Hi, Yetman. Welcome to EvC!
yetman writes:
I think it's pleasurable to look at nature because, evolutionarily, it was beneficial to our survival. It was beneficial for someone to know his surroundings intimately.
I don't think it sounds all that beneficial to become entranced by pretty things around you. To me, it sounds like more of a distraction that allows predators or enemies to sneak up on you than a way to memorize the landscape. It seems more logical to me that a habitat-familiarity mechanism would be successful if it caused us to be attracted to things that are directly beneficial for our survival, like food, water and shelter, and not to flowers, butterflies and flames.
-----
I also wonder if it's not simple projection of a personal perspective onto the entire human species at large (Larni: what do they call that?). Without having actually done a poll, I'm pretty sure a large chunk of people I know don't really care for nature, so I'm hesitant to accept the premise of your thesis that people are innately drawn to nature.
I personally love nature (and campfires): I particularly like collecting bugs. But, I don't think I have personally felt a pleasure sensor tripping at the sight of nature without some sort of prior preparation or build-up. I also grew up as a city boy, and didn't ever get involved in nature until Boy Scouts, and, even then, it took me awhile to work up to enjoyment. So, to me, it seemed like more of an acquired taste.
So, that's one vote against the argument for an innate love of nature in humans. Take it for what it's worth. But I, personally, have a hard time assigning evolutionary significance to a trait that's not universal, or for which I'm not sure there is evidence that it's even particularly common.
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2