| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:e9fvl217b6sis3bpl9iaihm7na64bclbka@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>news:uaapl2pagr31n4r1qmbb7lvnvthcrnsq80@4ax.com ...
>>>> 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.
>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most prevalent
>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
>presence over time is much improved.
That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
Crawl back under your rock.
However, you use these statistics to
>rationalize the exclusion of activities in all areas and in every
>circumstance. You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other
>recreation, that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these
>areas of habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving
>wildlife to be more sensitive to human presence.
>>
>>>(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.
>To varying degrees and with differing concerns of result. The "ski area"
>would concern itself with preserving much of the landscape and natural
>surroundings (especially now with more conservation laws in place) as it is
>this that attracts the primary customers of the facility. The shopping mall
>is only concerned with retail space and parking.
>However, none of this concerns your initial statement that a child who
>"plays in the woods" has an inclination to become an exploitive adult.
>>
>>>> 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.
>Interesting how there is no MV comment here...
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>Your ability to connect dots is amusing. Your leaps of logic qualify as a
>"super power"! Your ability to use your experience as a measure of
>experience for all humanity is quite healthy, also. Children express
>independence as a natural aspect of becoming an adult. There are far too
>many variables involved in growing from a child to an adult for your
>statement concerning forts and "bee stings" to be any type of conclusion.
>>
>>>> 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.
>Not at all. It is you who is expressing a "domineering attitude". It is you
>attempting to make your opinion of activities you dislike the benchmark for
>acceptable use. It is you insisting that your experience is some kind of
>measure for everyone else.
>>
>>>> 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.
>Again... Where do you get 99.44% ? Where do you get "ordinary"? These self
>made "videos" you claim as representative of the entire group are actually
>showcasing the extreme end of the activity. It is this extreme faction that
>often creates the friction between "us" and other trail users. It is quite
>possible the "99.44%" you mention is the real and average cyclist just out
>to ride in the woods and the remaining .56% are the ones riding wild and
>fast to create sensational video images.
>I can make the same comparison with hiking. I've seen video documentation of
>trash and hiker abuse along the Appalachian Trail so I can make the same
>leap of logic that 99.44% of AT hikers are littering and damaging the
>habitat and wildlife.
>>
>> 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!
>Incorrect. Your choice to impose your perception of the activity onto people
>who actually do it shows your capacity to ignore real truth. Just as I can
>say it is impossible for you to hike without lugged boots. You say you do it
>with ease. I say you can not walk a steep incline with smooth shoes without
>paying extreme attention to foot placement. You can not possibly notice the
>rabbit 20 feet to your left if you are looking down to make sure your
>footing is secure.
>>
>> Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
>>>product
>>
>> That's a LIE.
>Really...? They does show sensational and extreme activity. Many are
>incorporated into commercial videos. The "LIE" is that these images
>represent the majority of cyclists and their way of riding a bike in the
>woods.
>>
>> 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.
>Again... it your unfounded insistence that these images represent the
>majority, and your insistence that individuals can not do what they
>themselves accomplish, is nothing but another stain on your credibility. Do
>you also say it is impossible to run 26 miles merely because you can not do
>it?
>>
>>>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.
>No. It is a statement of your opinion. My opinion is that a child initiated
>into off-road cycling can develop a respect for the surroundings and an
>admiration for preservation.
>>
>>>> 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.
>"We performed highly sensitive, extremely well-controlled tests on living
>cells irradiated with energy like that from mobile phones, but at levels 5
>to 10 times higher than those set for the devices by regulatory agencies,"
>says Andrei Laszlo, Ph.D., associate professor of radiation oncology and a
>researcher at the Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and
>Washington University School of Medicine. "We see no indication that factors
>involved in the stress response increase their activity as a result of such
>exposures."
Who paid for that research?
>Source: Washington University School of Medicine
>
>http://www.physorg.com/news7010.html
>>
>>>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.
>
>Interesting - No comment from MV here.
>>>
>>>> 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. 
>
>Yes, they do. Humans continue to evolve technology to move forward.
>>
>>>> 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.
>
>You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.
Because I haven't seen any. SHOW me one! You CAN'T!
You have chosen to ignore the
>facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
>continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
>cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.
>> ===
>
>
===
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
|