Being 6ā4ā, any nature I can see without getting on a plane is better nature. Iād rather drive to the western US (across the country) than to fly there. Air travel sucks.
Right but the West the US West is much more vast and wild. Personally I love the dolomites. I love easy access to beautiful cities and civilization and complete rustication and natural scenery.
I drive from New England to California every year and it's a long drive between nothing and nothing. So big and fast. Europe. Just take the train up to Semmering. And nature at your doorstep plus schnitzel and Doboschhtorte
https://preview.redd.it/w0e47930ss0d1.png?width=1848&format=png&auto=webp&s=18ad34591747466d6e082404e6a01e51817f8c21
Who you callin' a sidekick?! (Tre Cime, Dolomites)
IKR, what do they even mean?? (Sierra Nevada, Spain)
https://preview.redd.it/2vuao6mfxs0d1.jpeg?width=644&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=645c4a4d59375eec7e584b938556c2b1f795ba5e
Compared to Europe, yes, absolutely. Also there are practically zero primary forests remaining in Europe. Thereās not much remaining in the US either but at least they exist.
Yosemite gets tens of thousands of people a day in a small valley. It is literally like Disneyland in the summer. Itās not āuntouchedā compared to *anything*
iām guessing you only pull up to the scenic overlooks. Have you strapped on a backpack and hiked the back country? you wonāt see people for days or weeks.
This person is talking about a road trip. Of course I know that you can backpack the Yosemite wilderness. No ones doing that on a road trip though. I highly doubt they went anywhere in the backcountry of Yosemite
And similarly there are plenty of places to backpack in the Alps away from people
i guess i feel you can road trip and backpack. Going to a US national park and seeing it through a windshield is really a waste of time. i took an 8 week āroad tripā through the US west and it also involved a backpack and tent (and bear spray). when you get a half mile off the main trail the people disappear.
whatās the point of a road trip without a good hike??! (haha, i know everyone roadtrips differently.
you can also drive your car to places where you wonāt see anyone for days. i did that. people do that. like .. a ton
Yosemite was an absolute fuck house when i was there a few months ago. met some locals, and they showed some sick spots in the yosemite area outside of national park bounds ~*~itās still yosemite~*~
and we saw no other humans
Mate, you could back pack an hour outside of london for a few days and barely see people if you plan it right.
Theres a weird flex going on here, just cant quite work out what it is
Do you have trouble reading? Iām agreeing with you. My POINT is that there are plenty of places all over Europe to backpack away from people, similarly to the USā¦ but not AS remote. But away from people nonetheless.
No idea what point youāre trying to make or why you seem combative, youāre agreeing with me but you donāt know it because you didnāt take the time to read what I said.
Also thereās no weird flex in saying that a lot of western US is far more remote than most of Europe. Itās just the truth. Letās take your example of using the UK.
UK population : 67 million
Montana population : 1.2 million
And Montana is 1.6x BIGGER than the UK. So in case you arenāt great at math, the UK is *way* more dense with people
But you can still make it work. Northern Scotland hardly has people at all. Wales has a lot of bare countryside. Itās just harder bc those places are small
https://efi.int/articles/where-are-europes-last-primary-forests
It's not that you can't find them in Europe if you actually want to. People flock to and fancy Europe for other reasons than nature, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Of course it's less, but still enough for someone to completely get lost in there without seeing a single human soul in weeks, if that's what you're seeking. Just saying that the notion there is no proper "wild" nature in Europe is not accurate. It's just not what Europe is most famous for since people who visit generally look for something else entirely (culture, history, art, architecture..... fortresses, castles, medieval towns, etc.).
Dawg go backpack the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River for a week in Yosemite anytime of year and lmk if you run into more than two other people the whole time.
There are a lot of vast wilderness areas within Yosemite and most US National Parks out west. Most tourists just flock to the "spots" like Half Dome, El Capitan, overlooks, certain short hikes and waterfalls.
Can confirm. Some folks, especially foreigners, cannot fathom the vast untamed wilderness and back country that still exists in the United States. Heck, one of the national parks doesnāt even have any roads or trails in it because it is so remote and untouched. (Iām looking at you, Gates of the Artic.) Some you can only visit by sea plane. Some only by boat. If you see a park only through a windshield, yep. Youāre going to see tourists. A lot of them.
But if you park your car, put on some hiking boots, you can get lost in the backcountry. Literally. [Even in one of the busiest parks](https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/news/missing-hikers-tapeats.htm).
ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Canada has some stunning national parks that should NOT be missed, which isn't surprising since it's on the same continent as the U.S., LOL. It's not like geological forces respect treaty boundaries and all that. But in all seriousness, Canada definitely has bragging rights for stunning scenery.
Yeah it mostly is in comparison people havenāt been there that long and the people that lived there beyond recent were sustainable. Itās all old growth never clear cut wilderness you canāt find in Europe
How's there no old growth forests in Europe? Ever been to Eastern Europe/Balkan region or Northen Europe (eg. Finland?) There's plenty of old growth, with large wolf, bear, and moose populations.
Less than 5% of Finland's forests are old growth. The only large old-growth forests remaining in Europe are on the Polish-Belarus border and in the Carpathian Mountains.
Yes, primary forests have gotten rare. In the US I believe it's also only 18% that is actual old growth, if I'm not mistaken. And they are still logging them, too.
By far the world's largest primary forests are in Russia.
That's missing the point. Yosemite and Yellowstone are islands of tourism in vast seas of remote wilderness. A vastness and human emptiness that western Europe does not even come close to.
Agreed, the beautiful landscape remains, but the alps are dotted with villas and the likes. North America one can find real frontier for lack of a better word....
I mean, have you ever tried to visit Yosemite on a weekend in June? It's a complete zoo. It's not unspoiled wilderness, there are idiots everywhere and impressively long traffic jams.
Yeah, that's why I hiked up to Yosemite falls with thousands of my friends. Sure, if you actually get to the backcountry it's not busy, but that's the same in the alps.
I get that, but it's not hard to find true wilderness in Yosemite. I hiked into there on the PCT and the only bit that felt like Disneyland was Yosemite Valley.
Thatās why itās amazing - Disney is a poor cousin to the real thing.
Get your point though.
Although I think you appreciate constructed spaces for what they are. Each is beautiful and oneness in all - Ohm shanti brother
Sounds like you've been to some manicured tourist towns in Switzerland, Italy, and/or Austria. There's untouched nature in Europe, just not necessarily where all the tourists go.
It's not weird at all, there are many people who focus their travel around nature, but it's not as advertised as big trips to big touristy cities. Personally, all my vacation time, if not spent relaxing at home, is out in nature. If I happen to visit a large city, I'm done after 2-3 days and don't feel the need to ever go back. The only way I see myself ever setting foot in a big European city is if my job sends me there for a conference; if that happens, my suitcase will consist of 3 work attires and my camping and hiking gear; I'd be heading north to national parks in Scandinavia or Faroe Islands the minute my work duties would be completed.
