Nature-Deficit Disorder: How it Breaks Humanity into Pieces
Strangely, in this time of age, retirement is often seen as this concept of escaping the “city-life” and moving into the mountains. Even with the presence of technology that makes our lives easier, many people dream of moving into the mountains — a place with little to no electricity — and settling in for the rest of their lives. It’s as if they want to make life harder for themselves with no apparent reason other than that they want to live closer to nature. But why do so many people want to live closer to the mountains, or rather, why is it more appealing to live in the mountains than it is in the city? Perhaps it is due to the idea of nature-deficit disorder; a disorder that speaks about the disconnect between humans and nature.
In the book, Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv, the author describes nature-deficit disorder as the “human costs of alienation from nature, among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses.” I found myself agreeing with the concept of nature-deficit disorder. Much like the author, I believe that there are many benefits when humans are connected to nature. For example, one benefit is that nature provides many physical and mental health benefits that simply can’t be replicated with other physical activities. Moreover, with the looming climate change crisis, the concept of nature-deficit disorder becomes important in motivating young people to take action against climate change. In essence, exposure to nature is the driving force that will incentivize people to support and fight for the protection of their environment. Overall, the idea of nature-deficit disorder is important in not only creating awareness about the benefits of being connected to nature but also in fighting against climate change.
There are many health consequences when people are deprived of nature. One of the most devastating effects of nature-deprivation in children is that they may suffer numerous mental health disorders as a result. This is why Louv constantly stresses the importance of nature in protecting children from certain mental health diseases. For example, he states that “nature experiences can relieve some of the everyday pressures that may lead to childhood depression” and that according to Peter Kahn, “there are over one hundred studies that confirm that one of the main benefits of spending time in nature is stress reduction.” Since stress is known to be one of the most common denominators between what causes mental health disorders such as depression, reducing the stress in children can greatly lower the chances of them developing one in the future. Thus it becomes clear that as children spend more time in nature, they will have less chance of developing mental health diseases such as depression. Nature, in other words, is one of the most effective antidotes to life’s stresses, and by depriving children of nature, they are essentially being deprived of the antidote that can prevent mental health diseases that they may get. Another particular study shows the impact of nature on young children by comparing the level of exposure of nature with the level of mental health disorders present in children. This study was done by Gary Evans who concluded that “children with more nature near their homes received lower ratings than peers with less nature near their homes on measures of behavioral conduct disorders, anxiety, and depression.” This study demonstrates a correlation between the amount of exposure to nature that children receive and the level of mental health disorders that they may have. In addition, by proving the existence of the correlation, it becomes evident that nature is highly important when it comes to maintaining good mental health. But more importantly, the study shows that there are higher chances of mental health disorders such as depression when people get detached from their environment.
While mental health benefits are apparent with increased exposure to nature, nature also has many physical health benefits that are essential. For example, Louv claims that “recent studies describe tantalizing evidence that links time spent outdoors to other health benefits beyond weight control, that may be specific to the actual experience of nature.” Thus, it becomes clear that spending time in nature not only has benefits related to weight-loss — which is essential in maintaining good physical health — but also beyond that. This can be seen in a study that Louv mentions which focuses on comparing children who played in typical playgrounds to children who played among trees, rocks, and other natural areas. The study showed that “children who play in natural areas tested better for motor fitness, especially in balance and agility.” The fact that children who played in natural areas tested better in terms of motor fitness despite having played the same amount of time indicate that the health benefits obtained through nature simply can’t be replicated with other physical activities. Overall, it is apparent that nature has unique and important benefits to our physical health.
Some critics may argue that sports such as tennis, can be a substitute for nature and that the health benefits are just the same. While sports may provide some physical health benefits, Louv explains how there are some benefits that sports simply can’t provide. For instance, some differences between organized sports and natural play are that natural play helps to instill creativity in people. Louv mentions a researcher by the name of Edith Cobb who concluded in her book, The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood, that “inventiveness and imagination of nearly all of the creative people were rooted in their early experiences in nature.” Organized sports simply cannot offer the creativity factor as much as nature does, and this is precisely why there are differences between playing in nature versus playing a sport. In addition, Louv also mentions that the “obesity epidemic coincides with the greatest increase in organized children’s sports in history.” In essence, organized sports don’t seem to be providing as great of a health benefit to children as they may appear to be. The solution to this, as Louv hypothesized, is to increase natural play in children since “the physical exercise and emotional stretching that children enjoy in unorganized play is more varied and less time-bound than is found in organized sports.” In this way, playing in nature provides more physical health benefits because there are fewer restrictions with time compared to organized sports. All in all, while sports may provide some physical health benefits, it is clear that it can’t compare to the benefits that nature provides.
It is important to note that for nature to provide these health benefits, nature itself must be in good condition. With the climate change crisis, however, nature is seemingly deteriorating year after year and causing many young people to develop anxiety and stress. According to the article, “Climate Change Poses Mental Health Risks to Children and Teens” by Kathiann Kowalski, the author describes that climate change can also indirectly affect children’s mental health. For instance, in the article, Van Susteren describes that young children “look at the generation ahead of them that could have taken action and didn’t… and get feelings of anger, grief, resentment, fear, frustration and being overwhelmed.” As the younger generation will be the ones affected by climate change the most, it makes sense why many young kids today will feel emotionally stressed about climate change. In fact, statistics from the article, “‘Climate Grief’: Fears About The Planet’s Future Weigh On Americans’ Mental Health” shows a 2019 Gallup poll that reported that “54% of those ages 18 to 34…worry a ‘great deal’ about global warming.” Therefore, because climate change can be seen as one of the many ways nature can have a direct impact on children’s mental health, Louv’s point that nature has a huge impact on a person’s well-being holds true.
