Comments on: Why Do We Fall in Love with Nature? And Does It Mean Conservation is in Trouble?

By: Marlowe

Marlowe — Sat, 29 May 2010 21:49:54 +0000

This is obviously a belated comment, but I believe I might have a solution to your question “How can you love nature if you do not know nature?”

Sadly, most people – especially youth are either too busy or too afraid to get to know nature, but there is an incredible filmmaker, Jan Nickman who is connecting viewers with nature in deeply meaningful ways.

I urge you to see his work at http://www.sacredearthpictures.com

His films are not only inspiring a deep love and stewardship of the planet, but people are writing in with stories of healing and for some, a reason to live.

Thank you for a very timely and important report on the relationship between how we feel about nature and how this translates to how we protect it.

By: Valerie

Valerie — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:28:11 +0000

I’m wondering if Peter Kareiva, author of the “Why Do We Fall in Love With Nature” article, investigated the correlation of horseback trail riders and their annual conservation contributions of volunteer labor. A per-capita equivalent of $600 per year represents an average contibution of volunteer labor by equine trail riders. Many contribute much more. The equine trail rider statistics are available from Back Country Horsemen of America. What about other forms of recreational activities….don’t stop with the hiker/backpacker crowd.

By: Ruth S. Sperling

Ruth S. Sperling — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:20:21 +0000

The question presented in this article is a hard one for me to answer because from the time I was a little girl, I experienced nature — even if it was just the large Old Growth trees lining Chicago’s streets or the lake or the bears in zoo-parks. I also had experiences in more wild places and forested places, because my family liked to go to them. I was a little freaked when I was working in Los Angeles years ago, which has the Santa Monica mountains and the Angeles National Forest practically as “back-yards” to the urban areas, and someone in the office had never been to the mountains or the forests. I knew, you see, from personal experience that you could take a public bus to within walking distance of these mountains – but still this lady who had grown up there had never been to them. Was she for conservation? I don’t know. You see, I had so many positive experiences that I loved with nature growing up, even in Urban environments, that protecting it has always been important to me, but from when I read Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” in High School, I also appreciated the scientific reasons for protecting it. For some reason, it has always been obvious to me that we need to protect nature because it is an important part of the whole web of life on this planet that we depend on. Ask the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago why it has a Dairy Farm in it — milk does not come from a bottle or a carton …. !! Or why you can see chickens hatch there!! Conservation is just something we will always need to do for all life – and I don’t understand why anyone else doesn’t understand that!!

By: paula phillips

paula phillips — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:49:31 +0000

I lived on a 21,000 acre nature preserve operated by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for 12 years. The majority of visitors didn’t know how to act outdoors. They were noisy, demanding and threatened to write letters to the executive director because they would have to get out of their cars to view the wonders of the preserve. We must have conservation because of this simple fact: there’s too many people. Humans have to address the fact that we have to bring the population of the world under control if we hope to even have a shred of wild places left to even photograph and have TV shows about.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:06:54 +0000

I get most of my nature on tv or in my backyard. I don’t camp or hike or backpack. “Outdoors” usually results in a rash or headache or breathing problems. However, I am seriously interested in conservation and protecting the ecosystems. I understand that I need to protect the environment to maintain the quality of my”indoor” life as well as your recreation. TV gives me a view of wild animals that I would certainly miss otherwise. I doubt that I would ever personally witness elephants being born, penguins feeding their young or even mice running from a snake, except for television. I think that television has greatly enhanced our appreciation of nature.

By: Lin

Lin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:09:55 +0000

How can you imagine something you’ve never seen? Young people are unaware of plant, insect, etc. biodiversity and unlandscaped landscapes. In our area, the bicyclists, etc. destroy remnant biodiverse native plant habitats; they clearly don’t have a clue about nature or the environment. As we go towards 7 billion people and up, there will continue to be a lowering of the % of people who have seen natural places, and who care about natural places.

By: Escudilla

Escudilla — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:36:58 +0000

Dear Fishsnorkel, You just don’t get it, do you? Conservation isn’t about rescreation and playgrounds, it’s about a liveable future for humans and respect for the species upon which we depend and with whom we sahe the planet.

By: Penny G

Penny G — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:59:19 +0000

I agree with the notion that passion for conservation comes from exposure to nature through recreation, especially from a young age. I also agree with one of the above comments though that there are different kinds of “outdoorsy” people. Some are just there for the activity, while others are there for the integrated experience of the activity and the environment or just for the environment itself and the activity such as cycling or walking is solely a means to experience it. The 4WD culture in Australia can be a concerning exception to the theory that love of the outdoors goes hand-in-hand with environmental responsibility and a frustration for minimalist adventurers.

By: Robert Lalasz

Robert Lalasz — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:49:10 +0000

B-Dub, I think your definition of conservation is outmoded. Look at our website to see how dynamic a process good conservation is — with adaptation as one of the core tenets of our approach to climate change, for instance.

By: B-Dub

B-Dub — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:53:22 +0000

fishsnorkel writes:
Given that Planet Earth has never and will never stop changing, it seems perfectly obvious to me that conservation (resisting change) was doomed from the start. This is a dynamic planet, not a static utopian playground.

According to this “logic,” since the earth changes, we may as well pave it all now. The best conservation allows natural places and systems to change in accordance with their own sorts of wisdom. As Gary Snyder puts it, “Wilderness is a place where the wild potential is fully expressed, a diversity of living and nonliving beings flourishing according to their own sorts of order. When an ecosystem is fully functioning, all the members are present at the assembly. To speak of wilderness is to speak of wholeness. Human beings came out of that wholeness, and to consider the possibility of reactivating membership in the Assembly of All Beings is in no way regressive.”