I'm going to repost this blog post from two years ago, because it's worth an update from those of you who missed it the first timealthough anyone who commented the first time is welcome to speak up again. . .
I got a note Saturday asking, "Where is the best place to live if you are an amateur geologist?" This is a question with so many answers that I can't think of them all. So you're invited to add your answers, too. Anyway, my answers are these:
- Anywhere is a good place to live, because geology is everywhere. Now a place might not be rich in rocks, but rocks aren't all there is. Water and soil are the opposite of rocks; landforms and fossils also add to a place's geological appeal. Mines and quarries matter, too. It's a wretched place that has none of these, and I can't think of such a place.
- Naturally I must argue for California, where I happen to live. The Bay area alone has many rock types, landforms, fossils, mines and water bodies, plus highly active tectonics. But it has nothing older than Mesozoic; to see that takes a day trip. I'm not complaining, just saying that not even the best place has everything.
My correspondent complains that his locality, the Houston area, "has plenty of geologists and a very nice museum," but he doesn't care about all the fossils.
What do you say?