2009 / Environmental Generational Amnesia, Virtual nature

The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature

Citation

Kahn, P. H., Severson, R. L., & Ruckert, J. H. (2009). The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 37–42. doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x

Link to file

Two powerful trends are reshaping human life: the steady degradation of the natural world and the unprecedented growth of technology. At the meeting point of these trends sits a new kind of experience researchers call “technological nature” — technologies that mediate, enhance, or simulate the natural world. Its forms are already familiar: nature documentaries and live webcams, robot animals, virtual environments, and even zoo exhibits that stream animal activity to a screen in a living room or café. Children play video games that engage them with animal life, and people now spend real time in virtual worlds. In many ways, nature is increasingly experienced through a screen, a speaker, or a simulation.

This raises a question with consequences for the physical and psychological well-being of people: does it matter that actual nature is being replaced with technological nature? Drawing on evolutionary and cross-cultural accounts of how humans relate to the natural world, along with recent psychological research on the effects of technological nature, the authors offer a provisional answer: yes, it matters. Their concern also addressed a phenomenon they call “environmental generational amnesia.” Because each generation adapts gradually to the loss of real nature and the growing presence of technological nature, the baseline for what counts as a full measure of human experience quietly shifts. What would have seemed impoverished to earlier generations may come to seem normal to later ones.

The worry, in other words, is not simply that nature is disappearing, but that people may forget what they are missing. As technological nature becomes more common, the authors suggest, future generations may unknowingly accept a diminished version of the natural world — and of human flourishing — as the standard. Understanding this quiet shift, they argue, is an important area for future research.

Abstract

Figure 1. Examples of technological nature. HDTV plasma “windows” displaying real-time images of the local nature scene outside the building are shown (a) installed in a participant’s office in a long-term field study (Friedman, Freier, Kahn, Lin, & Sodeman, 2008); and (b) covering up a real window in the plasma-window condition of an experimental study in the lab (Kahn et al., 2008). The camera that recorded looking behavior can be seen poking out from the drapes to the left of the plasma window. The plasma screen was not present in the glass-window condition of the experimental study; and the drapes were pulled across the entire wall for the blank-wall condition. The bottom pictures show technological nature in the form of a robot dog (AIBO; from Kahn, Friedman, Perez-Granados, & Freier, 2006). In (c), the participant has just been introduced to AIBO and approaches the robot a little apprehensively. Within a couple of seconds, AIBO begins to move toward the participant; in (d), the participant is startled and appears slightly apprehensive (not unlike how a person might respond when encountering a biological dog that he or she has never met before).

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.

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.