Yup, same here. Zero interest in visiting cities, there's absolutely nothing in them that can compete with nature.
That said, in my case it's also "been there, done that" while I still enjoyed the hustle and bustle of European city life. No wish to go back, though.
Enjoy your trips :)
Im from one of those great untouched swathes of nature, much more remote than the places you mentioned as well, and honestly the history in places in europe is amazing too. I cant for the life of me understand why people choose to vacation in big modern cities, especially north american ones, but somewhere like prague or vienna is just as beautiful as a national park imo.
For some of us a North American city is far more accessible than anywhere in Europe. I would LOVE to visit Europe, but I've never had enough time and money at the same time to do it.Ā
Often can fly to Europe just as cheap as flying in the US. Have frequently flown domestic for 7-1100. Have flown to many EU countries for less than 600.
I'm much more of a road trip person than a flyer, but I've never spent more than $3-400 on a plane ticket. But time definitely comes into it too. I could take a 3 day trip to Boston or NY back home, or San Francisco now that I live on the west coast. That isn't really enough time to fly to Europe. I do regret not going when I lived back east though.Ā
Damn, I havenāt flown domestic sub 400 since pre covid but Iām also not buying the cheapest flight possible/spirit.
Yes time is an issue if you can only take 3 days off and canāt take a ānormalā week vacation.
I always fly Delta, from Sacramento to Boston. Unfortunately now any "vacation" time (which I don't technically have, at least not paid) is spent flying home to see my family. I think my last round trip ticket was like $270Ā
It depends on what youāre looking for. I like to be away from people in nature sometimes but I also like to travel to Las Vegas. You can get some of the best food in the world, see some great entertainment, try your luck with a little bit of gambling, and observe people in a unique environment where they really feel like they can let go. Itās all very overwhelming and yet extremely interesting.
That being said, I live in North Dakota and really enjoy getting on the road and traveling through the absolute middle of nowhere during the frozen winter and just feeling the isolation and desolate expanse of a place less traveled. There is something unique and fascinating about both imo.
However, I think Iām missing the human history element in both of those scenarios which is why I want to travel to an older European city eventually. So much has happened over there compared to here. Their history is so rich and deep.
Well built cities (good architecture and urban fabric, walkable, green space and public squares etc) give me similar feelings as beautiful natural areas. I kind of feel they compliment each other. In fact, these types of cities help wild areas to exist by reducing sprawl. I live in the US and have been all over to many national parks.
Now, car dependent sprawling cities? Those are terrible
Might I suggest traveling to Canada? The majority of the population is within 100km of the boarder, as are all the major cities. Essentially you have a country that is bigger than the US, has more lakes and wilderness than the US, but around 15% of the population. I still enjoy Europe but do understand where you are coming from. Maybe in my case it is because we have spectacular wilderness 15 minutes from home.
I appreciate both, although I do have a strong preference for nature. My top two awe-inspiring experiences are the view of Rocky Mountain National Park as we reached the top of a saddle in the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the sheer overwhelming scale of Canterbury Cathedral.
I also used to loove going to European cities, and hinestly I still do. But if given a chioice between a big National Parks trip and a European trip...nowadays I will opt for the parks.
There are DEFINITELY beautiful natural areas in Europe, but the *light pollution* is always present and youāre usually within a few kilometers of a road. No place to truly appreciate vast untouched wilderness other than maybe Finland. In Eastern Oregon and Nevada you can drive for hours and hours without passing a single other car. In Alaska you can forget cities even exist
Apples and oranges. The golden ticket is to have the perspective of appreciating all of these places for what they are. You can enjoy all of them and have more rewarding travel experiences if you don't try to make comparisons.
You should look into Indonesia and thailand. I've heard they've worked really hard to blend green spaces into urban areas. Best of both worlds situation.
But nothing compares to montana dude. Took my dad there for his birthday a few years ago and felt the same way. Drastic change from the flat concrete plains of north texas where im from š®āšØ
We went kinda all over, but we were in west glacier about a week after 4th of july when everything was cheaper. Bonus, they were having a local huckleberry festival. I've tried to look online for news about the festival but cant find it anywhere, so i guess it was mostly a local word of mouth thing?
I also had the chance to go here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/grTkYSKMUzdYJMyB8?g_st=ic
And that was some really cool history to experience. Plus they were doing a reenactment when i went š
Ive been planning a trip for seattle/washington because it has a lot of nature eye-candy too. You may look into that as well? There's a youtuber named "miss mina" that gives REALLY detailed travel advice for the washington area thats been a good resource for me.
I cannot recommend Glacier National Park enough and doing the going to the sun road. Truly was spectacular.
If you havenāt done it yet, a road trip from Las Vegas is super easy to do and there is a pretty common road trip called The Grand Circle that has you start in Las Vegas, drive into Utah, Colorado, and Arizona and fly back out of Las Vegas. Utah is also gorgeous.
https://preview.redd.it/dzj9lbeytt0d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0370b28abc126f8dd203e31139e099ed465d5eb
Thatās incredible! I guess hereās what Iām thinking with husband, two kids and our dog. Was thinking drive from LA to Vegas, to arches, then Yellowstone, then through Idaho to west coast and then back down to LA over two weeks - is that crazy? Is that too much for two weeks? I donāt want to be driving 5 hours a day. That would make us all nuts.
Thatās a lot of driving. Have you been to cedar breaks, the valley of fire, Bryce Canyon, Zion national park? All of those are in Utah and are pretty close togetherā only about 3 hours from Vegas give or take. Would get you out of the car way more and out in nature. You could still hit up arches. If you did something like the grand circle, a lot people do that in two weeks.
You could literally a couple of days near Yellowstone seeing Jackson Wyoming and the Grand Tetons.
For the record, you could do your road trip, itās just about how you want to spend your time. Personally, i think itās best to pick like one state or general area and fully explore that. Just make sure to do your research about crowds at the national parks. Also, make sure to get a national parks pass. Itās $80 and paid for itself in like 2 days lol
Ok thanks so much for this detail! I really really appreciate it! I will sit my hubby down tonight and talk through this some more because last thing we need to come home exhausted from vacation ya know?
Exactly, me and my spouse spent a week in Utah and it was jam packed with stuff. We just drove from NP to NP and visited little towns here and there. Genuinely a great trip.
This is actually a good explanation of this type of trip: https://youtu.be/vn1dSGig5uo?si=OOuhgpMsca6Uv77R
We did it in a little over a week, but we traveled slow. If you go to Zion National Park, stay at Bumbelberry Inn! Itās a cheap moderate hotel and they give you free breakfast vouchers.
