A Grassroots Remedy
Most of us spend our lives seeking the natural world. To this end, we walk the dog, play golf, go fishing, sit in the garden, drink outside rather than inside the pub, have a picnic, live in the suburbs, go to the seaside, buy a weekend place in the country. The most popular leisure activity in Britain is going for a walk. And when joggers (慢跑者) jog, they don’t run the streets. Every one of them instinctively heads to the park or the river. It is my profound belief that not only do we all need nature, but we all seek nature, whether we know we are doing so or not.
But despite this, our children are growing up nature-deprived (丧失). I spent my boyhood climbing trees on Streatham Common, South London. These days, children are robbed of these ancient freedoms, due to problems like crime, traffic, the loss of the open spaces and odd new perceptions about what is best for children, that is to say, things that can be bought, rather than things that can be found.
The truth is to be found elsewhere. A study in the US: families had moved to better housing and the children were assessed for ADHD—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (多动症). Those whose accommodation had more natural views showed an improvement of 19%; those who had the same improvement in material surroundings but no nice view improved just 4%.
A study in Sweden indicated that kindergarten children who could play in a natural environment had less illness and greater physical ability than children used only to a normal playground. A US study suggested that when a school gave children access to a natural environment, academic levels were raised across the entire school.
Another study found that children play differently in a natural environment. In playgrounds, children create a hierarchy (等级) based on physical abilities, with the tough ones taking the lead. But when a grassy area was planted with bushes, the children got much more into fantasy play, and the social hierarchy was now based on imagination and creativity.
Most bullying (恃强凌弱) is found in schools where there is a tarmac (柏油碎石) playground; the least bullying is in a natural area that the children are encouraged to explore. This reminds me unpleasantly of Sunnyhill School in Streatham, with its harsh tarmac, where I used to hang about in corners fantasising about wildlife.
But children are frequently discouraged from involvement with natural spaces, for health and safety reasons, for fear that they might get dirty or that they might cause damage. So, instead, the damage is done to the children themselves: not to their bodies but to their souls.
One of the great problems of modern childhood is ADHD, now increasingly and expensively treated with drugs. Yet one study after another indicates that contact with nature gives huge benefits to ADHD children. However, we spend money on drugs rather than on green places.
The life of old people is measurably better when they have access to nature. The increasing emphasis for the growing population of old people is in quality rather than quantity of years. And study after study finds that a garden is the single most important thing in finding that quality.
In wider and more difficult areas of life, there is evidence to indicate that natural surroundings improve all kinds of things. Even problems with crime and aggressive behaviour are reduced when there is contact with the natural world.
Dr William Bird, researcher from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states in his study, “A natural environment can reduce violent behaviour because its restorative process helps reduce anger and impulsive behaviour.” Wild places need encouraging for this reason, no matter how small their contribution.
We tend to look on nature conservation as some kind of favour that human beings are granting to the natural world. The error here is far too deep: not only do humans need nature for themselves, but the very idea that humanity and the natural world are separable things is profoundly damaging.
Human beings are a species of mammals (哺乳动物). For seven million years they lived on the planet as part of nature. Our ancestral selves miss the natural world and long for contact with non-human life. Anyone who has patted a dog, stroked a cat, sat under a tree with a pint of beer, given or received a bunch of flowers or chosen to walk through the park on a nice day, understands that.
We need the wild world. It is essential to our well-being, our health, our happiness. Without the wild world we are not more but less civilised. Without other living things around us we are less than human.
Five ways to find harmony with the natural world
Walk: Break the rhythm of permanently being under a roof. Get off a stop earlier, make a circuit of the park at lunchtime, walk the child to and from school, get a dog, feel yourself moving in moving air, look, listen, absorb.
Sit: Take a moment, every now and then, to be still in an open space. In the garden, anywhere that’s not in the office, anywhere out of the house, away from the routine. Sit under a tree, look at water, feel refreshed, ever so slightly renewed.
