The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature

Two world trends are powerfully reshaping human existence: the degradation, if not destruction, of large parts of the natural world, and unprecedented technological development. At the nexus of these two trends lies technological nature—technologies that in various ways mediate, augment, or simulate the natural world. Current examples of technological nature include videos and live webcams of nature, robot animals, and immersive virtual environments. Does it matter for the physical and psychological well-being of the human species that actual nature is being replaced with technological nature? As the basis for our provisional answer (it is ‘‘yes’’), we draw on evolutionary and cross-cultural developmental accounts of the human relation with nature and some recent psychological research on the effects of technological nature. Finally, we discuss the issue—and area for future research— of ‘‘environmental generational amnesia.’’ The concern is that, by adapting gradually to the loss of actual nature and to the increase of technological nature, humans will lower the baseline across generations for what counts as a full measure of the human experience and of human flourishing. KEYWORDS—nature; biophilia; technology; adaptation; environmental generational amnesia Technology has begun to change our species’ long-standing experiences with nature. Now we have technological nature— technologies that in various ways mediate, augment, or simulate the natural world. Entire television networks, such as the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, provide us with mediated digital experiences of nature: the lion’s hunt, the Monarch’s migration, or a climb high into the Himalayan peaks. Video games like Zoo Tycoon engage children with animal life. Zoos themselves are bringing technologies such as webcams into their exhibits so that we can, for example, watch animals from the leisure of our home or a café. Inexpensive robot pets have been big sellers in the Wal-Marts and Targets of the world. Sony’s higher-end robot dog AIBO sold well. Real people now spend substantial time in virtual environments (e.g., Second Life). In terms of the physical and psychological well-being of our species, does it matter that we are replacing actual nature with technological nature? To support our provisional answer that it does matter, we draw on evolutionary and cross-cultural developmental accounts of the human relation with the natural world and then consider some recent psychological research on the effects of technological nature. BIOPHILIA—AN EVOLUTIONARY ACCOUNT OF THE HUMAN RELATION WITH NATURE E.O. Wilson (1984) coined the term ‘‘biophilia’’ to refer to what he and his colleagues hypothesized is a fundamental, genetically based human need and propensity to affiliate with ‘‘life and lifelike processes’’ (p. 1; see also Kellert & Wilson, 1993). Studies have shown, for example, that even minimal connection with nature—such as looking at it through a window—can promote the healing of hospitalized patients, can increase health in the workplace, and can reduce the frequency of sickness in prisons. In hundreds of other studies, interaction with pets has been shown to benefit a wide range of clinical patients—from adults with Alzheimer’s disease to children with autism—as well as people within the general population. Young children develop rich interactions with animals (Myers, 2007). Based on preference ratings for different sorts of landscapes, people tend to prefer natural environments more than built environments, and built environments with water, trees, and other vegetation more than built environments without such features (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Indeed, it would appear more than a mere cultural convention that flowers are often sent to people who are in the hospital or who are going through periods of mourning. The need and propensity to affiliate with nature appears great, as do the resulting benefits. Address correspondence to Peter H. Kahn, Jr., Department of Psychology, Box 351525, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1525; e-mail: [email protected]. CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Volume 18—Number 1 37 Copyright r 2009 Association for Psychological Science The evolutionary explanation for biophilia is akin to the evolutionary explanation for most behaviors: During ancestral times certain genotypes made certain behavioral responses more frequent; some of those responses increased the chances of the organism’s survival and reproductive success, causing those genotypes to spread through the population and through the centuries, and finally to us in modern times. Thus, according to proponents of biophilia: (a) Biophilia has been adaptive in our evolutionary history, (b) biophilia is still today woven into the architecture of the human mind, and (c) the human species cannot achieve its full measure of sensibility and meaning apart from the natural world. Four questions have structured much of the debate around biophilia. One question arises when biophilia is understood largely as a genetically determined affiliation: When it is cast this narrowly, where is the place for