Nature worship.

[The Emerald Legion]

One of the most often claims I've heard is that those of us who don't appreciate nature lack "Spiritual depth" because we don't see the beauty in a few bits of rubble and some trees.

And I'd counter that if that's true, then they lack spiritual depth. As they can't feel the peace in the soft hum of a computer, see the beauty in an assembly line, appreciate the sheer scope of grandeur of our cities.



How can you not simply stand in awe of it? And to know above all that human beings created it.

So NSG what have you to say?

[Anthonaurobia]

I agree with you entirely.

[Trollgaard]

I say that cities for the most part are very grating and test my patience. Yeah, they're neat and all that, but I get upset if I have to stay in one for long. Give me a forest, the plains, mountains, or even the suburbs, please. Much more spiritual, if you will. I'd rather live in the woods as a hermit than in a big city.

So I guess I disagree with you.

[Yahkima]

The accusation that one lacks "Spiritual" awareness is a vapid and meaningless insult no matter what form it takes.

Because what does it really mean? Other than, "I get a brain-gasm when contemplating this, and I think the fact that you don't makes you an inadequate person."

How the hell is one supposed to respond to something like that?

[Moutere]

the city and the data network, the forest and the mountain, the garden and the dump: all are environments with their own resident spirit and beauty. What needs to be considered however is how those environments interact with the wider ecosystems of which they are apart (or on which they are imposed if thats your perspective...)

[1000 Cats]

I used to love watching the city lights from afar as a child. Still do, actually. I have a thing for lights. I say from afar, though, because no matter how beautiful the city lights may be, the stars are always much grander. Outside the city, the smells are better, the breeze is fresher, the sounds are softer. There is a reason mental health is better outside of urban areas.

Also, people overwhelmingly prefer pretty much any natural landscape to pretty much any urban landscape as far as aesthetics, with almost no overlap, regardless of sample. See also Ulrich's chapter in The Biophilia Hypothesis.

Also also, assembly lines are the worst things ever. You clearly have never worked in one.

[New Heathera]

It's always fascinated me that it took nature millions of years to make this and only took mankind a little over 100 years to make this.

[Genivaria]

The accusation that one lacks "Spiritual" awareness is a vapid and meaningless insult no matter what form it takes.

Because what does it really mean? Other than, "I get a brain-gasm when contemplating this, and I think the fact that you don't makes you an inadequate person."

How the hell is one supposed to respond to something like that?

Agreed. Also, TECHNOPHILES UNITE!

[Genivaria]

It's always fascinated me that it took nature millions of years to make this and only took mankind a little over 100 years to make this.

Eat your heart out god.

[Nature-Spirits]

We can never rival nature's artwork or it's sense of aliveness, whatever we do to our inventions. I'm sorry, but nature is just beautiful (I'm not denying that our feats are as well, of course, but nature's grandeur is far more impressive).

[Genivaria]

We can never rival nature's artwork or it's sense of aliveness, whatever we do to our inventions. I'm sorry, but nature is just beautiful (I'm not denying that our feats are as well, of course, but nature's grandeur is far more impressive).

And I'm not denying nature's beauty. I love hiking trips because it's so peaceful.
But it is just silly to think we can never surpass unintended beauty with deliberate beauty.

[Mavorpen]

Nature is prettier. Period.

/thread

[1000 Cats]

We can never rival nature's artwork or it's sense of aliveness, whatever we do to our inventions. I'm sorry, but nature is just beautiful (I'm not denying that our feats are as well, of course, but nature's grandeur is far more impressive).

And I'm not denying nature's beauty. I love hiking trips because it's so peaceful.
But it is just silly to think we can never surpass unintended beauty with deliberate beauty.

We're genetically predisposed to love certain natural environments, though, and to react to them in some pretty intense psychological and even physical ways. Everything from your emotional energy to your physical well-being is enhanced in a natural environment, and hospitals these days often have large gardens purely because of this. It will be a while yet before we overcome that built-in adoration of nature and replace it with an adoration of the artificial. I'm doubtful that we ever will; I can see no pressure for that ever occurring.

Also, Chicago will be gone in a thousand years. Ruins, like those of the Egyptians, the Romans, the Aztecs. The Grand Canyon will outlive any human city, and indeed perhaps even the human race as we know it, and requires zero upkeep.

[The Emerald Legion]

I used to love watching the city lights from afar as a child. Still do, actually. I have a thing for lights. I say from afar, though, because no matter how beautiful the city lights may be, the stars are always much grander. Outside the city, the smells are better, the breeze is fresher, the sounds are softer. There is a reason mental health is better outside of urban areas.

Also, people overwhelmingly prefer pretty much any natural landscape to pretty much any urban landscape as far as aesthetics, with almost no overlap, regardless of sample. See also Ulrich's chapter in The Biophilia Hypothesis.