Drink: The best way to enjoy the natural world is by yourself; the second best way is in company. Take a drink outside with a good person, a good gathering: talk with the sun and the wind with birdsong for background.
Learn: Expand your boundaries. Learn five species of bird, five butterflies, five trees, five bird songs. That way, you see and hear more: and your mind responds gratefully to the greater amount of wildness in your life.
Travel: The places you always wanted to visit: by the seaside, in the country, in the hills. Take a weekend break, a day-trip, get out there and do it: for the scenery, for the way through the woods, for the birds, for the bees. Go somewhere special and bring specialness home. It lasts forever, after all.
It is pretty much a one-way street. While it may be common for university researchers to try their luck in the commercial world, there is very little traffic in the opposite direction. Pay has always been the biggest deterrent, as people with families often feel they cannot afford the drop in salary when moving to a university job. For some industrial scientists, however, the attractions of academia (学术界) outweigh any financial considerations.
Helen Lee took a 70% cut in salary when she moved from a senior post in Abbott Laboratories to a medical department at the University of Cambridge. Her main reason for returning to academia mid-career was to take advantage of the greater freedom to choose research questions. Some areas of inquiry have few prospects of a commercial return, and Lee’s is one of them.
The impact of a salary cut is probably less severe for a scientist in the early stages of a career. Guy Grant, now a research associate at the Unilever Centre for Molecular Informatics at the University of Cambridge, spent two years working for a pharmaceutical (制药的) company before returning to university as a post-doctoral researcher. He took a 30% salary cut but felt it worthwhile for the greater intellectual opportunities.
Higher up the ladder, where a pay cut is usually more significant, the demand for scientists with a wealth of experience in industry is forcing universities to make the transition (转换) to academia more attractive, according to Lee. Industrial scientists tend to receive training that academics do not, such as how to build a multidisciplinary team, manage budgets and negotiate contracts. They are also well placed to bring something extra to the teaching side of an academic role that will help students get a job when they graduate, says Lee, perhaps experience in manufacturing practice or product development. “Only a small number of undergraduates will continue in an academic career. So someone leaving university who already has the skills needed to work in an industrial lab has far more potential in the job market than someone who has spent all their time on a narrow research project.”
They requested that ___________________(我借的书还回图书馆) by next Friday.
It's no secret that some of the resolutions that many of us vowed to pursue in the new year-eat healthy, lose weight, quit smoking, save more money-have already fallen by the wayside.
Many of them are likely the same resolutions that we abandoned last January. And it's a good thing for those who sell health club memberships, quit-smoking programs and other products that help us think we can improve our lives.
Many gyms see new memberships double in January, making up for the third of their members who do not renew each year.
And many who sign up in January will be no-shows by February.
"If I try one quick fix and it doesn't work, I may be more likely to try the next quick fix," Lisa La-hey, who coaches executives how to sustain behavior change, told The Times.
The Biggest Loser Resort at Fitness Ridge doesn't offer any quick fixes, just a 12-hour schedule full of exercise, a 1,200-calories-a-day diet and a fee of $2,000 a week. The resort teaches its clients that "weight management" is a combination of fitness, diet and emotional health.
"Given my recent weight gain, and the fact that I was turning 50," Jennifer Conlin wrote in The Times, "I wanted to start a program that would make 2012 the year I finally got in shape."
"For years, the advice to the overweight people has been that we simply need to eat less and exercise more," Tara Parker-Pope wrote. "While there is truth to this guidance, it fails to take into account that the human body continues to fight against weight loss long after dieting has stopped. This translates into a sobering (令人清醒的) reality: once we become fat, most of us, despite our best efforts, will probably stay fat."
Of course this revelation (揭示), if proven true by further study, is not good news for the weight-loss industry. But chances are it won't have much impact on the human tendency to resolve to get to the gym more and avoid chocolate cake when the clock strikes midnight on December 31.