Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,484 Year: 3,741/9,624 Month: 612/974 Week: 225/276 Day: 1/64 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionarily Drawn to Nature?
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 6 of 40 (490541)
12-05-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by FliesOnly
12-05-2008 7:44 AM


I've often felt the same way about campfires. What is it about a campfire that makes people want to sit around and stare into it? I'm not really talking about the idea of using it for warmth, or the social aspect of it...I talking about how, if you start a campfire, people will show up, sit down, and stare into it. Sure, every once in a while, somebody will poke at it with a stick, toss on a new log, or whatever. But most people just sit there and stare. Obviously, it's our ancestral "fire gene".
Here are my thoughts on the facination with fire. Fire is certainly unlike anything else we find in nature. From a pre-modern science standpoint, the flames of fire defy the natural tendancy for most objects to fall to the earth (i.e. gravity), it's colors are unlike any others we can find in nature (most living organisms are shades of green and brown with a few exceptions), it has an etherial property (that is you can pass your hand through the flame and not be able to tangibly feel anything besides its heat), fire consumes whatever it touches leaving a chared hulk or dust of what was once there, and fire is very animate and flames constantly flicker, fade, grow and change colors depending on what it is consuming.
That is my thoughts of why humans find it so facinating to watch fires. This facination of fire has existed with the human race probably since an early homo sapien first fixed his gaze at a tree struck by lightning later becoming engulfed by flames.
This principle of facination with the unexpected and unknown can also be expanded out to the rest of nature.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2008 7:44 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 10 of 40 (490656)
12-06-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by petrophysics1
12-06-2008 4:22 PM


Re: Are people part of nature?
I have to agree with BluesCat in that for many people (not necessarily all) a return to nature serves as an escape valve for the hustle and bustle of modern life.
I know for me, even today, taking my daughter to the park which is nestled next to a large lake surrounded by hundreds of acres of woods is relaxing. No TV, computer, nagging wife (just kidding or maybe not ), demands of work, honking horns, cell phones, noisy people, etc. Just me and the beauty and quite of nature (except my kid playing on the playground behind me while I sit on a bench soaking up the scenery). It has nothing to do with a hatred of anyone (I still love my wife), it is just nice to get away and relax a little.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by petrophysics1, posted 12-06-2008 4:22 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 14 of 40 (490687)
12-07-2008 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by yetman
12-06-2008 10:21 PM


Re: Are people part of nature?
Consider this: If you were given four hours to relax, and you could choose to spend your time in one of these two places, which would you pick?
a) A big, luxurious hotel, all to yourself, completely isolated from society. Maybe it has a gym inside it, or a spa. However, there are no windows and no depictions of natural scenery whatsoever.
b) A place in nature. Maybe an empty beach, or some place in the wilderness.
I'd like to hear everyone's answer to this hypothetical situation. Please share your thoughts, I'm very interested in this subject.
Some people would choose option A and some B. It has to do with a lot of different factors: how was that person raised (did he or she grow up in the city with vert little surrounding natural scenery or in the country around nature), their personality (do they like the hustle and bustle of city life or do they like a slower paced life - that also will be affected by the first factor of how they were raised), religion, culture, etc. Doing a stastical analysis of these answers will only prove that a lot of different factors play into what option people choose.
I myself would choose B due to my exposure of nature as a boy. I was an Air Force brat who grew up in some remote places (Edwards AFB in the mojave desert of CA, Eglin AFB, Wheeler AFB in HI, Guam and other remote places). I also was a Boy Scout and backpacked and camped all over the Sierra Madre as well as hiked in the mountains on Oahu in HI.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by yetman, posted 12-06-2008 10:21 PM yetman has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 17 of 40 (490733)
12-07-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by onifre
12-07-2008 6:40 PM


Re: Are people part of nature?
I travel a lot, im on about 6 flights per month. There is nothing like walking into a 4-5 Star Hotel, stepping foot into a high-end suite, and ordering room service while watching tv in your bower shorts. Then, laying down on a plush king size bed and getting under a goose down comforter. It's simply an awesome feeling after a long flight.
I have to agree with that one too onfire. My best hotel experience was getting paid by the Navy to stay at the five star Gulf Hotel in Bahrain. Talk about opulance. The bed was bigger was almost like two california kings side by side. I am 5'10" and I could lay across the width of the bed with arms outstretched and not touch either side of the bed. Also the dining was out of this world. I must of gained 20 lbs eating at a different restaurant inside the hotel every night: american food, japanes, chinese, international buffet and a english pub. Plus a fabulous pool to boot. Some of the best 30 days of my single life.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by onifre, posted 12-07-2008 6:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 12-08-2008 5:18 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 20 of 40 (490751)
12-08-2008 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by yetman
12-07-2008 10:38 PM


I don't think a study has been done to test if the trait is universal. It may not be, but I'm proposing that, for the most part, it is. I do think that looking at a picture of natural scenery is somewhat relaxing to most everyone, and more so when experienced firsthand. I think we have evolved to enjoy looking at natural scenery because of its survival benefits.
I think it depends on the experiences you had in the past as well. If you are stuck out in the wilderness during a blizzard or intense rainstorm you are not going to be relaxed and composed or "enjoying the scenery" (at least I wasn't), most likely you will be cursing yourself out for being so stupid to be out there. I also agree that it comes down to meeting your primordial needs of food, shelter, and other necessities first. Only after these are met do we attatch our emotions to things we would consider pleasurable i.e. traveling, meeting new people, walking in the woods, looking at a beuatiful painting, etc.
If your experiences in the past with nature for the most part have been pleasurable (spending time with family, etc) than most likely seeing a picture of nature will be relaxing to you, if on the other hand you never had good experiences out in nature than it would be the other way around. Some people can cope with nature better than others. It just depends on your outlook on nature and life in general.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by yetman, posted 12-07-2008 10:38 PM yetman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by yetman, posted 12-08-2008 4:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3123 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 24 of 40 (490813)
12-08-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by onifre
12-08-2008 5:18 PM


Re: Are people part of nature?
I think the 7 star hotel you are talking about is theBurj Al Arab in Dubai.
I have been to Dubai and Jubel Ali in the United Arab Emirates about 4 or 5 times and it never ceases to amaze me the granduer of these cities. They are litteraly built straight up from the sands of the desert surround them. No grass, very few trees, and construction all over the place. The Burj Al Arab is on a peninnsula which can only be accessed through a gated area in which you have to pay somewhere around $10-$20 to go through the gate even to take a look in the lobby (they won't let you unless you are in a suit or the arab thawb. I was flabergasted when I saw a helicopter land on the helo pad at the top of the hotel. The arabs of UAE have more money than they know what to do with.
Actually some of the richest people on earth try to marry these two seemingly diametrically opposed forms of relaxation: nature and oppulant hotels. Case in point are the resorts of the Caribbean.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by onifre, posted 12-08-2008 5:18 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024