On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:53:54 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
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.

(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
product

That's a LIE.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
===
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