A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 16th 06, 07:09 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default 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 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.

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.

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
Ads
  #2  
Old November 16th 06, 07:35 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.







  #3  
Old November 16th 06, 08:02 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:35:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression, we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.


And that would be bad (especially in YOUR case) because?
===
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
  #4  
Old November 16th 06, 08:25 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike
MattB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 747
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-DeficitDisorder

Jeff Strickland 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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature
deficit disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural
progression, we come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display
at the museum, and our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in
order to see nature.


We need to get those kids off the couch and on some mountain bikes!

Matt
  #5  
Old November 16th 06, 11:15 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Fole Haafstra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression,

we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.

Or, we could build borders around special places, limit access, and call
it....now what shall we call these places? How about....NATIONAL PARKS, with
a stress on the Nation(al).


  #6  
Old November 17th 06, 01:07 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:35:44 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression,
we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.


And that would be bad (especially in YOUR case) because?




The sad part is that the irony escapes you ...



  #7  
Old November 18th 06, 03:53 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
S Curtiss
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"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.

(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.


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...?


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.

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. 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. Instead, you take a sensationalist's commercial
product 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.

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


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.
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.


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.


References: on original post



  #8  
Old November 18th 06, 05:56 PM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Jeff Strickland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 102
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...

"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.




Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports, wildlife is
adversely affected by a permanant presence in the habitat. Having said that,
permanent human presence is not always adverse to the thriving of habitat
and/or species. For instance, I just finished reading an article in the
paper where racoons are attacking dogs and cats in the Venice Beach enclave
of Los Angeles. Clearly, racoons are not threatened by human presence. I
have other examples, but Mike will ignore them too.







(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.


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...?


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.

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. 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. Instead, you take a sensationalist's
commercial product 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.

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


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.
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.


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.


References: on original post




  #9  
Old November 19th 06, 12:03 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Edward Dolan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,212
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder


"Fole Haafstra" reply.to.group.not.me wrote in message
...

"Jeff Strickland" wrote in message
...

"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


HUGE IRONY HERE ...
Michael J. Vandeman is perhaps the most vocal proponent of nature deficit
disorder I have ever had the displeasure to associate with.

If we take Mike's rantings at face value and apply a natural progression,

we
come away with an agenda that puts nature in a display at the museum, and
our grandkids will be forced to visit the museum in order to see nature.

Or, we could build borders around special places, limit access, and call
it....now what shall we call these places? How about....NATIONAL PARKS,
with
a stress on the Nation(al).


I have often thought that the entire state of Nevada, outside of the Las
Vegas and the Reno areas, should be declared a National Park. All the
present day inhabitants should be booted out of the state and it then should
be declared a Wilderness Area. Who are these freaking people who want to
live there anyway? Why the hell don't they go to California where they so
clearly belong. I say give the state back to the wildlife and tear up all
the roads. Yea, it is really only a fit place for us connoisseurs who can
appreciate nature and wilderness. It is not for the hoi-polloi like Fole
Haafstra, an anonymous coward like all scoundrels who would desecrate
wilderness with their vile presence.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota


  #10  
Old November 19th 06, 03:20 AM posted to alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environment,sci.environment
Mike Vandeman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Flouride in our water causes Attention Deficit Disorder - watch this that THEY won't show you. Israel Goldbergstein Australia 14 August 7th 06 12:50 AM
It's not road rage but a mental disorder... warrwych Australia 18 June 8th 06 05:12 AM
6 YO child + 45Kms = child abuse? Shaw Australia 41 January 18th 06 01:45 AM
TOUR deficit! WANTED KEY TDF 2005 taped coverage.... JEFS Marketplace 0 July 29th 05 03:52 AM
Victim of compulsive bike disorder! nobody760 UK 9 June 30th 04 12:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.