cave conservation

[MikeH]

Consider using an "overboasrd discharge" on your drysuit. That's "damage" by any definition - I guarantee you that the cave has NEVER seen human urea in raw, unfiltered form - other than from you and other cave divers.

I know you're comment is only made to prove a point.....but obviously the cave has seen MUCH WORSE from stuff that has filtered down from the surface.

Mike

[Genesis]

Consider using an "overboasrd discharge" on your drysuit. That's "damage" by any definition - I guarantee you that the cave has NEVER seen human urea in raw, unfiltered form - other than from you and other cave divers.

I know you're comment is only made to prove a point.....but obviously the cave has seen MUCH WORSE from stuff that has filtered down from the surface.

Mike

That's like saying that because people used to dump raw used motor oil on the ground, which obviously gets into the groundwater, that we should not pay attention to anything less harmful than an intentional oil spill!

My point is simply that there is a major difference between unintentional damage and intentional damage, and that there are various degrees of intentional damage, some of which we inflict every single time we cave-dive. As an example, the illumination of the cave, which is necessary for us to dive in it, is an unnatural act - it is pollution, to be blunt, even though it is a minor event in the grand scheme of things. The P-valve is an obvious - but not the only - example of such impact.

One of the axioms of scientific research is that you typically cannot observe a thing without altering that thing, even if the alteration is very slight. Such is the case with cave diving, yet we do it recreationally (most of us anyway) rather than for some greater scientific purpose.

As such we should be very, very careful about throwing stones around regarding other than blatent intentional acts of vandalism, because it would be very easy for any group of people to use that in a way that would produce unintended consequences that none of us would like.

I agree that we should strive to leave nothing other than bubbles when we cave dive - but to believe that this is all we really do leave, irrespective of our level of skill, is not the same thing as striving to do so.

An accurate view of what we're really doing and the actual impact is, I believe, critical to coming to a reasoned view on what we should do when we come across various forms of damage, and if we should accidentally cause some ourselves. And while its easy to say "cause no intentional damage", its not that simple - if you take that absolute position then you've just closed ALL the caves (unless you are able to dive in total darkness without making contact with the cave in any way, shape or form - not possible unless you're Superman.)

Just asking folks to think here rather than accept simple answers - 'cause this issue, while it looks simple on first blush, isn't.

[MikeH]

My point is simply that there is a major difference between unintentional damage and intentional damage, and that there are various degrees of intentional damage, some of which we inflict every single time we cave-dive. As an example, the illumination of the cave, which is necessary for us to dive in it, is an unnatural act - it is pollution, to be blunt, even though it is a minor event in the grand scheme of things.

Going along with that line of reasoning....if we do not want to cause ANY damage to the environment(on that level of "intentional damage"), we can't do ANY diving....ride bicycles off the paved roads....plant new fields of crops....drive our cars....pass gas....run our power plants....etc....because they ALL are unnatural acts. With that line of reasoning, we may as well commit mass genocide of the human race if we want to prevent any further environmental damage.

Of course, as we all know, it's all about the risks and "damage" to the environment that is acceptable based on our beliefs as a human.

Mike