Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

11-20-2006, 03:59 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:cBu7h.33543$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>
>>> "Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>> 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,
>
> The research proves otherwise: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
>

Your OWN flawed research? That's a laugh.

> 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.
>
> Really? They get run over all the time. Naturally, you would pick a
> species that CAN benefit from the presence of people. MOST can't.
>

Actually, they are seldom run over. And, a bike runs over stuff less than
anything out there.