digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at nature.org

Study: People Hate Nature More Than Ever

nature.org — As people spend more time communing with their televisions, computers and video games, the impact is not just on their health, researchers say. Less time spent outdoors means less contact with nature and, eventually, less interest in conservation and parks.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rtknox00, on 02/06/2008, -4/+75damn trees, taking all our jobs.
    • Buddhist, on 02/06/2008, -0/+9DEY TOOK'R JERBS!
    • rentmitchum, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4It makes sense that as the world population increases, experiences with nature for the majority of the population will decline. There's simply less "nature" going on if there are people crawling all over it. It's like if I wanted to admire a fruit salad for it's color and texture, but dumped flies all over it. There's nothing left to observe, now there are maggots and flies and crap all over that lovely fruit bowl. I know, I have a very Agent Smith outlook on our wretched species, but it's true.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2do i hate nature, no. but i do now hate digg. when did ***** 13 year olds start getting ***** dugg with these sensational headlines.
      buried for being retarded.
    • sotopheavy, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7As an arsonist, trees actually give me my livelihood. Without them I would have nothing to burn down. That is why I love the environment.
    • mateo60, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Yeah I'm glad to know someone else out there hates nature too. ***** nature.
  • burkinaboy, on 02/06/2008, -2/+24Reminds me of one of those Troy McClure movies: "Man Vs. Nature - The Road to Victory!"
  • sheagunther42, on 02/06/2008, -7/+28They tuk er jobbbbbsssss!
  • shapattack, on 02/06/2008, -3/+16I'm not surprised at all by this. My own life has followed the general trend, though I'm a big hiker - once every 12 years is a crazy average. If I don't go out for a hike every couple weeks, I start to feel antsy.
  • rollem, on 02/06/2008, -2/+51Inaccurate title and explanation. The study found that fewer people are using the national parks now than in the past. It does not say that more people hate the outdoors, and it provides no evidence that people are less interested in conservation now than in the past.
    • knde, on 02/06/2008, -0/+13I thought it was misleading as well. Sure...lots of people aren't as appreciative of nature as they could be, but I don't think they hate it.

      I bike everywhere in the city, but it's a world of difference when I get to visit my Nana in the countryside and bike there. It's so fressshhhh and clean!
    • rentmitchum, on 02/06/2008, -2/+4Most of the areas in national parks that people go to aren't nature at all though. They are pavilions and stands and shops in the middle of the forest or something or next to a lake. I went deep into the woods this last summer just to think, and I'll tell ya, there isn't much else like it. Total silence under that shady tree roof. I was at RB Winterstate Park in PA btw. Nice place if you get away from the swimming area with all the retards in the fake beach they made. The water is always 50 degrees anyway, go explore, christ.
      • SteveSgt, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I think that's true in the east, that most of the national parks are more developed. But in the mountain west, many of the national parks are big wilderness parks, and if you get away from the developed areas, you'll find some of the most pristine wilderness still remaining in the lower 48 states.
        • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3Of the National Parks I've visited West of the Mississippi (Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Mt. Rushmore, Badlands and Rocky Mountain), I recall seeing supermarkets in two of them. I think that's comparable to the East coast parks I've been to like Acadia and Shenandoah. There are areas of all of these parks that have highly developed as well as pristine areas, you just have to plan accordingly. When we were in Yellowstone we staying in the campground closest to the South entrance. A predominantly tented campground. We swam in Lewis(?) Lake near there in the evenings when the sun was setting with no one else around, and could clearly hear wolves all night. Yes these parks maintain vast amounts of pristine wilderness, but a place like Yellowstone which is a major destination has a gas station with full service auto repair shop, a fully stocked supermarket and at least one sit down restaurant.
          • SteveSgt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+295% of the land area of Yosemite National Park is congressionally protected wilderness. Wilderness designation forbids man made structures other than minimal trail improvements, and forbids any mechanized travel.
            However, 98.5% of Yosemite's visitors never venture out of the 5% of the park that is developed. And while we wouldn't want all of them to overrun those back-country areas, with planning and preparation, you can easily get yourself into parts of the park where you might not see anyone for a whole week.
    • tbaiocco, on 02/06/2008, -4/+2So the author exaggerated a little with the title - who cares? It grabbed our attention and that's why we all read the article, right?
      • SteveSgt, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Typical commercial, big-media tactic. Do whatever it takes to get someone's attention, even if your only message is: "Ha ha, made you look!"
      • tech42er, on 02/07/2008, -1/+1Wow. ***** you. Don't exaggerate stories.
    • simple0n3, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1agree about title,... why use the word hate? cant really find a reason to use the word hate after reading the article... just kinda seems like a lie (like fox)

