• FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the picture there sure is a lot of area around the tree… But hey, if they have a hard on to cut down old significant trees, who’s to stop them.

    • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Significant because of its age? Sure. Significant because of its tenuous ties to Darwin? Someone named it Darwin’s Oak a couple years ago to gather public sympathy against the project. You could argue against any development in the area because “Darwin may have walked on these grounds and threw rocks in this stream as a child”.

      • scrchngwsl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I’m all for keeping old trees like this one but that’s because old trees are good in and of themselves. I care less about Darwin possibly having climbed it 200 years ago and more about little boys and girls climbing it 200 years from now. Nobody will be driving on that bypass in 200 years but I do hope that children will still be climbing trees like this one.