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

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.

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. (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!

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.

It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we
interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we 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.

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.)
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. 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!

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.
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.

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. In other words,
we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase
the quality.

References:

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.

Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1987.

Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North
America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.

Louv, Richard, Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from
Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel
Hill, 2005.

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
1973.

Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3,
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.

Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2002.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Last Child in the Woods --
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006


trash taken out

Bad book report, Mike.

D+ and detention.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:40:40 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Last Child in the Woods --
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006


trash taken out

Bad book report, Mike.

D+ and detention.

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 09:40:40 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
Last Child in the Woods --
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006

trash taken out

Bad book report, Mike.

D+ and detention.

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!

nope. just you.

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:37:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman
said in :

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!

How would you know?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:02:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:37:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman
said in :

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!

How would you know?

Long, repeated experience.

Guy
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:02:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:37:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman
said in :

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!
How would you know?

Long, repeated experience.


The point was that you wouldn't know, as you don't tell the truth. But
you missed it, as usual.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:59:37 -0800, cc wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:02:52 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:37:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman
said in :

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!
How would you know?

Long, repeated experience.


The point was that you wouldn't know, as you don't tell the truth. But
you missed it, as usual.

I always tell the truth, unlike mountain bikers.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:59:37 -0800, cc wrote:

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!
How would you know?

Long, repeated experience.


The point was that you wouldn't know, as you don't tell the truth. But
you missed it, as usual.

I always tell the truth, unlike mountain bikers.
===
LOL - You hide behind a position of self-appointed superiority claiming
truth for the only purpose of being able to place non-conforming comments
into a category you can simplify as false. It is merely your OPINION that
off-road cycling is a "selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport".
You claim "science" and "truth" only as a product of your own defense so as
to simply claim off-road cyclists are liars when they disagree with your
opinions. That is even more obvious when you are taxed by definite questions
and avoid them with misdirection, character assasination or the MV classic
response "Did you say something?"
The FACT that national and local agencies recognize the validity and
non-destructive nature of off-road cycling also sheds further light on your
lack of substance. They no longer a need a middle-man such as you to feed
them selected information when they have direct access to the first hand
research at the touch of a button.
It is laughably pathetic that you caused your own demise by placing your
personal OPINION of off-road cycling above any honest discussion of
environmental preservation and access.

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:32:32 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:59:37 -0800, cc wrote:

It's predictable that mountain bikers will hate anyone telling the
truth about their selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport. DUH!
How would you know?

Long, repeated experience.


The point was that you wouldn't know, as you don't tell the truth. But
you missed it, as usual.

I always tell the truth, unlike mountain bikers.
===
LOL - You hide behind a position of self-appointed superiority claiming
truth for the only purpose of being able to place non-conforming comments
into a category you can simplify as false. It is merely your OPINION that
off-road cycling is a "selfish, destructive, sick, extreme sport".
You claim "science" and "truth" only as a product of your own defense so as
to simply claim off-road cyclists are liars when they disagree with your
opinions. That is even more obvious when you are taxed by definite questions
and avoid them with misdirection, character assasination or the MV classic
response "Did you say something?"
The FACT that national and local agencies recognize the validity and
non-destructive nature of off-road cycling also sheds further light on your
lack of substance. They no longer a need a middle-man such as you to feed
them selected information when they have direct access to the first hand
research at the touch of a button.
It is laughably pathetic that you caused your own demise by placing your
personal OPINION of off-road cycling above any honest discussion of
environmental preservation and access.

Did you say something?
===
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