If you drive northward on Pennsylvania State Route 19 toward South Hills Village Mall, you will pass a farm on your left. It lies across Route 19 from the mall. Just up the road a bit there’s a new Whole Foods; close by is a Giant Eagle grocery store, also. And then there are the many and sundry other businesses and trendy restaurants, all in an upscale community with a number of large homes and a relatively new high school that cost over $30 million. Everything. Really, everything, and Pittsburgh is not too far farther north on 19. What more could one ask for, a farm with every amenity, and many of those nearby amenities within walking distance. And don’t forget the city water and the beautiful fire department building just a little to the south.
Right, what else is needed? Does it surprise you, then, when the Autonomous University of Barcelona did a study that showed “Citizens prefer to enjoy natural landscapes that combine nature with built infrastructure”?* The authors, Johannes Langemeyer, Fulvia Calcagni, and Fraccesc Baro, say, “The results show that, contrary to general belief, the presence of man-made infrastructure in green environments does not seem to negatively affect the aesthetic consideration that citizens have of the landscape.” They also say, “The study shows us that landscape aesthetics seem less dependent on ‘pristine nature’ than experts and planners assume.”
Who’s assuming this? Okay, let me reduce it. We like Nature, but give us a clean restroom with an ample supply of toilet paper, and not an outhouse filled with flies. Sure, there are Nature-lovers who like to rough it, but for the majority of humanity, the choice between Nature with infrastructure and Nature without infrastructure is a clear one for most, and it favors the one with civilization’s hard-won progress. We like driving to our scenic vistas.
We drive to national parks. We don’t cut new trails through the wilderness. We get there, say “Ah,” and then leave. A few of us might stay in tents or cabins, but others stay in luxurious lodges and home rentals, ala Vail and other “wilderness” sites.
I keep thinking of those people who own that farm in the midst of beautiful houses in an upscale shopping district with a high income. They should consider themselves among the most fortunate. They have both Nature and city.
And they probably serve as a model for modern Man. We can rough it as long as we can shower afterward—and, oh! don’t forget the gourmet foodstuffs just up the road. We’ve come a long way from our hominin roots. But I think that given the same wilderness in the city setting, going back through our roots from Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, Paranthropos boisei, Homo naledi, Homo rudolfensis, Australopithecus africanus, and way, way back to Australopithecus afarensis, this is what we’ve been evolving toward. We’ll express our love of Nature and Planet Earth as long as we can have our stuff in comfort. Sure, we go out to find Nature during the day, but as night falls, we hustle back to our kitchens and TVs. Wild guess: If anywhere along the line of hominins we offered an environment similar to a farm in midtown, our ancestors would have simply asked “How much is the rent?” or “What’s the asking price for real estate around there?” or "When can I move in?" The question about moving in might be the first one asked.
“Pristine Nature?” Leave your camera at home the next time you go to a scenic area. Just use your hippocampus. Otherwise, accept that we are ourselves part of Nature, are ourselves “natural,” and are only just different in degree and not in kind from beavers who chop down trees and block streams.
“Surely, you’re joking,” you say. “What humans have done to the environment in a very short time is orders of magnitude greater than what any other organism or group of organisms accomplished in a similar time.”
Yes. We have altered the natural landscape quite considerably. But is there blame in that? Aren’t you one of those “humans” who is responsible both directly and indirectly for the changes in the environment? You do go to malls and strip malls; you relish the ease of travel on smooth roads; and you like having more than 50,000 foods—much of it “fresh”—at your disposal. Casting blame on others is like the casual drug user’s thinking that he or she isn’t at fault for the cartel-inspired deaths along smugglers’ pathways.
I’m at fault, also. I’m writing this while seated in a comfortable chair. I’m using a computer. I’m drawing on the electric supply. So, what should I do?
“Just give up all that stuff. Recycle the computer, write on a clay tablet and hand-carry your message to the seven billion people you wish to reach. They’ll all appreciate your effort to keep Nature pristine.”
