On Monday 11 March 2002 08:29 am, Bob Ewing & Jocelyn Paquette wrote: > Greetings, how Natural does a rural area remain as more people and > eventually the services they use, move into the rural area?
The definition of "natural" and "rural" are both moving targets. Each generation thinks what they see around them is natural but the older generation often knows different. The impact of introduced plants and diseases are difficult to track in one life time. I can remember growing up in Arizona and thinking the desert was alive. We had turtles, hoards of bugs, toads, birds, etc. Today when i go back it is a different world. The current residents define "natural" based on what they see around them. I see new grasses that were not there and many other introduced plants. I agree the major cause is people and population growth moving into rural areas. But, how do you convince others. Most are in cities and have different ideas about what is natural. Some think the answer is preserving species, animal rights, nature preserves, and other ideas that don't work. You can't preserve nature by putting it in a zoo or making rules. The real problem is our domination of the earth and continued development. Every perchase we make has an impact. Our air and water pollution reaches everywhere and growth constantly eats away at natural habitat. with that happy note trudge off into the woods muttering. <grin> jeff > > Gene GeRue wrote: > > >Still, i agree with the Center for Ecoliteracy. > > >We need to move nature away from textbooks, > > >and media presentation towards hands on experience. > > >Nature involves lots of dirt and dirt ins't found > > >in textbooks. > > > > There is some hope. Although societal focus today is on financial > > successes and purchases, the population trend is from urban to rural > > places. As more children are reared closer to nature, we might expect the > > population to increase its awareness. Learn it or lose it. >