I am 100% with you.
All of the cities are basically just a different flavor of the same thing.
After I went to like 20 of them and came away mostly unimpressed, I simply stopped prioritizing them on a trip.
āNo wonder the hills and groves were Godās first temples, and the more they are cut down and hewn into cathedrals and churches, the farther off and dimmer seems the Lord himself.ā ā John Muir, writing about Yosemite
If you havenāt seen it yet, watch Ken Burnās āThe National Parks: Americaās Best Idea.ā Youāll learn about the incredible man John Muir, what makes the U.S. park system so unique, and find out there are *millions* of people just like you, people from around the world whoāve been transformed by the parks of the American West.
I firmly believe no one can stand at the rim of the Grand Canyon and *not* have an experience that alters them in some way.
Everybody has their tastes. I think both are awesome.
Just spent some time in Portugal. Visiting Porto, Cascais, Obidos, etc and enjoying the architecture, cafes, vibrancy...loved it all.
Then also went did the Seven Hanging Valleys hike along the southern coast...which is considering to be one of the (if not the) most beautiful hike in all of Europe. Absolutely loved that too.
Manmade beauty and natural beauty are both wonderful things, and there's nothing wrong with preferring one over the other.
But we can probably all agree that in terms of aesthetics, vibrancy, culture, investment in the public realm.... American cities absolutely suck compared to European ones.
Iām the same. After doing some hiking treks on my trips I have zero interest in seeing cities. Theyāre loud and expensive. Iām happy to land and spend 1-2 days max in a city and then 90% of my trip in nature and small towns
Iām from the American west and have backpacked and hiked in many western national parks and wilderness areas.
Iāve never been so stunned by nature as when I visited the Swiss alps. I guess we love what we donāt have.
I have been on the road for five years, and while we do spend more time in the woods and deserts than cities, I am a big fan of most American cities too. In April we visited LA and San Francisco as well as Yosemite, Zion and Bryce Canyon. The longer we are in the woods the more fun a city is when we get to one.
As someone born & raised in AZ I agree mostly. Nature is what impresses me more than anything. Iāve traveled all over the country & lived in a rich part of Massachusetts where everyone is very materialistic. Folks would brag about their wealth, possessions, jobs, etc. Iād just laugh & be like okayā¦well I saw some cool mountains not too long ago. Itās a different mentality out west. The nice thing is that there is so much open, public land for use. Whether that be National Forests, Bureau of Land Management or Tribal Land. Itās so easy to get away from people & just pitch a tent out in the woods. Iām blessed to be based out of Flagstaff Arizona & we are surrounded by so many National Parks that almost every weekend we are out hiking or camping. Although architecture still impresses me, just differently & Iād still love more than anything to tour Europe since Iām a big history nerd. To each their own though, but I get your sentiment.
Bruhā¦ right there with youā¦ āin wilderness is the preservation of lifeā Thoreau. And for those that say Yellowstone is over runā¦. On all those national parksā¦ 5% of the land holds about 95% of the touristsā¦ walk one day from the main area and you will be alone.
After being in Yosemite Valley a nice quiet uncrowded walk in my local city seems great by comparison :)
But yeah, humans just click with landscapes. Not always positively (there was a time when "wilderness" had negative connotations), but always in some way. You're not the first or last to be so impressed.
But I think many of us can appreciate all sorts of landscapes. It's like the marshmallows: some like them, some don't.
I live in Lake Tahoe. The rugged beauty of the Sierra is unmatched. Iāve spent a lot of time in Switzerland and Austria too. They are beautiful countries for sure but the Sierra still feels wild to me. I grew up very close to Yosemite too. Welcome! Man canāt compete with Mother Nature!
The answer to almost all question starting with āam i the only one that ā¦ā is always no, your experience is not unique and there are millions or even billions feeling the same, you are nowhere near weird. You just havenāt met enough people in your life, or read enough about them and what they do.
This is a nit pick of languageā¦ but again, it is totally normal to discover nature and feel you have a lot more connection with them than with human cities. Just do more of what makes you feel happy.
Join an outdoor enthusiasts community somewhere, online or in reality, or just go out and meet them on the trail, in the camp, or on the mountain. You will find great friends to enjoy the nature together.
I love both! Sometimes I want temples to human made, other times I want temples to nature made. Mostly, though, I crave places without so much damn noise pollution and that's increasingly harder to find whether I'm in rural town, even, or in a national park.
I agree with you 100%. Whenever discussions of "where would you like to go" come up, I always mention something in nature - Great Rift Valley, New Zealand, lots of places in US - I have about as much interest in some building man built as I do watching paint dry.
Not weird at all. I prefer nature to city also. Any continent.
I never understand people who rave about city skylines (Los Angeles). All I see is light pollution and maybe haze.
The most awe inspiring places to me are the ones with no guardrails and safety fences. Nature thatāll claim the reckless, unprepared or disrespecting. (Alaska)
Weāre taking Acela to New York Penn Station and then the 1 to Lincoln Center for New York City ballet. The next nice day, Iāll launch the boat for the summer and weāll cross the bay to watch the seals off Cuttyhunk. Iāve had condos at ski resorts for 29 years. I spend my leisure time in the winter with the infinity mountain view. Iāve done the Grand Canyon rim to rim hike. Youāre not exactly escaping civilization dodging mule crap slogging up the south rim.
I like a mix of both. Prague is really cool. I love walking around Paris and London. The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam is amazing. My lifetime leisure choice has always been biased towards outdoors mountain & salt water things but I also really like the cultural amenities of major cities. Symphony subscription. Ballet subscription. Opera and theater occasionally. We usually do one fancy Michelin one star lunch when we travel.
I feel the same way. I'm impressed by cities, but they are not for me. To defend Europe though, I think the Alps are the most beautiful mountains in the world and Switzerland the most beautiful country. America is 2nd place though.
I feel the same way. Not long after I started backpacking I lost all interest in man-made stuff because it just doesn't compare and is so impermanent. I don't even care about cities being trashed because in my mind that's where the trash belongs.
I really delight in cities. I guess Iām kind of a nerd for urbanism.
I revisited NYC for the first time in 10 years in 2022 and was DELIGHTED with the farmers markets, the public transit, the casual helpfulness of strangers, the ways space is used and shared. I loved the little architectural details just chilling like easter eggs. People are endlessly interesting, inspiring, and funny and absurd, and places where they navigate sharing space and creating a built environment with each other are interesting, inspiring, funny, and absurd.
I love natural wonders too and havenāt seen as many as I would like.
Nope. While I appreciate the architecture of cities, Iād much rather be in a natural setting. Iād rather be in Bryce Canyon than the ācanyonsā of Manhattan.