Sure, they will. And they will also emulate such actions by turning the surrounding suburb back into not just farmland but into the original forest from which it was cut, and by giving up the roads into Yosemite, the grocery store, and the trendy restaurants—not!
*Phys.org. November 12, 2018. Online at https://phys.org/news/2018-11-citizens-landscapes-combine-nature-built.html
Right, what else is needed? Does it surprise you, then, when the Autonomous University of Barcelona did a study that showed “Citizens prefer to enjoy natural landscapes that combine nature with built infrastructure”?* The authors, Johannes Langemeyer, Fulvia Calcagni, and Fraccesc Baro, say, “The results show that, contrary to general belief, the presence of man-made infrastructure in green environments does not seem to negatively affect the aesthetic consideration that citizens have of the landscape.” They also say, “The study shows us that landscape aesthetics seem less dependent on ‘pristine nature’ than experts and planners assume.”
Who’s assuming this? Okay, let me reduce it. We like Nature, but give us a clean restroom with an ample supply of toilet paper, and not an outhouse filled with flies. Sure, there are Nature-lovers who like to rough it, but for the majority of humanity, the choice between Nature with infrastructure and Nature without infrastructure is a clear one for most, and it favors the one with civilization’s hard-won progress. We like driving to our scenic vistas.
We drive to national parks. We don’t cut new trails through the wilderness. We get there, say “Ah,” and then leave. A few of us might stay in tents or cabins, but others stay in luxurious lodges and home rentals, ala Vail and other “wilderness” sites.
I keep thinking of those people who own that farm in the midst of beautiful houses in an upscale shopping district with a high income. They should consider themselves among the most fortunate. They have both Nature and city.
And they probably serve as a model for modern Man. We can rough it as long as we can shower afterward—and, oh! don’t forget the gourmet foodstuffs just up the road. We’ve come a long way from our hominin roots. But I think that given the same wilderness in the city setting, going back through our roots from Homo neanderthalensis, Homo floresiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo erectus, Paranthropos boisei, Homo naledi, Homo rudolfensis, Australopithecus africanus, and way, way back to Australopithecus afarensis, this is what we’ve been evolving toward. We’ll express our love of Nature and Planet Earth as long as we can have our stuff in comfort. Sure, we go out to find Nature during the day, but as night falls, we hustle back to our kitchens and TVs. Wild guess: If anywhere along the line of hominins we offered an environment similar to a farm in midtown, our ancestors would have simply asked “How much is the rent?” or “What’s the asking price for real estate around there?” or "When can I move in?" The question about moving in might be the first one asked.
“Pristine Nature?” Leave your camera at home the next time you go to a scenic area. Just use your hippocampus. Otherwise, accept that we are ourselves part of Nature, are ourselves “natural,” and are only just different in degree and not in kind from beavers who chop down trees and block streams.
“Surely, you’re joking,” you say. “What humans have done to the environment in a very short time is orders of magnitude greater than what any other organism or group of organisms accomplished in a similar time.”
Yes. We have altered the natural landscape quite considerably. But is there blame in that? Aren’t you one of those “humans” who is responsible both directly and indirectly for the changes in the environment? You do go to malls and strip malls; you relish the ease of travel on smooth roads; and you like having more than 50,000 foods—much of it “fresh”—at your disposal. Casting blame on others is like the casual drug user’s thinking that he or she isn’t at fault for the cartel-inspired deaths along smugglers’ pathways.
I’m at fault, also. I’m writing this while seated in a comfortable chair. I’m using a computer. I’m drawing on the electric supply. So, what should I do?
“Just give up all that stuff. Recycle the computer, write on a clay tablet and hand-carry your message to the seven billion people you wish to reach. They’ll all appreciate your effort to keep Nature pristine.”
Sure, they will. And they will also emulate such actions by turning the surrounding suburb back into not just farmland but into the original forest from which it was cut, and by giving up the roads into Yosemite, the grocery store, and the trendy restaurants—not!
*Phys.org. November 12, 2018. Online at https://phys.org/news/2018-11-citizens-landscapes-combine-nature-built.html
RSS Feed