Nature-Deficit Disorder

There is a fantastic article in Newsweek on what Dr. Andrew Weil refers to as America's "Nature-Deficit Disorder". Here is a quote from the article,

"In my experience, the more people have, the less likely they are to be contented. Indeed, there is abundant evidence that depression is a disease of affluence, a disorder of modern life in the industrialized world. People who live in poorer countries have a lower risk of depression than those in industrialized nations. In general, countries with lifestyles that are furthest removed from modern standards have the lowest rates of depression."

He goes on to highlight the work of another psychologist Stephen Ilardi who has conducted research among the Old Order Amish that has found that members of this religious group -that shuns modern conveniences like cars or mobile phones- have far lower rates of depression than other Americans.

It seems that the more time we spend in doors in front of our t.v.'s and computers, the more depressed we become.  Behaviors strongly associated with depression such as reduced physical activity and human contact, and eating processed foods are the very things that nowadays our jobs and home lives literally force us to do.

I have always argued that a more sustainable life-style is also one that coincides with a happier, and healthier one. Just from my own experience those evenings when I come home from work after sitting in front of the computer all day and crash in front of the t.v. are the days when I feel more stressed and anxious. When I come home and talk with my neighbors, cook a nice meal, and go for a walk with my husband, I feel a lot more calm and relaxed.

So, I guess the moral of the story is that all of us need to conquer our "Nature Deficit Disorder", not just for the sake of the environment, but for ourselves as well.

Carnivores vs. People

There is a great article in the NY Times this morning on the changing relationships between wolves and ranchers. If you don't follow the state of large carnivores in the western U.S. here is that back story: In 1995 grey wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park. The wolves had long been extirpated from the area and, as a result, elk populations had exploded and were destroying the vegetation in the park. The program was a success and wolves rapidly spread outside the park boundaries.

The relationship between ranchers and wolves has always been a tense one. Most wolves do not prey on livestock but a minority can become chronic livestock predators. One of the ranchers had an interesting take on the situation. He argues that if Americans along the coasts want to see the grey wolf maintain a presence in the western U.S. than they should have to share the costs. I agree. And I also believe that maintaining healthy large carnivore populations is a necessary if we truly care about the health and diversity of our ecosystems and that the cost is well-worth it.

The red wolf is native to the southeastern U.S. They became extinct in the wild but, thanks to a captive breeding program, are now successfully breeding in North Carolina. I wander if the range of the red wolf starts to spread and the animals move into populated areas, will easterners be as eager to provide protection for this species versus the grey wolf which is out of sight and, therefore, out of mind for the most part?