wow that was kind of scary

  • hexagonalpolarbears [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    It basically falls into the same category as golf. The amount of land that needs to be set aside for a sport that costs thousands of dollars is unacceptable.

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      there is the land use concern, but it's a lot less environmental impact afaik because they're not monoculturing/irrigating/fertilizing

      • Mardoniush [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Also, in general you aren't going to be using a frozen slope at 3500m for farming (unless you're Swiss or Nepalese)

      • hexagonalpolarbears [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sure on the environment impact hierarchy it’s less than golf, or equestrian sports, or motor sports. But it’s still above an acceptable level of land use which is why I’m in favor of banning it.

    • AHopeOnceMore [he/him]
      cake
      B
      ·
      2 years ago

      The land set aside is pretty small and in the side of a mountain at relatively high altitudes.

      Expensive ski places suck but cheap ones exist. Kinda depends on where you live. $100-$200 season passes are still a thing many places and are (at least) a lower middle class kind of thing, like driving a slightly nicer Toyota.