather to stop producing so many new humans."