Human-to-nature relationship is psychology

The one discipline that, sad to say, has hitherto remained virtually untouched by any concern for the environment or the human-to-nature relationship is psychology. You will search in vain in the texts and journals of any of the major schools of psychology”clinical, behaviorist, cognitive, physiological, humanistic or transpersonal”for any theory or research concerning the most basic fact of human existence: the fact of our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part.
Any thoughts on whether your relationship with nature is or should be a genuine concern?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Have you ever heard of Environmental Psychology?Or Evolutionary Psychology?Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

What do you think is our "relationship" to the natural world, and what does psychology have to do with it?

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

Hell yes!What do those phoney head shrinkers know about chemistry, eh?Or quantum mechanics?Or oil deposits?Charlatans!

I echo Chiroptera's post; clarification is needed. I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. The phrase "our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part" is quite vague.For instance, the way I'm interpreting the phrase, I can't see how you'd possibly think that (to name a few relevant ideas) Pavlovian and operant conditioning, habituation and sensitization, attentional biases, the systems involved in perception and interpretive processes involved in the integration of details into coherent whole pictures, memory, the relationships between the psychology of animals studied in behavioral studies and that of humans, and a few thousand or so similar subjects of research papers don't deal at all with "the fact of our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part". If anything, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a study that doesn't have anything to do with that. Our brains are, after all, the primary tools through which we can both perceive and affect the natural world.It would be useful for the purpose of discussion if you could more precisely define what you mean by "the fact of our relationship to the natural world of which we are a part".

What are you talking about? The behaviorist position says it is entirely the environment that dictates our psychology. And physiological deals with biological predispositions. The nature in "nature vs. nurture".Unless by nature you mean plants and animals. In which case, those don't really affect human psychology.