Over the past few years I've noticed a dramatic increase in my distractability. I'm barely able to focus on one task for more than 30 minutes at a time and even a stretch that long feels like a marathon. In fact, I started writing this post in the middle of reading an article on distraction. It's possible I will finish the article eventually, maybe.
The term Continuous Partial Attention was coined by tech theorist Linda Stone, someone I've never heard of but who sounds to me like she's on to something. This haze of rapidly shifting attention I live in is usually only moderated by a healthy dose of nature exposure which brings me to the coining of another appropriate term NDD or Nature Deficit Disorder. I wonder if there are any pharmaceuticals available for that? The nifty little term comes to us courtesy of Richard Louv who wrote a book in 2005 called Last Child in the Woods. His theory is that children are spending less time outdoors which might explain why they seem to be overwhelmed by so many behavioural problems. I think the same can be said for those over the age of 18 as well.
Now, where was I going with all of this? It had something to do with the benefits of spending time outside the confines of home or office and actually interacting in a physical and psychological way with plants, animals, dirt and air. Oh yes, and water. Bodies of water are nature too. It's just hard to imagine getting wet when it's winter outside. All I can think of is hypothermia and a naked, frozen corpse. Come to think of it, people are nature too and people are so much more interesting and easier to touch in person than through e-mail.
Of course, I haven't finished reading the article yet (it's kinda long) but it's very well written so I trust that the second half is a good as the first and I will be so bold as to recommend you read it right now, regardless of whether or not you're on the phone with your client or mother. However, I do recommend you not read this article while driving.
And by the way (in case you don't get that far), there is really no such thing as multitasking.
http://nymag.com/news/features/56793/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Enjoyed your post. Over the years, I've learned about and named another phenomenon -- email apnea. When we breath hold or shallow breath, our ability to regulate both our attention and our emotion, is compromised. More on all this at http://lindastone.net Cheers, Linda
Thanks Linda, very interesting observation. I actually find it hard to breathe in general while sitting in a desk chair. Which, of course, I spend many hours doing per day. I look forward to reading more about email apnea on your website.
Last Child in the Woods ––
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.
But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.
On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not!
For the rest: home.pacbell.net/mjvande/louv
Mike, those are all good points that you make and treading lightly is something that many nature lovers forget. However, I think it's important to recognize that consuming nature is not inherently evil and that all organisms do this in some way. For example, trees consume CO2 (for which we are grateful) and wolves consume deer and microorganisms consume decaying matter and so on.
The 'waste' that is produced by these organisms is often another natural product that helps to continue the circle of life. To say that we should not consume plants or animals is to say that we should not survive in the first place.
I've heard this argument against consuming nature many times which, from my perspective, essentially negates the person's very existence.
I see what you're getting at with regards to contact with nature not being a determining factor in treating it with respect but it is possible to go too far the other way. It doesn't help our situation if we're beating ourselves up for simply breathing.
Post a Comment