I don't have much of a sense of smell. And have never believed in "fresh air." Unless I can identify some contaminant in the air I'm not liable to make any attempt to freshen it. And perhaps some of the sounds are softer, but some also aren't.

And yet Biophobia is a growing feeling. Camping suppliers have lost somewhere near 20% of their business. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/interview-patricia-zaradic.html

As for that paper, it's from the 70's and as such is irrelevant. Society has changed Cats.

As for that hypothesis, if that were true, would not children take to nature given any chance? Whereas evidence has shown that the opposite is true. Without interaction with nature from a young age, and in some cases even with that interaction, people won't get that attraction to nature.

And I'm not denying nature's beauty. I love hiking trips because it's so peaceful.
But it is just silly to think we can never surpass unintended beauty with deliberate beauty.

We're genetically predisposed to love certain natural environments, though, and to react to them in some pretty intense psychological and even physical ways. Everything from your emotional energy to your physical well-being is enhanced in a natural environment, and hospitals these days often have large gardens purely because of this. It will be a while yet before we overcome that built-in adoration of nature and replace it with an adoration of the artificial. I'm doubtful that we ever will; I can see no pressure for that ever occurring.

Also, Chicago will be gone in a thousand years. Ruins, like those of the Egyptians, the Romans, the Aztecs. The Grand Canyon will outlive any human city, and indeed perhaps even the human race as we know it, and requires zero upkeep.

Except we have been facing genetic pressure to do well in cities for well over a hundred years now. Cities are where the elite of the world live. Therefore being able to cope with living in a city is an evolutionary advantage.

Not that I believe we are genetically predisposed to nature anyway. Simply because I'm a walking contradiction to everything that such theories say.

Really now? Will it? Maybe. Maybe not. Rome still stands to this day. two and a half thousand years of history and it's still there.

[1000 Cats]

I used to love watching the city lights from afar as a child. Still do, actually. I have a thing for lights. I say from afar, though, because no matter how beautiful the city lights may be, the stars are always much grander. Outside the city, the smells are better, the breeze is fresher, the sounds are softer. There is a reason mental health is better outside of urban areas.

Also, people overwhelmingly prefer pretty much any natural landscape to pretty much any urban landscape as far as aesthetics, with almost no overlap, regardless of sample. See also Ulrich's chapter in The Biophilia Hypothesis.

I don't have much of a sense of smell. And have never believed in "fresh air." Unless I can identify some contaminant in the air I'm not liable to make any attempt to freshen it. And perhaps some of the sounds are softer, but some also aren't.

And yet Biophobia is a growing feeling. Camping suppliers have lost somewhere near 20% of their business. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/interview-patricia-zaradic.html

As for that paper, it's from the 70's and as such is irrelevant. Society has changed Cats.

As for that hypothesis, if that were true, would not children take to nature given any chance? Whereas evidence has shown that the opposite is true. Without interaction with nature from a young age, and in some cases even with that interaction, people won't get that attraction to nature.

The book I mentioned is from 2000. It's still very relevant.

The idea of fresh air is that you don't have to freshen it. It's already fresh.

Even wolves howling and lions roaring, which I've experienced, don't compare to the constant roar of traffic in the city in terms of how loud they are.

I know that biophobia is a growing feeling, and that was mentioned in the book. It's been growing for a very long time, but is still far and away below biophilia.

Children actually do take to nature.

[Tubbsalot]

Spirituality is basically just a word we use to describe an appreciation for certain kinds of beauty. Claiming that others like 'the wrong beauty' is about as deep and insightful as claiming that liking pasta is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

[Individual Impersonators]

My main problem with a city is that they have no real understanding how and where their water, food and energy comes from.
The seperation is dangerous. The public needs to understand that food does not come from cans or the supermarket. I have heard that one school group in Australia had about 25% believe cotton came from an animal and whilst watching a tv show I saw Jamie Oliver shock kids by showing them a tomatoe (not ketchup)

Energy, water and food required sustained production that people surrounded by concrete tend not to understand. Having lived in the country I believe the people could go a few months without any help from the city. On the other hand, stop country deliveries for a week and I predict anarchy and early signs of starvation in the city.

Cities need to have their limits as all they do is provide paper pushing jobs and logistic centres, neither of which provide any of the basic products they seek.

[Lackadaisical2]

One of the most often claims I've heard is that those of us who don't appreciate nature lack "Spiritual depth" because we don't see the beauty in a few bits of rubble and some trees.

And I'd counter that if that's true, then they lack spiritual depth. As they can't feel the peace in the soft hum of a computer, see the beauty in an assembly line, appreciate the sheer scope of grandeur of our cities.

(Image)

How can you not simply stand in awe of it? And to know above all that human beings created it.

So NSG what have you to say?

Can't I appreciate both?