      peace
  • rlalasz, on 02/06/2008, -11/+9It is a misleading headline--but so what? The subhead is accurate, and the study didn't just find that fewer people are using national parks--it found that nature recreation activities from hunting to camping to park visitation are down in several countries worldwide. And there are very strong evidentiary links between a decline in natural experiences and a decline in thinking nature is important--i.e., conservation. So rollem, you're completely wrong. Try reading the link before you comment.
    • Lythium, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3The more time I spend hiking/camping, the more I come to appreciate pesticides, indoor plumbing, and mattresses. If you're _away_ from nature, you retain some naive notions about the idyllic pastoral environment. When you're roughing it, you suddenly realize several basic not-so-pretty laws of nature, viz: Mosquitoes see humans as an ambulatory all-you-can-eat buffet, with flashing neon "Get 'em while they're fresh!!!" signs; Rocks spontaneously generate from the ground overnight, usually beneath the lumbar or cranial areas; Mama Bear is not your friend; and so on.

      I say keep people AWAY from nature. It's much easier to love on the Discovery channel than crawling up your butt ;)
    • staplez, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Actually the bigger issue is if we stop going to see nature, we are indirectly protecting it. When going to see nature was big, we trampled animals and plants. We started forest fires, we left garbage everywhere. Actually if all humans start moving towards staying indoors and only use electricity, no gas or oils, so we're talking locked in a room with a computer to do work. What we call telecommuting, nature and the earth would be infinitely better off. If instead we go out and see nature the added travel, burned fuel etc... would cause irreparable damage.
      • macweirdo42, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Yeah... But... Kinda defeats the purpose of preserving nature, don't ya think?
  • murty, on 02/06/2008, -0/+53Nature is evil! I fell into a bush once and it scratched me... ON PURPOSE!
  • sundancekid503, on 02/06/2008, -0/+42I think fewer people at National Parks will make them much nicer for people who DO enjoy them!
    • didgital, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Agreed, until funding is no longer justifiable to keep them open.
      • NOFXY, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4I never really understood that. Why do national parks need funding? Can't they just let the place be and.. oh.. i don't know... Let nature take care of itself? Isn't that the purpose of them? Do we really need park rangers or whatever else they're spending money on so people can enjoy these parks? Serious question here, and I'm waiting for an answer. This question is directed at anyone who knows.
        • CiXeL, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3i always thought it was dumb when they closed everglades national park after hurricane wilma. i thought it wouldve been fascinating to see how the park fared after a hurricane since its the most natural thing for this environment but they wouldnt let you near the place.
        • bearsandbulls, on 02/06/2008, -0/+6Well big National Forests do need infastructure. Roads, trail guides, parking lots.... They need employees to get your money. And rangers are needed. They guide people away from dangerous areas, prevent illegal hunting, help people in distress, uphold the law, conduct enviromental research, conduct controlled burns, teach the public about nature making them more appreciative......