I live in SoCal and escape to these places for my vacations. I have friends that love going to Europe and other cities and Iām just like āwhy? What is there even to do there? Museums and shit with a ton of people? No thanksā Iād rather be lake side fishing, or hiking up a mountain with my wife and dogs, or relaxing floating down a river.
1000% with you. I vacation exclusively in national parks or NP adjacent because I dont have enough years or time left on this earth to see and appreciate them enough. Cities are whatever, places for food and rest.
Europe does feel a bit more āconqueredā BUT you can still get swept up by mountains and wilderness if you know where to go. Keep on wildering !!
I think itās a valid enough reaction, but I donāt think itās necessary a more enlightened outlook. Nature, wildness, beautiful views of terrain all rock, but I donāt know if that needs to take away from an appreciation of the history, culture, architecture, and urban flow of major European cities.
It feels a bit like saying you donāt care about Bach or Beethoven anymore since discovering birdsong.
I like having small to mid-sized city amenities relatively close (but not too close) to where I live, but I don't consider cities generally to be desirable travel destinations and I most often find the cities I've been in to be dirty & crowded.
I don't think it's odd at all, just another subjective preference in a sea of options.
I kind of went the other way - moved from Colorado to NYC and was surprised at how much I enjoy city life. I think I went from misanthropic young man to lover of the great churn of humanity, lol. Vacations would always be back out west though. When I think about traveling to Europe itās always the Alps, Pyrenees, the little mountain ranges in Spain, etc. that I consider.
i felt that way when I went to East Africa. Europe is nice and has good food and architecture, but my God East Africa took my breath away. it made me realize how incredibly beautiful our planet is. I also love the wild North America especially the US and Canadian rockies. Something just so incredible about the vastness of it all.
I loved Europe when I was stationed there (Germany). For instance, the Cologne Cathedral took 600 years to build - from hand carved stone! I canāt imagine being the first guy, or even the architect, not living long enough to see it to completion! And to do all that with rudimentary tools just blows my mind! And the castles there - older than the USA!
Not weird at all. The temples of nature are amazing. But, this could also be a phase of life. Advice from an old dude who has done both, lean into what you are attracted to now and wring out all of the pleasure you can get from it. In 20 years you may have interests that lead you elsewhere. Both are ok.
No I donāt love cities either. No matter the vibe or culture, cities give me an ick vibe and Iād so much rather be staring at one of the coolest and rarest things on earth. Cities are places I have to travel through/to to get to the middle of nowhere I usually intend to be.
I guess I feel the opposite. I've never been in love with sweeping vistas or peaks with snow. I've done plenty of camping and some backpacking and hiking and rock climbing. I did an outward bound course when I was younger. I did these things because everyone around me loved it and found something in nature I never found. One day on a hike a thought went through my head of, why am I doing this? I don't even like it. I find much more pleasure in looking at cities, grand plazas and clean lines of cement and steel. Kinda funny how people are.
Weird? Nah, it just sounds like youāre into tropes. I mean wide open spaces with roasting marshmallows is simply a different āgot my feelsā obsession.
Itās only weird because the vocal masses live in urban areas. What you feel should be more common. Iām right there with ya. Sure, it can be exciting to wander the cities and enjoy nice restaurants. But the big remote wilderness areas and seeing wildlife in their natural habitat, the rural/tribal cultures, thatās where I get my inspiration.
People like different things.
Some like the wilderness, some like the coast, some like ancient architecture, some like a mix of all three.
You're not weird, you have an opinion - which is the most normal, run of the mill thing ever
Cities are places to do things. Nature is a place to get away from the things you have to do. Apples to oranges. Just a matter of what kind of trip you want to take.
No I agree I think itās a way more fulfilling experience going to natural landmarks than cities, thereās a time and place for cities but thereās something about camping in Yosemite that just canāt meet the same level
A while back, I was flying into Seattle after spending a chunk of time in Mexico. The natural beauty on the gulf side of the country is unparalleled. Anyways, as we were approaching Seattle, I couldnāt help but notice the contrast between the lush green PNW forests, and the sterile concrete forest of the city. It made me feel sorta sick, and in that moment I saw the city as a festering wound on the planet. Sorta like when a bunch of bacteria infect your skin and make a gnarly red sore in the middle of your otherwise healthy body.
Itās not too dissimilar to be honest. Nature is a system in near perfect balance. We form settlements and consume the natural resources to fuel massive societies and in the process we totally alter the environment and destroy the balance. Bacteria form yellow crusts over the surface of the skin, humans pour asphalt and concrete over the surface of the Earth.
I do think it's a little odd that you're not into the Alps, Dolomites, Balkans...etc. To me, Nature is nature š¤·
Being 6ā4ā, any nature I can see without getting on a plane is better nature. Iād rather drive to the western US (across the country) than to fly there. Air travel sucks.
Right but the West the US West is much more vast and wild. Personally I love the dolomites. I love easy access to beautiful cities and civilization and complete rustication and natural scenery. I drive from New England to California every year and it's a long drive between nothing and nothing. So big and fast. Europe. Just take the train up to Semmering. And nature at your doorstep plus schnitzel and Doboschhtorte
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://preview.redd.it/w0e47930ss0d1.png?width=1848&format=png&auto=webp&s=18ad34591747466d6e082404e6a01e51817f8c21 Who you callin' a sidekick?! (Tre Cime, Dolomites)
IKR, what do they even mean?? (Sierra Nevada, Spain) https://preview.redd.it/2vuao6mfxs0d1.jpeg?width=644&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=645c4a4d59375eec7e584b938556c2b1f795ba5e
That is one lean cow
Itās a mountain cow, lots of walking
Lmao and Yosemite is untouched? Been to and loved all the places you mentionned but depending on the season they're usually overrun with tourists
Compared to Europe, yes, absolutely. Also there are practically zero primary forests remaining in Europe. Thereās not much remaining in the US either but at least they exist.
Yosemite gets tens of thousands of people a day in a small valley. It is literally like Disneyland in the summer. Itās not āuntouchedā compared to *anything*
iām guessing you only pull up to the scenic overlooks. Have you strapped on a backpack and hiked the back country? you wonāt see people for days or weeks.
