There’s an ing to yang, along with suffering those people also had knowledge and connection we don’t have, I don’t see people on iNat who would idealize that life, but also we don’t need to go that far, just 200 years ago life pretty bearable and people here still lived mostly out of cities (well, they did that till the middle of last century), they loved nature not less than we now do, there’s a poetry about it from far earlier times. What ironic is that there’s nothing to gain by trying to break the views of others on nature.
Nature is neither resolutely grim nor relentlessly cheery. Elements or aspects of it may strike us that way but that is on us.
Context is everything. People go into some version of “nature” to escape/avoid/recover from/cope with the stresses of human society. Nature, in this sense, is defined as “outside human society”, or something like that. Within that context, seeking respite is not a manifestation of any sort of disconnect, it’s just the boundary condition for the definition of nature in this context. There are many other uses of “nature” and talking about nature as if there is some universal definition about which it is meaningful to generalize is not going to lead to any useful conclusion.
I have lived and worked in nature in different contexts. I’ve seen lots of things die and more than a few die in ways that were extremely unpleasant for the organisms doing the dying and for humans watching them die. I know exactly what sort of nauseating/predatory/venomous/spikey/toxic/caustic/malodorous things await me when I walk out into the world and I still find joy among the spitting cobras, Portuguese men-of-war, poison oaks and tapeworms because I know that there is no life without pain and every day is a gift. When I breath clean air scented with pine pitch and listen to the white-throated sparrows at dawn I am awash in sensations that speak to me of the possibilities of life, in a language that is written in my genes.
5 Likes
Ok, I did my best to excise the relevant posts and move them to the other topic. Apologies in advance if it created some out-of-context disconnects either here or in the other post. It’s Friday night here and I didn’t see the request until about 3 hours later.
3 Likes
Could it be based on one’s disposition toward the world (and people) in general? I see this, too, but marvel at the resilience of species. It’s what gives me a measure of hope about the changes we are seeing. Certain ecosystems and all within will survive by adaptation? I’m an optimist.
1 Like
I just responded differently, but when I saw the topic, I first thought that the disconnect is when we encroach upon what may have been a pristine spot. We violate the naturalness which was there before. I’m aware that when I talk up nature, about the value of nature and getting particularly children in nature (future stewards), I may be threatening that very naturalness. How much encroachment is that going to be, if everyone goes into nature?
Predation, exotic disease, and parasitism are just as real in a human-dominated environment than a wholly natural one. Just ask a doctor or pet owner.
I think some people may see the brutality of nature as a shock, but nature isn’t constantly brutal, or at least from the human perspective. Sitting on a mossy boulder in the forest is quite different from zooming in on that moss and watching insects get eaten alive, but keep in mind that most people don’t zoom in, oftentimes unless they’re excited to do so and likely a little more prepared to see the unexpected.
1 Like
It is bittersweet when I see the location of an obs carefully recorded as Outside. As if that were a place, which it MUST be, to that observer. So, it won’t ever be, every one.
2 Likes
I am soothed by nature for its sensory effects not because i believe it to be pacifist.
I’m fascinated with nature because of its complexity and mystery.
I don’t see any reason why how nature works would get in the way of that, unless i was in an area i was likely to be targeted by said natural phenomena, like i wouldn’t be out dozing on a riverbank as grizzlies fished nearby and one might want to sample human flesh instead.
I don’t think nature is evil OR benevolent. It just doesn’t care about us specifically. Different cultures have different views on nature that are strongly influenced by their views of death. If you view death as always an awful end of judgement or unwanted oblivion it makes nature look very different from if you view death as a transformative process, a transition to a different form of being, or just time to be reincarnated elsewhere. Either way, the process isn’t going to be fun though especially if you’re being eaten alive by some parasitoid, so there is that.
4 Likes
I suspect if there was a parasitoid species that used humans (like that creature in the Alien movies), we would have eradicated it faster and more completely than our past and current campaigns against any livestock predator and few of us would have complained about the extinction of a species. (I feel that way about many actual parasites that use humans.)
4 Likes
Plenty of similar sentiments have been expressed here already, but here is my stance on this: there is nothing tragic or cruel about a creature meeting a natural, intended end in its natural, intended habitat. I think it’s a good thing, even.
Every death out in nature helps so many other things; I think a spider or a moth should meet its fate in the beak of a bird, or withering away after successfully maturing and reproducing. That is what’s supposed to happen, and either way they are fulfilling an important purpose. The bird isn’t cruel for needing to eat, just as the ants and fungi aren’t cruel for making use of a body that is no longer needed.
I have never been bothered by these processes in my life and I can’t imagine I ever will, because what is the alternative? All creatures steer clear of each other and live forever without ever harming or inconveniencing each other? All species on earth spontaneously become vegetarian…?
Jokes aside, as everyone else has already pointed out, holding all of nature to the morals of one fussy species like humanity is unfair, and seems like a silly reason to enjoy it less or hold it in less of a high regard.
I guess the only things I would consider truly cruel or tragic are the needless deaths and suffering humanity tends to cause; no spider was born to be washed down a drain, no moth was born to bash itself to death against a streetlight, and no bird was born to meet its end on somebody’s car windshield. That isn’t even getting into the more intentional or malicious things, nor wide-scale phenomena like habitat destruction, oil spills, climate change, etc.
Those are the things that make me feel ill-at-ease. Seeing a possum fall prey to an owl is serene in comparison, I think.
4 Likes
It seems like most of the research is referring to city people going to a forest and enjoying the change in venue in some way. It is my guess that they would find the same effect in open steppes, or other changes in habitat. Also, some of this change is exercise: a psychiatrist takes his clients on therapeutic walks because it helps them feel better, even in a city.
I have the privilege of living in a forest so I’m not sure that I benefit in the same way. A fish probably doesn’t need to bathe.
On the other hand, walking in “bad” weather can be good for us according to research in this Guardian article:
Bad weather is good for you: take a walk in the wind and rain
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.