By: Jonathan Krywulak
In this article, Naomi Lubick suggests that although past
research has made a compelling case for the healing affects of nature, the direct
causes related to “nature’s curative powers” (2013, p. 42) has been difficult
to determine due to the medial field largely overlooking it. Lubick references
E.O. Wilson who suggested nature’s restorative benefits to human beings is the
result of an evolutionary process between the natural world and the human
mind. This helps to explain our “innate
preference for such scenery and provide(s) clues as to why such scenes might
trigger restorative brain responses” (p. 42), even if those scenes are artificially
constructed. This can possibly explain why
simulated natural environments help people recover faster (deceases in heart
rate and stress) in hospitals or feel better in office settings. Artificial images of nature have the ability
to generate a response from the human brain that can result in a variety of
psychological and physical health benefits. According to Lubick, “faking nature will help us hone in on exactly
how the real things might be promoting healing, but more importantly, it might
help bring nature’s benefits to those of us trapped in places where nature
cannot follow” (p. 44). As technology advances, it will be
interesting to see how nature continues to be simulated in the not so natural
world.
Bjorn Grinde and Grete Grindal Patil examine the influence plants
and other aspects of the natural world have on the human mind. They suggest that like all other species,
humans “have been shaped by forces of evolution” (2009, p. 2333) and it was
particularly early in history that humans and the natural world were closely
united in order to survive. It was
during this time, according to Grinde and Patil, that plants became an integral
part of the human environment, thus evolving alongside the human mind. Based on this theoretical perspective it is
thought that humans “have adapted to live in a green environment” (p. 2333), and
any deviation away from the environment may result in unsettling affects such
as disease or reduced life quality. I
found this part of the article most interesting as provides a possible reason
as to why humans seem to be more calm, comfortable, and balanced (in mind,
body, & spirit) when they see or are around nature. By being close to plants, people are
experiencing what they always been accustomed to since early history. I think in many ways this serves to explain why
people have an urge to be around nature and why often times their health and
well-being benefit as a result of being around it. As noted by Grinde and Patil’s, “nature
appears to have qualities useful for stress relief, mental restoration, and
improved mood simply by being consciously or unconsciously “pleasing to the eye”
(p. 2336). Interaction with plants both
indoors and outdoors are encouraged as it serves to benefit the human body and
mind.
In this article, Peter Kahn questions whether or not it
matters for the physical and psychological wellbeing of humans that actual
nature is being replaced by technological nature. He argues that it does matter
and his analysis of the question raises the concern that as we move away from
actual nature “the baseline across generations for what counts as a full
measure of the human experience and of human flourishing” will be lowered. This may substantially affect the human connection
to the natural world and have a negative impact on the physical and psychological
well-being of humans. In his study using
plasma HDTV’s to simulate nature, Kahn came to the conclusion that real nature
is better than technological nature however technological nature is in many
ways better than no nature at all. The general trend provided by research
suggested that “interacting with technological nature provides some but not all
the enjoyments and benefits of interacting with actual nature” (2009, p. 41). I agree with this statement as I think technology can afford humans a lot of different opportunities to connect and experience the natural world. Various technological tools have the ability to create mood and provide
imagery that people can resonate with, however, I feel that interacting with real nature can generate greater benefits as it relates to physical and psychological well-being.
References
My Delicious
link:
https://delicious.com/jkreek
Lubick, N. (2013). Green fix. New Scientist, 218(2921),
42-44. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407913615018
Grinde, B., & Patil, GG. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual
contact with nature impact on health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.
6(9), p. 2332-2343. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/a/ualberta.ca/file/d/0B21EMxFJbDZ6bnVuVldDQ28xbWs/edit?pli=1
Kahn, P., Severson, R., & Ruckert, J. (2009).
The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, p. 37–42. Retrieved
from http://depts.washington.edu/hints/publications/Human_Relation_Technological_Nature.pdf
Your second reference is one of my favorites. It brings up an interesting point, that I don't think we covered in this week's readings - WHY is biophilic design important for human comfort? The idea you bring up about it going back to evolution is fascinating, and explains a natural condition. I think eventually we'll see this idea evolve as more and more of the younger generation seem to be more and more comfortable with technology, like how toddlers seem to instinctively grasp new technologies at a faster rate. Perhaps this has a lot of the same evolutionary foundations about humans adapting to their environment.
ReplyDelete