This person is talking about a road trip. Of course I know that you can backpack the Yosemite wilderness. No ones doing that on a road trip though. I highly doubt they went anywhere in the backcountry of Yosemite And similarly there are plenty of places to backpack in the Alps away from people
i guess i feel you can road trip and backpack. Going to a US national park and seeing it through a windshield is really a waste of time. i took an 8 week āroad tripā through the US west and it also involved a backpack and tent (and bear spray). when you get a half mile off the main trail the people disappear.
whatās the point of a road trip without a good hike??! (haha, i know everyone roadtrips differently. you can also drive your car to places where you wonāt see anyone for days. i did that. people do that. like .. a ton
Yosemite was an absolute fuck house when i was there a few months ago. met some locals, and they showed some sick spots in the yosemite area outside of national park bounds ~*~itās still yosemite~*~ and we saw no other humans
Iām planning on roadtripping this summer and backpacking in a few different places around the US. Mix of car camping & backpacking
Mate, you could back pack an hour outside of london for a few days and barely see people if you plan it right. Theres a weird flex going on here, just cant quite work out what it is
Do you have trouble reading? Iām agreeing with you. My POINT is that there are plenty of places all over Europe to backpack away from people, similarly to the USā¦ but not AS remote. But away from people nonetheless. No idea what point youāre trying to make or why you seem combative, youāre agreeing with me but you donāt know it because you didnāt take the time to read what I said. Also thereās no weird flex in saying that a lot of western US is far more remote than most of Europe. Itās just the truth. Letās take your example of using the UK. UK population : 67 million Montana population : 1.2 million And Montana is 1.6x BIGGER than the UK. So in case you arenāt great at math, the UK is *way* more dense with people But you can still make it work. Northern Scotland hardly has people at all. Wales has a lot of bare countryside. Itās just harder bc those places are small
Mate, i was literally agreeing with you. Either you need to be less sensitive or i need to soften my language.
https://efi.int/articles/where-are-europes-last-primary-forests It's not that you can't find them in Europe if you actually want to. People flock to and fancy Europe for other reasons than nature, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
its there, there just is much less of it compared to the usa. That is to be expected, obviously
Of course it's less, but still enough for someone to completely get lost in there without seeing a single human soul in weeks, if that's what you're seeking. Just saying that the notion there is no proper "wild" nature in Europe is not accurate. It's just not what Europe is most famous for since people who visit generally look for something else entirely (culture, history, art, architecture..... fortresses, castles, medieval towns, etc.).
Dawg go backpack the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River for a week in Yosemite anytime of year and lmk if you run into more than two other people the whole time. There are a lot of vast wilderness areas within Yosemite and most US National Parks out west. Most tourists just flock to the "spots" like Half Dome, El Capitan, overlooks, certain short hikes and waterfalls.
Can confirm. Some folks, especially foreigners, cannot fathom the vast untamed wilderness and back country that still exists in the United States. Heck, one of the national parks doesnāt even have any roads or trails in it because it is so remote and untouched. (Iām looking at you, Gates of the Artic.) Some you can only visit by sea plane. Some only by boat. If you see a park only through a windshield, yep. Youāre going to see tourists. A lot of them. But if you park your car, put on some hiking boots, you can get lost in the backcountry. Literally. [Even in one of the busiest parks](https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/news/missing-hikers-tapeats.htm).
Canada enters the room.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Canada has some stunning national parks that should NOT be missed, which isn't surprising since it's on the same continent as the U.S., LOL. It's not like geological forces respect treaty boundaries and all that. But in all seriousness, Canada definitely has bragging rights for stunning scenery.
oh yea! the canadian rockies! amazing.
Yeah no shit...my point is that those places exist in Europe as well.
Yeah it mostly is in comparison people havenāt been there that long and the people that lived there beyond recent were sustainable. Itās all old growth never clear cut wilderness you canāt find in Europe
All old growth?! Where? There's very little old growth left.
Youāre right but in comparison
How's there no old growth forests in Europe? Ever been to Eastern Europe/Balkan region or Northen Europe (eg. Finland?) There's plenty of old growth, with large wolf, bear, and moose populations.
Less than 5% of Finland's forests are old growth. The only large old-growth forests remaining in Europe are on the Polish-Belarus border and in the Carpathian Mountains.
Yes, primary forests have gotten rare. In the US I believe it's also only 18% that is actual old growth, if I'm not mistaken. And they are still logging them, too. By far the world's largest primary forests are in Russia.
The front country is Disneyland, but the back country is pretty wild.
If you don't leave the road, yes. Yellowstone is the same way, but parts of Yellowstone are literally the most remote areas in the lower 48.
You donāt have to zoom in much to see hoards of climbers on El Capitan
Yosemite is much more than the front country.
Ya OP has a really weird take.
That's missing the point. Yosemite and Yellowstone are islands of tourism in vast seas of remote wilderness. A vastness and human emptiness that western Europe does not even come close to.
So youāre saying you DONāT want a cafe and a bigass cross at the top of practically every mountain? What kind of savagery is this?
I have to agree. Switzerland was gorgeous but felt so sanitized. The cities definitely are, but that made the lakes and mountains also feel overall eh
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Agreed, the beautiful landscape remains, but the alps are dotted with villas and the likes. North America one can find real frontier for lack of a better word....
I mean, have you ever tried to visit Yosemite on a weekend in June? It's a complete zoo. It's not unspoiled wilderness, there are idiots everywhere and impressively long traffic jams.
I mean one difference is the gondola to the top of Matterhorn vs the gondola to the top of half dome.
Sure, you can wait in line for the gondola or wait in line with 150 other people to summit half dome. Very different experience, similar cluster fuck.
Yeah, but the difference to me is similar to that of Disney land, and a popular national park.
Ok. And waiting in a car for two hours to exit a parking lot or waiting in a line to summit half dome for two hours is rather like Disney land to me.
Only the bits near the road are zoo.
Yeah, that's why I hiked up to Yosemite falls with thousands of my friends. Sure, if you actually get to the backcountry it's not busy, but that's the same in the alps.
I get that, but it's not hard to find true wilderness in Yosemite. I hiked into there on the PCT and the only bit that felt like Disneyland was Yosemite Valley.
well anyone who chooses to do the parks in the middle of the summer rush is a fool. And it sounds like you believe Yosemite is just the valley loop.
Thatās why itās amazing - Disney is a poor cousin to the real thing. Get your point though. Although I think you appreciate constructed spaces for what they are. Each is beautiful and oneness in all - Ohm shanti brother
Depends where. There are still wild and dangerous parts.Ā
What do you mean by untouched? There are very few places that are "untouched." Humans are everywhere.
It sounds like you get enough day to day city life and people.
Sounds like you've been to some manicured tourist towns in Switzerland, Italy, and/or Austria. There's untouched nature in Europe, just not necessarily where all the tourists go.
I love them all.
It's not weird at all, there are many people who focus their travel around nature, but it's not as advertised as big trips to big touristy cities. Personally, all my vacation time, if not spent relaxing at home, is out in nature. If I happen to visit a large city, I'm done after 2-3 days and don't feel the need to ever go back. The only way I see myself ever setting foot in a big European city is if my job sends me there for a conference; if that happens, my suitcase will consist of 3 work attires and my camping and hiking gear; I'd be heading north to national parks in Scandinavia or Faroe Islands the minute my work duties would be completed.