[Tubbsalot]

My main problem with a city is that they have no real understanding how and where their water, food and energy comes from.
The seperation is dangerous. The public needs to understand that food does not come from cans or the supermarket. I have heard that one school group in Australia had about 25% believe cotton came from an animal and whilst watching a tv show I saw Jamie Oliver shock kids by showing them a tomatoe (not ketchup)

Firstly, I doubt that there's a serious risk of people failing to understand that food doesn't just magically pop into existence when a truck meets a supermarket and goes inside it. I notice you're recounting anecdotes about kids not knowing things - wow, there's something that's never happened before.

Secondly, to be totally honest, I don't see the problem. Is it sad that they don't know it? Yes. Is it a problem? Not really. No.

[The Emerald Legion]

I don't have much of a sense of smell. And have never believed in "fresh air." Unless I can identify some contaminant in the air I'm not liable to make any attempt to freshen it. And perhaps some of the sounds are softer, but some also aren't.

And yet Biophobia is a growing feeling. Camping suppliers have lost somewhere near 20% of their business. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/interview-patricia-zaradic.html

As for that paper, it's from the 70's and as such is irrelevant. Society has changed Cats.

As for that hypothesis, if that were true, would not children take to nature given any chance? Whereas evidence has shown that the opposite is true. Without interaction with nature from a young age, and in some cases even with that interaction, people won't get that attraction to nature.

The book I mentioned is from 2000. It's still very relevant.

The idea of fresh air is that you don't have to freshen it. It's already fresh.

Even wolves howling and lions roaring, which I've experienced, don't compare to the constant roar of traffic in the city in terms of how loud they are.

I know that biophobia is a growing feeling, and that was mentioned in the book. It's been growing for a very long time, but is still far and away below biophilia.

Children actually do take to nature.

And yet to get it you have to contend with swarms of insects. No thanks.

But it's there and it's growing. We are essentially fighting against thousands of years of instinct. And winning.

The link you gave. Copyright 1972.

[Ragnarsdomr]

Why can't I say that nature is wonderful and humanity is wonderful and that we should just shut up and adore what we find wonderful? Seriously, it's like two schoolboys yelling at each other that they're stupid because they have crushes on different girls. Rather sad, if you ask me.

[Lackadaisical2]

Spirituality is basically just a word we use to describe an appreciation for certain kinds of beauty. Claiming that others like 'the wrong beauty' is about as deep and insightful as claiming that liking pasta is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Well, considering how bad carbs can be for you...

[1000 Cats]

The book I mentioned is from 2000. It's still very relevant.

The idea of fresh air is that you don't have to freshen it. It's already fresh.

Even wolves howling and lions roaring, which I've experienced, don't compare to the constant roar of traffic in the city in terms of how loud they are.

I know that biophobia is a growing feeling, and that was mentioned in the book. It's been growing for a very long time, but is still far and away below biophilia.

Children actually do take to nature.

And yet to get it you have to contend with swarms of insects. No thanks.

But it's there and it's growing. We are essentially fighting against thousands of years of instinct. And winning.

The link you gave. Copyright 1972.

I'm arachnophobic. I deal with it.

It's not really winning when you're already so tiny that there's not even the least bit of ambiguity when you are compared to the majority.

The book I mentioned that uses and expands on that study, among other things, is from 2000. Though actually, I think the chapter is from 1993, because that's what I've got written here.

[Trollgaard]

The book I mentioned is from 2000. It's still very relevant.

The idea of fresh air is that you don't have to freshen it. It's already fresh.

Even wolves howling and lions roaring, which I've experienced, don't compare to the constant roar of traffic in the city in terms of how loud they are.

I know that biophobia is a growing feeling, and that was mentioned in the book. It's been growing for a very long time, but is still far and away below biophilia.

Children actually do take to nature.

And yet to get it you have to contend with swarms of insects. No thanks.

But it's there and it's growing. We are essentially fighting against thousands of years of instinct. And winning.

The link you gave. Copyright 1972.

And guess what? Its driving people crazy and ruining the ecosystem and environment! Hooray for progress!

[The Emerald Legion]

And yet to get it you have to contend with swarms of insects. No thanks.

But it's there and it's growing. We are essentially fighting against thousands of years of instinct. And winning.

The link you gave. Copyright 1972.

I'm arachnophobic. I deal with it.

It's not really winning when you're already so tiny that there's not even the least bit of ambiguity when you are compared to the majority.

The book I mentioned that uses and expands on that study, among other things, is from 2000. Though actually, I think the chapter is from 1993, because that's what I've got written here.

20% decline in all outdoor recreation is not "So tiny there's not even the least bit of ambiguity."

And yet to get it you have to contend with swarms of insects. No thanks.

But it's there and it's growing. We are essentially fighting against thousands of years of instinct. And winning.

The link you gave. Copyright 1972.

And guess what? Its driving people crazy and ruining the ecosystem and environment! Hooray for progress!

No idiocy is ruining the environment. You'll note that most of the republican party are avid hunters, fishermen... Etc.