          But, trust me there is plenty of traffic and people going to the parks to support what is needed to maintain the parks. So, yes it can take care of itself, and also yes it does make it better for those of us who appreciate the parks to not half those who don't there.
        • theycallmebubba, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I don't really have an ANSWER, per se, but I might be able to give some reasons: Most of the times I've gone camping, there have been certain 'douchebags' that did not come to 'get away from it all', but to bring it all WITH them. So they'd play their [crappy] music late into the night (while my family attempted to enjoy our campfire, card games, etc...) let their [incredibly annoying] kids run amok around the pool, cannon balling random strangers with no remorse... those kinds of things make me appreciate the people who's job it is to tell the douches to turn off their music... keep their kids under control... whatever. Plus, they get to shoot mountain lions and bears - and that's awesome.
        • Coffeedemon, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5Primarily to protect the land and to keep it from getting destroyed or overtaken by development but also to provide educational programs, outreach and interpretative programs for things like the local historical uses of the trails for example.

          In Canada Parks Canada is responsible for assets valued over 7 Billion dollars (includes the historic sites but some of them are inside parks too). The parks also contain numerous archaeoligocal sites and many of the endangered species in Canada, some of them are UNESCO World Heritage Sites as well and need extra protection.

          All of this takes money to manage to make sure they're here today but also remain an example of that particular regions natural heritage for future generations.
        • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Management, Law Enforcement, Safety, Amenities(even the most rudimentary), etc. These things are needed so that parkland isn't abused. Here on Long Island there are parcels unmanned State and County parkland which is largely abused, and the things I've listed will prevent abuse of the land.
  • nfkiller, on 02/06/2008, -1/+23Sorry, I was looking at photos of the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone Park on Flickr.... what were you saying?
  • lanceevers, on 02/06/2008, -2/+14It is possible that people are getting tired of the environmental message. Part of the problem is regulation itself. Manatees are not as cute as porpoises, but they're pretty lovable. This article
    http://www.scragged.com/articles/revenge-on-mother ...
    explains that when signs were put up asking boaters to be careful of manatees, people SPED UP! Were they really trying to hurt manatees, or were they simply irritated at the government?
    • CiXeL, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2you can make boats safe for manatees. basically you put the prop in a rounded cage. it cuts down the speed a bit but makes it so you cant slash them to pieces. they need to come out with a cage you can put on and take off depending on where you put the boat in.
    • cme884, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3I think those people are just assholes. It's one thing to protest the government by disobeying a law, but it's quite another when you break the law for the sake of breaking the law, especially if the consequences include killing or injuring a person or an animal.
      • CiXeL, on 02/06/2008, -3/+3i see people in south miami aiming at turtles crossing the road. the immigrants have no respect for wildlife.
        • noumuon, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2hate to break it to you, but it's not just the immigrants that have no respect for wildlife nor is it all of them.
        • drgmdp, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1no americans do that right?
    • LinusTheLim, on 02/06/2008, -0/+0They hate manatees. If it were just to spite government then all the "Slow Children at Play" and "Slow Men Working" signs would cause resentment maymem.
  • UltramegaOK, on 02/06/2008, -1/+19"People spend more time communing with their televisions, computers and video games"

    No *****. Americans are busier than ever before. We have the highest productivity of any industrialized nation. We take less vacation time, and work more hours than the workforce of any other industrialized nation.

    That doesn't mean people hate nature. Dugg down for the ***** title. I can't tell you how much I hate retards that post misleading titles..........