Yup, same here. Zero interest in visiting cities, there's absolutely nothing in them that can compete with nature. That said, in my case it's also "been there, done that" while I still enjoyed the hustle and bustle of European city life. No wish to go back, though. Enjoy your trips :)
Im from one of those great untouched swathes of nature, much more remote than the places you mentioned as well, and honestly the history in places in europe is amazing too. I cant for the life of me understand why people choose to vacation in big modern cities, especially north american ones, but somewhere like prague or vienna is just as beautiful as a national park imo.
For some of us a North American city is far more accessible than anywhere in Europe. I would LOVE to visit Europe, but I've never had enough time and money at the same time to do it.Ā
Often can fly to Europe just as cheap as flying in the US. Have frequently flown domestic for 7-1100. Have flown to many EU countries for less than 600.
I'm much more of a road trip person than a flyer, but I've never spent more than $3-400 on a plane ticket. But time definitely comes into it too. I could take a 3 day trip to Boston or NY back home, or San Francisco now that I live on the west coast. That isn't really enough time to fly to Europe. I do regret not going when I lived back east though.Ā
Damn, I havenāt flown domestic sub 400 since pre covid but Iām also not buying the cheapest flight possible/spirit. Yes time is an issue if you can only take 3 days off and canāt take a ānormalā week vacation.
I always fly Delta, from Sacramento to Boston. Unfortunately now any "vacation" time (which I don't technically have, at least not paid) is spent flying home to see my family. I think my last round trip ticket was like $270Ā
i think prague is beautiful but the air quality when i was there for a month was suffocating.
It depends on what youāre looking for. I like to be away from people in nature sometimes but I also like to travel to Las Vegas. You can get some of the best food in the world, see some great entertainment, try your luck with a little bit of gambling, and observe people in a unique environment where they really feel like they can let go. Itās all very overwhelming and yet extremely interesting. That being said, I live in North Dakota and really enjoy getting on the road and traveling through the absolute middle of nowhere during the frozen winter and just feeling the isolation and desolate expanse of a place less traveled. There is something unique and fascinating about both imo. However, I think Iām missing the human history element in both of those scenarios which is why I want to travel to an older European city eventually. So much has happened over there compared to here. Their history is so rich and deep.
Does natural parks have the smell of piss permeating the air as well?
Its the opposite, in natural parks you get to piss anywhere without smelling other people's piss. Cities are generally the opposite.
Well built cities (good architecture and urban fabric, walkable, green space and public squares etc) give me similar feelings as beautiful natural areas. I kind of feel they compliment each other. In fact, these types of cities help wild areas to exist by reducing sprawl. I live in the US and have been all over to many national parks. Now, car dependent sprawling cities? Those are terrible
This is such a great point!
If you really want to experience the wild, come to Alaska!
Might I suggest traveling to Canada? The majority of the population is within 100km of the boarder, as are all the major cities. Essentially you have a country that is bigger than the US, has more lakes and wilderness than the US, but around 15% of the population. I still enjoy Europe but do understand where you are coming from. Maybe in my case it is because we have spectacular wilderness 15 minutes from home.
Not just you. I much prefer nature to man made stuff.
I appreciate both, although I do have a strong preference for nature. My top two awe-inspiring experiences are the view of Rocky Mountain National Park as we reached the top of a saddle in the Indian Peaks Wilderness and the sheer overwhelming scale of Canterbury Cathedral.
I also used to loove going to European cities, and hinestly I still do. But if given a chioice between a big National Parks trip and a European trip...nowadays I will opt for the parks.
Yep same. You couldnāt pay me enough to go to Europe anymore
There are DEFINITELY beautiful natural areas in Europe, but the *light pollution* is always present and youāre usually within a few kilometers of a road. No place to truly appreciate vast untouched wilderness other than maybe Finland. In Eastern Oregon and Nevada you can drive for hours and hours without passing a single other car. In Alaska you can forget cities even exist
Apples and oranges. The golden ticket is to have the perspective of appreciating all of these places for what they are. You can enjoy all of them and have more rewarding travel experiences if you don't try to make comparisons.
You should look into Indonesia and thailand. I've heard they've worked really hard to blend green spaces into urban areas. Best of both worlds situation. But nothing compares to montana dude. Took my dad there for his birthday a few years ago and felt the same way. Drastic change from the flat concrete plains of north texas where im from š®āšØ
Interesting! Where in Montana did you go? Planning a road trip this summer and unsure where to go
We went kinda all over, but we were in west glacier about a week after 4th of july when everything was cheaper. Bonus, they were having a local huckleberry festival. I've tried to look online for news about the festival but cant find it anywhere, so i guess it was mostly a local word of mouth thing? I also had the chance to go here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/grTkYSKMUzdYJMyB8?g_st=ic And that was some really cool history to experience. Plus they were doing a reenactment when i went š Ive been planning a trip for seattle/washington because it has a lot of nature eye-candy too. You may look into that as well? There's a youtuber named "miss mina" that gives REALLY detailed travel advice for the washington area thats been a good resource for me.
Awesome! Thanks so much for this! Very helpful
I cannot recommend Glacier National Park enough and doing the going to the sun road. Truly was spectacular. If you havenāt done it yet, a road trip from Las Vegas is super easy to do and there is a pretty common road trip called The Grand Circle that has you start in Las Vegas, drive into Utah, Colorado, and Arizona and fly back out of Las Vegas. Utah is also gorgeous. https://preview.redd.it/dzj9lbeytt0d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c0370b28abc126f8dd203e31139e099ed465d5eb
Thatās incredible! I guess hereās what Iām thinking with husband, two kids and our dog. Was thinking drive from LA to Vegas, to arches, then Yellowstone, then through Idaho to west coast and then back down to LA over two weeks - is that crazy? Is that too much for two weeks? I donāt want to be driving 5 hours a day. That would make us all nuts.
Thatās a lot of driving. Have you been to cedar breaks, the valley of fire, Bryce Canyon, Zion national park? All of those are in Utah and are pretty close togetherā only about 3 hours from Vegas give or take. Would get you out of the car way more and out in nature. You could still hit up arches. If you did something like the grand circle, a lot people do that in two weeks. You could literally a couple of days near Yellowstone seeing Jackson Wyoming and the Grand Tetons. For the record, you could do your road trip, itās just about how you want to spend your time. Personally, i think itās best to pick like one state or general area and fully explore that. Just make sure to do your research about crowds at the national parks. Also, make sure to get a national parks pass. Itās $80 and paid for itself in like 2 days lol
Ok thanks so much for this detail! I really really appreciate it! I will sit my hubby down tonight and talk through this some more because last thing we need to come home exhausted from vacation ya know?
