|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
Last Child in the Woods --
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species. But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists! It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could. On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not! On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health -- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items. It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. References: Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981. Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987. Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001. Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991. Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995. Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994. Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973. Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall. Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994. "The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994. Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:35:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. And that would be bad (especially in YOUR case) because? === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-DeficitDisorder
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. We need to get those kids off the couch and on some mountain bikes! Matt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. Or, we could build borders around special places, limit access, and call it....now what shall we call these places? How about....NATIONAL PARKS, with a stress on the Nation(al). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:35:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message . .. Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. And that would be bad (especially in YOUR case) because? The sad part is that the irony escapes you ... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species. ....so far so good But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African tribes, for instance) Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists! Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they believe there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they will do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall. It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the pleasure of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing harm. It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could. You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...? On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all those who can. Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell excitement. Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the beauty of the surroundings. Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial product and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site) that you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless others do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to ignore these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the activity. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not! Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health -- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search of the research shows that. Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they do not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae placed in the lower sections of the unit. If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I would hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine with no way to get out. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items. Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that everyone "enjoy" themselves the way you do. It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others may not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike. Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment. References: on original post |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"S Curtiss" wrote in message ... "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species. ...so far so good But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African tribes, for instance) Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger. Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and "freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent presence as opposed to a transitory presence). When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports, wildlife is adversely affected by a permanant presence in the habitat. Having said that, permanent human presence is not always adverse to the thriving of habitat and/or species. For instance, I just finished reading an article in the paper where racoons are attacking dogs and cats in the Venice Beach enclave of Los Angeles. Clearly, racoons are not threatened by human presence. I have other examples, but Mike will ignore them too. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists! Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they believe there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they will do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall. It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the pleasure of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing harm. It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could. You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...? On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all those who can. Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell excitement. Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the beauty of the surroundings. Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial product and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site) that you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless others do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to ignore these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the activity. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not! Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health -- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search of the research shows that. Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they do not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae placed in the lower sections of the unit. If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I would hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine with no way to get out. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items. Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that everyone "enjoy" themselves the way you do. It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others may not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike. Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment. References: on original post |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
"Fole Haafstra" reply.to.group.not.me wrote in message ... "Jeff Strickland" wrote in message ... "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 HUGE IRONY HERE ... Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with. If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature. Or, we could build borders around special places, limit access, and call it....now what shall we call these places? How about....NATIONAL PARKS, with a stress on the Nation(al). I have often thought that the entire state of Nevada, outside of the Las Vegas and the Reno areas, should be declared a National Park. All the present day inhabitants should be booted out of the state and it then should be declared a Wilderness Area. Who are these freaking people who want to live there anyway? Why the hell don't they go to California where they so clearly belong. I say give the state back to the wildlife and tear up all the roads. Yea, it is really only a fit place for us connoisseurs who can appreciate nature and wilderness. It is not for the hoi-polloi like Fole Haafstra, an anonymous coward like all scoundrels who would desecrate wilderness with their vile presence. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote: "Mike Vandeman" wrote in message .. . Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. November 16, 2006 In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species. ...so far so good But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African tribes, for instance) Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no danger. That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we aren't harming them. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists! Here is a tremendous leap of logic. Developers see dollars. If they believe there are dollars to be had by wiping out a forest for buildings, they will do so. It matters not if they "played" in the woods. MV also attempts to paint all "development" with the same brush of contempt. MV views the ski area the same as a clear cut for a shopping mall. They both destroy habitat. It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3. Wildlife can and does survive with human presence. It is the total obliteration of habitat that is harmful. It is the killing for the pleasure of it that is harmful. MV believes a man standing in a forest is doing harm. It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could. You get stung and all children with a treehouse are demonized...? For good reason. They are only imitating adults. On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Again, because you can not accomplish a task you attempt to demonize all those who can. Irrelevant. You are demonstrating the domineering attitude I am describing. Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Where do you get 99.44% ? Is that some kind of MV math only you know? You base this on commercial or "bragging rights" videos designed to sell excitement. No, ordinary mountain bikers' self-made videos. Apparently, you have not watched the The Discovery Channel and their documentaries on cycling showing smooth skills and attention to the beauty of the surroundings. Only where the trail is smooth and straight, so that they don't have to steer! Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial product That's a LIE. and use that as an illustration of the whole. Typical. You are not interested in fact but only your support of the agenda you had before your first attempt at "research". You have stated before (and on your site) that you could not ride a mountain bike. That is meaningless as countless others do it every day WHILE enjoying the scenery around them. You choose to ignore these facts and instead use your opinion as a determination of the activity. One look at one of those videos shows that that is IMPOSSIBLE. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not! Opinion. There is NOTHING to support this statement But it's true. On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health -- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Much of this research is old, faulty or of dubious origin. A simple search of the research shows that. Beyond that, the current phones are less powerful (more towers means they do not need to be as powerful), are using better transmission technology, and many have even taken these fears to the design and have the antennae placed in the lower sections of the unit. It's still right next to the brain, and the frequency hasn't changed. If MV wants to go into the woods without a phone, more power to him. I would hope he is using 99.44% of his attention so he does not trip into a ravine with no way to get out. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items. Fine. That does not mean you have the right or power to demand that everyone "enjoy" themselves the way you do. Cell phones show evolution at work. It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. Your definition of "minimal-impact" suits your opinions. However, others may not (and do not need to) adhere to it. There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of acres of land off limits to the activities you dislike. Fortunately, the ones who make the decisions see that there must also be areas to service a wide variety of options for natural enjoyment. WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of pavement. === I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of! http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Flouride in our water causes Attention Deficit Disorder - watch this that THEY won't show you. | Israel Goldbergstein | Australia | 14 | August 7th 06 12:50 AM |
It's not road rage but a mental disorder... | warrwych | Australia | 18 | June 8th 06 05:12 AM |
6 YO child + 45Kms = child abuse? | Shaw | Australia | 41 | January 18th 06 12:45 AM |
TOUR deficit! WANTED KEY TDF 2005 taped coverage.... | JEFS | Marketplace | 0 | July 29th 05 03:52 AM |
Victim of compulsive bike disorder! | nobody760 | UK | 9 | June 30th 04 12:15 AM |