But how does climate change exactly affect people? For one, it becomes evident that as climate change destroys part of nature, people, especially the younger generation, will not be able to experience nature as often. Louv even expands on this idea and says that “if children do not attach to the land, they will not reap the psychological and spiritual benefits they can glean from nature, nor will they feel a long term commitment to nature.” Climate change, in other words, gives the younger generation less opportunity to feel attached to their environment because the environment is continuously being destroyed around them. And so the connection becomes clear. Climate change is a major factor in detaching people from nature and the detachment is ultimately what causes the negative consequences associated with nature-deficit disorder.
At the same time, climate change can increase people’s interest in nature. As the environment around them gets destroyed, people may be more interested in preserving the environment around them. That is, in an ideal world where more interest leads to more action. In reality, however, rarely do people actually take action in conserving their environment. For instance, according to a 2019 poll in the article “Americans on Climate Change: A Look at American’s Views on Climate Science and Policy,” about “7 out of 10 Americans worry about climate change,” but only “around one in 10 voters have contacted a government official about climate change in the last twelve months.” In addition, “only four in 10 Americans say they talk about climate change with their family and friends.” Yet even though more than half of Americans are worried about climate change, less than half are taking action such as contacting a government official about it. So the question becomes: How do people want to tackle climate change? According to a 2019 poll in The Washington Post article, “Americans Increasingly See Climate Change as a Crisis, Poll Shows,” “clear majorities say they would prefer that climate initiatives be funded by increasing the taxes on wealthy households and on companies that burn fossil fuels.” Also, when asked about how much money they would contribute towards climate change, only “a quarter say they are willing to pay $10 extra each month.” In other words, many people don’t want to be directly involved in fighting against climate change. Instead, they would rather have the responsibility to be pushed to the agendas of the wealthy and powerful. Seemingly what is occurring is a disconnect; that is, there seems to be no apparent correlation between the number of people that believe in climate change and the amount of action that is being taken against it. And so what is causing the disconnect?
The missing piece to the puzzle is a connection — a meaningful connection between the person and their environment. Without this connection, there is less incentive for people to take action. But as society becomes more technological, people are less willing to play outdoors which can cause many of them to miss out on forming the connection with nature. For example, according to a 2018 article by the Child in the City Foundation, “children spend half the time outdoors compared to their parents.” This is part of the reason why Louv suggests that “adult concern for, and behavior related to, the environment derives directly from participating in such ‘wild nature activities…’ before the age of eleven.” This also leads to “environmentalists [looking] increasingly old and white.” Interestingly enough, while this may be the case, younger people are more generally willing to believe in the idea of climate change. The statistics can be found in the article “‘Climate Grief’: Fears About The Planet’s Future Weigh On Americans’ Mental Health” which shows that there about 10% more people between ages 18 to 34 who believe in climate change than people who are 55 or older. So the trend is that older people are more willing to take action against climate change, but also less likely to believe in the idea itself. Ultimately, the biggest culprit is society and how it has become so technologically advanced and academically-inclined that the younger generation is unable to form a deep, meaningful connection with their environment. Society is also the reason why the younger generation is the mirror image of the older generation; why one is more informed about climate change but less willing to take action, while the other is the exact opposite.
Bridging the gap between the two generations relies on people forming connections with their environment. Generally, efforts should be made to increase awareness about the importance of exposing nature to children. By allowing more children to play outdoors freely, the hope is that more people will be connected and attached to their environment. And it is ultimately the attachment that will drive the younger generation to fight for the protection of their environment. In other words, exposure to nature is not all about the health benefits that it can provide, it is about creating the incentive — the passion — for the younger generation to take action against climate change.
One of the best ways to form a connection with the environment is to do activities in nature like fishing or hunting. But some may argue that these activities pose a moral issue and therefore should not be done. While activities like hunting and fishing may pose moral problems to some, it is important to realize that it is precisely these moral dilemmas that allow children to learn and form a deep connection with nature. Louv even explains that “fishing and hunting remain among the last ways that the young can learn of the mystery and moral complexity of nature in a way that no videotape can convey.” Furthermore, the consequences that are often associated with these activities are very small compared to the issue of global warming. As Louv describes, “By any measure, the impact of consumptive outdoor sports on nature places in comparison to the destruction of habitat by urban sprawl and pollution.” Therefore, moral dilemmas with nature-activities are usually not only small in comparison to the benefits that they provide but also are useful in helping people connect more with their environment.
All in all, the idea of nature-deficit disorder is true in many ways. For one, there are many health consequences when people are deprived of nature. Some of the health consequences are related to mental health disorders such as depression and anxiety. Also, these health consequences become evident in young people through climate change — a phenomenon that is destroying parts of nature today. Yet, at the same time, nature-deficit disorder is important in addressing the issue regarding why only a small amount of people are taking action against climate change. As people become less connected to nature, they are also less willing to help conserve the environment. In other words, nature-deficit disorder gives the illusion that we are not part of nature. And this is simply wrong. As Robert F. Kenney Jr. puts it, “We’re part of nature… and if we separate ourselves from that, we’re separating ourselves from our history, from the things that tie us together.”