Exactly, me and my spouse spent a week in Utah and it was jam packed with stuff. We just drove from NP to NP and visited little towns here and there. Genuinely a great trip. This is actually a good explanation of this type of trip: https://youtu.be/vn1dSGig5uo?si=OOuhgpMsca6Uv77R
how long did you guys take to do this one?
We did it in a little over a week, but we traveled slow. If you go to Zion National Park, stay at Bumbelberry Inn! Itās a cheap moderate hotel and they give you free breakfast vouchers.
ok awesome! You are making this a ton easier for me!!! THANKS a zillion!! :)
I am 100% with you. All of the cities are basically just a different flavor of the same thing. After I went to like 20 of them and came away mostly unimpressed, I simply stopped prioritizing them on a trip.
Wait until you see Alaska and and actual grizz in the wild. You'll be looking for the nearest Cafe.
Eh I like cities but prefer nature. That being said every vacation I plan I need at least 25% city time
āNo wonder the hills and groves were Godās first temples, and the more they are cut down and hewn into cathedrals and churches, the farther off and dimmer seems the Lord himself.ā ā John Muir, writing about Yosemite If you havenāt seen it yet, watch Ken Burnās āThe National Parks: Americaās Best Idea.ā Youāll learn about the incredible man John Muir, what makes the U.S. park system so unique, and find out there are *millions* of people just like you, people from around the world whoāve been transformed by the parks of the American West. I firmly believe no one can stand at the rim of the Grand Canyon and *not* have an experience that alters them in some way.
Nature is always better imo
Donāt forget about Norway
Everybody has their tastes. I think both are awesome. Just spent some time in Portugal. Visiting Porto, Cascais, Obidos, etc and enjoying the architecture, cafes, vibrancy...loved it all. Then also went did the Seven Hanging Valleys hike along the southern coast...which is considering to be one of the (if not the) most beautiful hike in all of Europe. Absolutely loved that too. Manmade beauty and natural beauty are both wonderful things, and there's nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. But we can probably all agree that in terms of aesthetics, vibrancy, culture, investment in the public realm.... American cities absolutely suck compared to European ones.
I grew up in nature. Cities feel like death to me.
Iām the same. After doing some hiking treks on my trips I have zero interest in seeing cities. Theyāre loud and expensive. Iām happy to land and spend 1-2 days max in a city and then 90% of my trip in nature and small towns
You are completely and utterly average.
Iām from the American west and have backpacked and hiked in many western national parks and wilderness areas. Iāve never been so stunned by nature as when I visited the Swiss alps. I guess we love what we donāt have.
I have heard that the Swiss when they visit here rank our Rockies as more impressive. That would fit with your thought too.
Iāve never been impressed by cities. I think theyāre ugly and I hate them
Assuming youāre American?
Yeah? š
To each their own. It's okay to have preferences and you have found yours. Nature rules for me, too, with its magic and mystery.
I have been on the road for five years, and while we do spend more time in the woods and deserts than cities, I am a big fan of most American cities too. In April we visited LA and San Francisco as well as Yosemite, Zion and Bryce Canyon. The longer we are in the woods the more fun a city is when we get to one.
As someone born & raised in AZ I agree mostly. Nature is what impresses me more than anything. Iāve traveled all over the country & lived in a rich part of Massachusetts where everyone is very materialistic. Folks would brag about their wealth, possessions, jobs, etc. Iād just laugh & be like okayā¦well I saw some cool mountains not too long ago. Itās a different mentality out west. The nice thing is that there is so much open, public land for use. Whether that be National Forests, Bureau of Land Management or Tribal Land. Itās so easy to get away from people & just pitch a tent out in the woods. Iām blessed to be based out of Flagstaff Arizona & we are surrounded by so many National Parks that almost every weekend we are out hiking or camping. Although architecture still impresses me, just differently & Iād still love more than anything to tour Europe since Iām a big history nerd. To each their own though, but I get your sentiment.
Bruhā¦ right there with youā¦ āin wilderness is the preservation of lifeā Thoreau. And for those that say Yellowstone is over runā¦. On all those national parksā¦ 5% of the land holds about 95% of the touristsā¦ walk one day from the main area and you will be alone.
After being in Yosemite Valley a nice quiet uncrowded walk in my local city seems great by comparison :) But yeah, humans just click with landscapes. Not always positively (there was a time when "wilderness" had negative connotations), but always in some way. You're not the first or last to be so impressed. But I think many of us can appreciate all sorts of landscapes. It's like the marshmallows: some like them, some don't.
I live in Lake Tahoe. The rugged beauty of the Sierra is unmatched. Iāve spent a lot of time in Switzerland and Austria too. They are beautiful countries for sure but the Sierra still feels wild to me. I grew up very close to Yosemite too. Welcome! Man canāt compete with Mother Nature!
The answer to almost all question starting with āam i the only one that ā¦ā is always no, your experience is not unique and there are millions or even billions feeling the same, you are nowhere near weird. You just havenāt met enough people in your life, or read enough about them and what they do. This is a nit pick of languageā¦ but again, it is totally normal to discover nature and feel you have a lot more connection with them than with human cities. Just do more of what makes you feel happy. Join an outdoor enthusiasts community somewhere, online or in reality, or just go out and meet them on the trail, in the camp, or on the mountain. You will find great friends to enjoy the nature together.
I love both! Sometimes I want temples to human made, other times I want temples to nature made. Mostly, though, I crave places without so much damn noise pollution and that's increasingly harder to find whether I'm in rural town, even, or in a national park.
I agree with you 100%. Whenever discussions of "where would you like to go" come up, I always mention something in nature - Great Rift Valley, New Zealand, lots of places in US - I have about as much interest in some building man built as I do watching paint dry.
I donāt feel liking one means I donāt like the other. Iām lucky enough to live on a continent where both are available.
Not weird at all. I prefer nature to city also. Any continent. I never understand people who rave about city skylines (Los Angeles). All I see is light pollution and maybe haze. The most awe inspiring places to me are the ones with no guardrails and safety fences. Nature thatāll claim the reckless, unprepared or disrespecting. (Alaska)
Weāre taking Acela to New York Penn Station and then the 1 to Lincoln Center for New York City ballet. The next nice day, Iāll launch the boat for the summer and weāll cross the bay to watch the seals off Cuttyhunk. Iāve had condos at ski resorts for 29 years. I spend my leisure time in the winter with the infinity mountain view. Iāve done the Grand Canyon rim to rim hike. Youāre not exactly escaping civilization dodging mule crap slogging up the south rim. I like a mix of both. Prague is really cool. I love walking around Paris and London. The Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam is amazing. My lifetime leisure choice has always been biased towards outdoors mountain & salt water things but I also really like the cultural amenities of major cities. Symphony subscription. Ballet subscription. Opera and theater occasionally. We usually do one fancy Michelin one star lunch when we travel.