    (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbu ... )
    • koicho, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Totally agree! It's a vicious cycle... charge the credit cards and get bigger TV, more toys, etc... then work your ass off so you can pay it off. and less and less time to really chill and enjoy life...
    • sgtpppr, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I'm sure the people that dugg this up also dugg stories screaming about the main stream media sensationalizing stories. Just a marketing ploy to get you to click their link, digg their story, watch their channel, etc.. Of course, it's ok when 'regular people' do it. It's only evil when some hideous hydra of a corporation does it.
  • squishee, on 02/06/2008, -1/+6Zadadoo doo wee, zadadoo doo wah! There's a place called the rainforest, it really sucks ass!
  • D3koy, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8I thought this was an onion article at first... this is sad, not funny
  • elkna, on 02/06/2008, -6/+0When I first saw this, I was expecting an Onion article, and was sorely disappointed.
  • D4M4N, on 02/06/2008, -5/+1My xbox is my nature
  • emovictoria, on 02/06/2008, -6/+2i stay in and play music all day. i must admit i dont go out and chill with nature. although i should for my health...
    • LeopardGirl420, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3dugg down for claiming yourself to be an emo and supporting hillary clinton
  • LeopardGirl420, on 02/06/2008, -2/+6Nothing shows your love for nature more than loading up your Limited Edition Guzzler SUV, filling up with Premium and hunting down bears, elk, deer in camo with your semi automatic Remington 7400 with scope and laser
    • RobotBuddha, on 02/06/2008, -0/+5That was my reaction as well. I used to take a walk in an awesome public park before moving to a city that lacked one. But by this article, I hate nature because I neither want to drive 30 minutes each way to take a walk, or spend my time killing defenseless animals.
  • rockinthekeys, on 02/06/2008, -1/+7Ridiculous title and explanation. This is not about people hating nature, it's about a lack of interest. "Dugg down for the ***** title", I couldn't say it better. Get your ***** post right.
    • triskele, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Agreed. I'm also largely against a good portion of The Nature Conservancy's efforts.
  • iamnotbill, on 02/06/2008, -0/+7always the dilemma...digg or hiking? digg or go for a walk. digg or backpacking. digg or do something with your ***** life.

    ...obviously digg is winning this war.
    • shodanx, on 02/06/2008, -3/+0what war ?
      is everything a war to you ?
    • shodanx, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2what war ?
      is everything a war to you ?
    • blast_flame, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2Quite frankly doing nothing would win over those options for me...
  • alimighty1, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1but where will I get my awesome wallpapers from now?
  • mangotango420, on 02/06/2008, -3/+2its time to get rid of all forests and built mcdonalds and starbucks!
  • ackza, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3Anyone remember Brave New World?
  • thefirstenemy, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3The title reminds me of The Onion.
  • c7hu1hu, on 02/06/2008, -1/+8Disinterest != hate.

    Do I hate tennis because I don't play it?
  • lucutus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3"When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful, A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical. And all the birds in the trees, well theyd be singing so happily, Joyfully, playfully watching me. But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible, Logical, responsible, practical. And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable, Clinical, intellectual, cynical." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBAasek8NR4 I am guilty of this myself. After weekly or more often trips to nature centers just last weekend I was in a cabin in the smokey mountains chucking stuff at a raccoon in fear of rabies. Little rocky just wanted some of our plentiful food but no I had to shoo him with hand held projectiles. SIGH
  • dkern, on 02/06/2008, -2/+5Maybe people are tired of seeing nature slowly erode into nothingness and its inhabitants being rendered extinct. Just a thought. People don't hate nature- I think its the other way around and for good reason.
  • nynx, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2..more for me!
  • AudioPhil3, on 02/06/2008, -0/+8Awaits:

    The Top 10 People Who Hate Nature The Most!
  • rda1441, on 02/06/2008, -4/+3Agreed. Hate nature. PAVE the earth, eat the whales.
    • blast_flame, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I prefer the phase Astroturf the countryside...
    • tech42er, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1PAVE THE WHALES!