cognition, free will, development, and culture? We take up aspects of this question in the next section. A second question is whether biophilia includes only the human affiliation with life (the ‘‘bio’’ part of biophilia) or whether it should also include the human affiliation with nonliving nature, such as mountains, canyons, caves, and geysers. In our view, biophilia should include the human affiliation with nonliving nature, and this opens up an interesting line of future research. A third question is whether biophilia includes only positive ‘‘loving’’ relations to nature (the ‘‘philia’’ part of biophilia). We believe that biophilia makes the most sense (and charts a more productive research program) when it incorporates both positive and negative affiliations. A fourth question is whether biophilia is cast so broadly that it can never be disconfirmed. Our answer: Perhaps so! That is troubling, from the scientific perspective. Yet it may be that biophilia is best understood not as a testable hypothesis in and of itself (any more than, say, the idea that people have an affinity for other people) but as a broad construct that helps to generate hundreds of important testable empirical questions and gives voice to the importance of the human–nature affiliation. CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL REASONING AND VALUES If the construct of biophilia has merit—and we believe it does— it still leaves unanswered major questions about the development and cultural underpinnings of the human relation with nature. Toward addressing these questions, Kahn (1999) and his colleagues conducted a series of cross-cultural studies on children’s environmental reasoning and values. Populations included, for example, African American children (ages 7, 9, and 11) in the inner city of Houston, Texas (Kahn & Friedman, 1995); Brazilian children (age 14) in an urban setting and in a remote location in the Amazon rainforest (Howe, Kahn, & Friedman, 1996); and Portuguese children and adolescents (ages 10, 13, 16, and 19) in Lisbon (Kahn & Lourenço, 2002). The methods were aligned with structural-developmental theory (Turiel, 1983), which posits that children’s conceptual knowledge undergoes qualitative changes in development through interaction with the physical and social world. Children were interviewed individually, with structured questions focused on such topics as water pollution, air pollution, parks and open spaces, plants, forests, individual animals, species, and living in harmony with nature. For example, one representative question (of 42 total questions) in Kahn and Lourenço (2002) was: ‘‘Let’s say that in Lisbon everyone throws their garbage in the river, would that be all right or not all right?’’ (p. 410). Across studies, results showed that animals, plants, and parks and open spaces played an important role in children’s lives. Children were aware that water pollution can harm birds, water, insects, and landscape aesthetics. Moreover, it mattered to children that harm might occur to each of these environmental constituents. Based on measures that controlled for magnitude of environmental harm and proximity to harm, children also believed that polluting a waterway violates a moral obligation. Other results across the above studies showed two overarching forms of children’s environmental reasoning: anthropocentric and biocentric. Anthropocentric reasoning concerns the ways that affecting the environment affects human beings—including appeals to personal predilections, aesthetics, justice, and physical, material, and psychological welfare considerations. Biocentric reasoning, while allowing for human interests, fundamentally concerns the moral standing of nature—including appeals to the intrinsic value of nature and justice for its constituents (e.g., animal rights). Quantitatively, across studies (and across cultures), anthropocentric reasoning was the predominant form of children’s reasoning, with only about 4% of the children offering biocentric reasons. Thus one important finding from this body of research is that children in diverse cultures— and even in harsh urban landscapes—have meaningful and moral relations with nature in at least some respects. TECHNOLOGICAL NATURE Recall that Wilson defined biophilia as the human affiliation with life and lifelike processes. To our knowledge, Wilson has never elaborated on what he means by lifelike processes. But the idea is provocative. Might interacting with lifelike nature— technological nature—provide humans the same psychological experience and benefits as actual nature? Toward addressing this question, Kahn and colleagues have embarked on a research program cutting across different technological forms. One form involves high-definition television (HDTV)-quality real-time views of nature through a 50-inch plasma-display ‘‘window.’’ In one study (Friedman, Freier, Kahn, Lin, & Sodeman, 2008), these plasma windows were installed in windowless offices of seven faculty and staff in a university setting (Fig. 1a). As shown in Table 1, over a 16-week period, we assessed participants’ practices, judgments, beliefs, and moods. Results showed that participants enjoyed the plasma-display window and 38 Volume 18—Number 1 Technological Nature