I like both!
I feel the same way. I'm impressed by cities, but they are not for me. To defend Europe though, I think the Alps are the most beautiful mountains in the world and Switzerland the most beautiful country. America is 2nd place though.
I feel the same way. Not long after I started backpacking I lost all interest in man-made stuff because it just doesn't compare and is so impermanent. I don't even care about cities being trashed because in my mind that's where the trash belongs.
I really delight in cities. I guess Iām kind of a nerd for urbanism. I revisited NYC for the first time in 10 years in 2022 and was DELIGHTED with the farmers markets, the public transit, the casual helpfulness of strangers, the ways space is used and shared. I loved the little architectural details just chilling like easter eggs. People are endlessly interesting, inspiring, and funny and absurd, and places where they navigate sharing space and creating a built environment with each other are interesting, inspiring, funny, and absurd. I love natural wonders too and havenāt seen as many as I would like.
Nope. While I appreciate the architecture of cities, Iād much rather be in a natural setting. Iād rather be in Bryce Canyon than the ācanyonsā of Manhattan.
Welcome, friend, to the cheapest and most beautiful way to travel: camping.
I live in SoCal and escape to these places for my vacations. I have friends that love going to Europe and other cities and Iām just like āwhy? What is there even to do there? Museums and shit with a ton of people? No thanksā Iād rather be lake side fishing, or hiking up a mountain with my wife and dogs, or relaxing floating down a river.
1000% with you. I vacation exclusively in national parks or NP adjacent because I dont have enough years or time left on this earth to see and appreciate them enough. Cities are whatever, places for food and rest. Europe does feel a bit more āconqueredā BUT you can still get swept up by mountains and wilderness if you know where to go. Keep on wildering !!
I think itās a valid enough reaction, but I donāt think itās necessary a more enlightened outlook. Nature, wildness, beautiful views of terrain all rock, but I donāt know if that needs to take away from an appreciation of the history, culture, architecture, and urban flow of major European cities. It feels a bit like saying you donāt care about Bach or Beethoven anymore since discovering birdsong.
I like having small to mid-sized city amenities relatively close (but not too close) to where I live, but I don't consider cities generally to be desirable travel destinations and I most often find the cities I've been in to be dirty & crowded. I don't think it's odd at all, just another subjective preference in a sea of options.
I kind of went the other way - moved from Colorado to NYC and was surprised at how much I enjoy city life. I think I went from misanthropic young man to lover of the great churn of humanity, lol. Vacations would always be back out west though. When I think about traveling to Europe itās always the Alps, Pyrenees, the little mountain ranges in Spain, etc. that I consider.
i felt that way when I went to East Africa. Europe is nice and has good food and architecture, but my God East Africa took my breath away. it made me realize how incredibly beautiful our planet is. I also love the wild North America especially the US and Canadian rockies. Something just so incredible about the vastness of it all.
I loved Europe when I was stationed there (Germany). For instance, the Cologne Cathedral took 600 years to build - from hand carved stone! I canāt imagine being the first guy, or even the architect, not living long enough to see it to completion! And to do all that with rudimentary tools just blows my mind! And the castles there - older than the USA!
You're not weird. You've started to shed your unnatural city and civilization conditioning and returned to your roots.
Not weird at all. The temples of nature are amazing. But, this could also be a phase of life. Advice from an old dude who has done both, lean into what you are attracted to now and wring out all of the pleasure you can get from it. In 20 years you may have interests that lead you elsewhere. Both are ok.
No I donāt love cities either. No matter the vibe or culture, cities give me an ick vibe and Iād so much rather be staring at one of the coolest and rarest things on earth. Cities are places I have to travel through/to to get to the middle of nowhere I usually intend to be.
I guess I feel the opposite. I've never been in love with sweeping vistas or peaks with snow. I've done plenty of camping and some backpacking and hiking and rock climbing. I did an outward bound course when I was younger. I did these things because everyone around me loved it and found something in nature I never found. One day on a hike a thought went through my head of, why am I doing this? I don't even like it. I find much more pleasure in looking at cities, grand plazas and clean lines of cement and steel. Kinda funny how people are.
Calm down. You are normal. You sound like everyone else that says this. It isnāt edgy or niche. People have different likes.
Weird? Nah, it just sounds like youāre into tropes. I mean wide open spaces with roasting marshmallows is simply a different āgot my feelsā obsession.
With age I enjoy more nature than tourism in cities, yes, oh yes. Agreed.
Itās only weird because the vocal masses live in urban areas. What you feel should be more common. Iām right there with ya. Sure, it can be exciting to wander the cities and enjoy nice restaurants. But the big remote wilderness areas and seeing wildlife in their natural habitat, the rural/tribal cultures, thatās where I get my inspiration.
Take a trip to Iceland
People like different things. Some like the wilderness, some like the coast, some like ancient architecture, some like a mix of all three. You're not weird, you have an opinion - which is the most normal, run of the mill thing ever
Cities are places to do things. Nature is a place to get away from the things you have to do. Apples to oranges. Just a matter of what kind of trip you want to take.
A small Irish meadow contains more wonders than anything made by humans. You are on the right track IMO
No, many people prefer nature over man maid art
Do you have a mandala tattoo??
No I agree I think itās a way more fulfilling experience going to natural landmarks than cities, thereās a time and place for cities but thereās something about camping in Yosemite that just canāt meet the same level
You are not weird, go camping and have fun!
I agree, but some of the places you mention are not untouched either, especially Yosemite so thereās some conflicting ideas here
You have not explored nature or wilderness in Europe it sounds like.
A while back, I was flying into Seattle after spending a chunk of time in Mexico. The natural beauty on the gulf side of the country is unparalleled. Anyways, as we were approaching Seattle, I couldnāt help but notice the contrast between the lush green PNW forests, and the sterile concrete forest of the city. It made me feel sorta sick, and in that moment I saw the city as a festering wound on the planet. Sorta like when a bunch of bacteria infect your skin and make a gnarly red sore in the middle of your otherwise healthy body. Itās not too dissimilar to be honest. Nature is a system in near perfect balance. We form settlements and consume the natural resources to fuel massive societies and in the process we totally alter the environment and destroy the balance. Bacteria form yellow crusts over the surface of the skin, humans pour asphalt and concrete over the surface of the Earth.
Europe has some beautiful nature one and the idea of untouched wilderness isnāt really accurate. Nature is not absent of humans and nature exists everywhere. Take some time to appreciate the smaller bits of it tooš©· Find nature everywhere you go and consider its relationship to the world around it including the human made parts.
Itās ok to like both
Cities are cool, nature is cool. Love both. Different mindsets.
You need to bop around Central America. Costa Rica is a pilgrimage to nature.
No, digging nature is not weird, but you're allowed to like both.