Right question, wrong answer
Listening again to 'On Point' on NPR. Today's discussants are public-relations agents for the National Parks, trying to offer various arguments for increased funding.

Fortunately this is one of the rare issues where Congress and state gov'ts are already showing common sense, cutting down a luxury instead of infinitely increasing it. Nevertheless, the PR arguments for the parks are so utterly absurd that they deserve a response.

What do most Americans, especially kids, need from Nature?

They desperately need constant exercise and plenty of sunlight. They need to spend vastly more time outside the house. And they need to feel and smell and taste and handle the dirt, plants and critters in Nature. Dig in the dirt, make canals, make forts, grab earthworms, plant flowers, pull flowers, taste flowers. Get a feel for the seasons, a feel for how life responds to sun and water.



Well then, what do National Parks offer? Do they satisfy any of these needs?

First, they're distant from almost everyone, which means you must spend days in a car or hours in an airplane, using lots of petroleum, to get there. After the trip you can probably afford a day or two in the park, once a year. This is the exact opposite of constant exercise and daily sunlight.

Second, they restrict your activities. You're supposed to "leave the site cleaner than you found it". No digging or planting or cutting up critters. No direct experience allowed.

Third, they supposedly offer "majesty", whatever the hell that is. If you can't get "majesty" from seeing the place on a big TV screen, you aren't going to get "majesty" from seeing the place through your car windshield.

In short, National Parks offer none of the things we need. They are a luxury for rich people. Sell them to the rich people.
  ¶ 5:18 PM