      /greatest T-shirt ever
  • ron2008paul, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1I'm going to pull a Chris McCandless the day I get out of school. So to quote the guy a few posts above me.. "more for me!"
  • skyfire1, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3I'm gonna go light a forest on fire. Last week nature struck my cat with lightning. Nature is a bitch.
  • MaceSoul, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Busted. I hate nature.
  • DerangedPenguin, on 02/06/2008, -1/+3As a penguin, I hate nature. I mean all those freezing winters, and swimming in below 0 water, eating raw fish and the constant threat of being eaten by a killer whale, shark. Screw it I am booking a vacation in Vegas, only sharks are at the card tables.
  • Vektuz, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Nature? ick. Its gross and full of bugs, and dirt and things that come and sting you just for being there. -pulls out the bug spray and sterilizer-
  • dupswapdrop, on 02/06/2008, -0/+4Nature, but it's full of bugs and slime and it's dirty! Oh wait thats my fridge, anyone want a beer?
  • segiterrus, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1wat do u mean, i luv it, i jsut hate the streets of Downtown LA
  • crazywarthog, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1Baby Boomers just too old, fat, and lazy to hike or camp anymore.
  • petebert, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Bears, our biggest threat
    • elementop, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2I'm not worried about bears -- they are big enough to see, and if necessary (it's never been necessary for me, but...) to shoot. It's the little buggers like scorpions and black widows that scare the crap out of me. Fortunately, I live in bear country. It's too cold in Alaska for spiders and snakes :)
  • alclone, on 02/06/2008, -1/+4Full of inaccuracies cause I see nature right on my desktop background and in my porn videos
  • ryan83189, on 02/06/2008, -2/+41/3 i meet at national parks are from other countries. They are surprised/disgusted that we are not taking advantage of the beauty in our own backyard.
    • jollins, on 02/06/2008, -2/+3More reason right there to keep all 'em damn foreigners out.
  • Icamonkey, on 02/06/2008, -0/+10Study: People hate studies more than ever.
  • elliotys, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2***** depressing.
  • Masefield, on 02/06/2008, -0/+2I have no time for nature. I must appease the Machine Spirit.
  • superfuxxorr, on 02/06/2008, -0/+3If you don't spend time outdoors you don't care about conservation or parks... surprise, surprise.
  • daxsymbiont, on 02/06/2008, -1/+1hate theirself then.
  • wolfboy2883, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Fine. I don't want a bunch of whiny city-slickers ruining my outdoor time. Keep them contained inside their cities so that those of us who haven't been corrupted by excessive technology can enjoy ourselves.
    • SteveSgt, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2I used to think that. Here's the problem: They vote. If they don't care about preserving wild places, they might just vote for someone who's agenda is to develop those places as residential areas, commercial amusement parks, timber harvests, mining operations, etc. We need those "city-slickers" to discover those places and care, lest they vote for their destruction instead.
      • blast_flame, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2That may backfire on you. As a technology lover I started to despise nature when I was forced as part of school to go on a few camping trips. Bulldozing preserves would have out a big smile on my face for a while after. Who am I kidding myself it still would. Before than I didn't care either way about nature...
        • SteveSgt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1That's truly an unusual reaction. Through the Sierra Club, and previously through a college mountaineering club, I've helped hundreds of people discover their first wilderness experience. And for each and every one of them, it was profoundly trans-formative in an entirely positive and healthy way.
          I suspect that what lead you to despise your camping experience wasn't the time in nature or the camping itself, but rather some sort of human dynamics that came packaged with your particular trips.
    • tech42er, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and we're content to leave you to your nature. Besides, you don't need to be a Luddite to respect nature. And we have Central Park, so it's not a total wash, like LA.
  • rufusg, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2A bit of a troll here, but I'd like to add my feelings that all man's various gods are metaphors for our true provider, the earth.
  • hulez, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2yep, if we get people back into hunting nature will flourish better than ever
  • woofers07, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2So does this mean I'll see less rednecks wearing flip-flops and carrying a case of beer when I go back-packing or yuppies wearing their brand-new never worn gear? Cause that would be swell.
  • davecor, on 02/06/2008, -1/+5Nerd+Nature=Geocaching
    • SteveSgt, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Geocache in protected wilderness = litter
      • MWeather, on 02/06/2008, -1/+2Geocache anywhere = litter.
        • davecor, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1I bring a trash bag with me when I go caching and I know a lot of others that try to clean up a little bit while we are out.
          Why attribute anonymous trash to one group of people?
          • SteveSgt, on 02/07/2008, -0/+1The point I was trying to make was that in wilderness, especially in the U.S. National Parks, foreign objects such as a geo-cache are considered litter. I know that if a backcountry park ranger finds one that is something other than a "summit register", they've been instructed to remove it as trash.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.