data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4697/e469795519e7ef6fc1f15b950e2a60bff4d7e7da" alt=""
Before I was a bird guy, I was a ten year old wannabe herpetologist. We didn't really have turtles in Western Oregon, but we had a fair number of frogs, salamanders, and a few lizards and snakes. I spent hours and hours searching for them, dreaming about them, drawing them...basically eating, breathing, and sleeping them for a couple years starting in fourth grade. I eventually moved on to birds (more variety, larger support group, etc.), but still have a fondness for our little cold-blooded neighbors.
Environmental educators speculate about how important it is for kids to have good experiences with nature. I can trace my own career path as an environmental professional) back to those childhood moments, and so can many others. But how many of the other kids that were out catching snakes with me now think twice about animals or the environment? Experiences with nature would seem to be a necessary, but not sufficient, determinant of favorable environmental attitudes.
For me, life without birds, herps, and nature is only a pale shadow of a life. Going day to day without birds is like watching black and white television. Or like eating fat-free salad dressing. Like living in Plato's cave. I've gotta have my bird fix to make it through the day. Recently, my day to day birding has left me feeling a bit malnourished. I need more outside time with birds to cure my own case of nature deficit disorder.
3 comments:
It makes a big difference to be exposed to nature early on. I come from a place where hills abound, so exploring them meant we had our share of climbing them, later graduating to forests, and the creatures that live in them. Most of my friends I grew up with share the same passion, all of which can be traced back to when we were busy, out in the open spaces.
Did you read his book? Enjoy it? I'm reading it now - somehow it reads like an undergrad research paper - his ideas are so important - but he doesn't seem able to draw all his various research together into one inspiring thesis.
I'm reading it right now, and will post a review when I'm done. So far, the term "nature deficit disorder" seems to be the biggest seller for his ideas. Its catchy and simple to identify with. As a journalist, Louv isn't providing new analysis, just trying to tie together a bunch of related ideas. Despite the book's drawbacks, his message is really resonating with people--he's had over 500 speaking invitations this year.
Post a Comment