Pros And Cons For The Damnation Of A Canyon
Dear Mr. Abbey,
May I invite you to a time travel into the future? Join me in visiting the Glen Canyon in the year 2030. After some major technological breakthroughs, the United States cover all of their electricity needs with renewable energies, such as solar and wind energy. The Glen Canyon dam was torn down five years ago, and Lake Powell is drained. Just as you predicted in your essay 'The Damnation of a Canyon,' nature is gradually cleansing 'the repellent mess’ that emerged from the water, and is reclaiming the land. Plants, animals, and fish return. Everything is healing. Why is not everybody happy? Why are people loudly protesting to get the Glen Canyon Dam back?
In your essay, you made strong arguments how the dam destroys the balance
in the biological ecosystem of the Glen Canyon, and how tourism in the region is geared towards privileged, wealthy, white people. Reading your essay, and the pathos in your argument how abused nature could heal itself and cleanse itself from the ’skeletons of long-forgotten, decomposing water skiers' if we just leave it alone for a few years inspired my heart and my mind and I sympathize with your position. While you focus on nature in the canyon, you are noticeably ignoring the people living in the area. The tens of thousands of people who work in the tourism industry, the restaurant and shop owners, the people renting and operating boats, the hoteliers, the people constructing rental homes, they all live from the tourists visiting the Canyon. The money that the tourists leave in the region pay for schools, hospitals, police and fire departments and other vital infrastructure that benefits all, also the people who don’t work in the tourism industry.
Because of your omission of the positive socio-economic impact, the dam has on a region that used to be poor and deserted before the dam, your argument to open the dam loses credibility. Readers could believe that restoring nature to you is a higher goal than caring for the people living in the area. The people living and working in the Canyon and around the reservoir are your audience too, and you don’t address their concerns in your arguments. I would propose to the ethos of the natives in the area, by explaining that the tourism through the dam is only a short-term windfall for the region. Once nature is destroyed in a few decades, the tourists will go elsewhere. If the people in the area want to leave their children and grandchildren a healthy environment with sustainable tourism, then the dam has to fall. Many of the workers in the Glen Canyon tourism industry moved to the area along with the tourists, and they will follow the tourists when they go elsewhere.
To put it briefly, I am convinced that you could make your essay even more convincing if you explicitly address the concerns of the people living in the Glen Canyon area. You need to explain to them that they are destroying the canyon for their next generations in return for a short-term win.
May I invite you to a time travel into the future? Join me in visiting the Glen Canyon in the year 2030. After some major technological breakthroughs, the United States cover all of their electricity needs with renewable energies, such as solar and wind energy. The Glen Canyon dam was torn down five years ago, and Lake Powell is drained. Just as you predicted in your essay 'The Damnation of a Canyon,' nature is gradually cleansing 'the repellent mess’ that emerged from the water, and is reclaiming the land. Plants, animals, and fish return. Everything is healing. Why is not everybody happy? Why are people loudly protesting to get the Glen Canyon Dam back?
In your essay, you made strong arguments how the dam destroys the balance
in the biological ecosystem of the Glen Canyon, and how tourism in the region is geared towards privileged, wealthy, white people. Reading your essay, and the pathos in your argument how abused nature could heal itself and cleanse itself from the ’skeletons of long-forgotten, decomposing water skiers' if we just leave it alone for a few years inspired my heart and my mind and I sympathize with your position. While you focus on nature in the canyon, you are noticeably ignoring the people living in the area. The tens of thousands of people who work in the tourism industry, the restaurant and shop owners, the people renting and operating boats, the hoteliers, the people constructing rental homes, they all live from the tourists visiting the Canyon. The money that the tourists leave in the region pay for schools, hospitals, police and fire departments and other vital infrastructure that benefits all, also the people who don’t work in the tourism industry.
Because of your omission of the positive socio-economic impact, the dam has on a region that used to be poor and deserted before the dam, your argument to open the dam loses credibility. Readers could believe that restoring nature to you is a higher goal than caring for the people living in the area. The people living and working in the Canyon and around the reservoir are your audience too, and you don’t address their concerns in your arguments. I would propose to the ethos of the natives in the area, by explaining that the tourism through the dam is only a short-term windfall for the region. Once nature is destroyed in a few decades, the tourists will go elsewhere. If the people in the area want to leave their children and grandchildren a healthy environment with sustainable tourism, then the dam has to fall. Many of the workers in the Glen Canyon tourism industry moved to the area along with the tourists, and they will follow the tourists when they go elsewhere.
To put it briefly, I am convinced that you could make your essay even more convincing if you explicitly address the concerns of the people living in the Glen Canyon area. You need to explain to them that they are destroying the canyon for their next generations in return for a short-term win.