21 ms·

Nature has enormous emotional and cognitive benefits on people

460 points by happy-go-lucky 4y ago

temptemptemp111 4y ago
TedShiller 4y ago
The pro housing people always think more housing will lower rents. Apparently they’ve never been to a big, dense city.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  I am sure cities would be more affordable if we got rid of some of the residential buildings there...
- alephnan 4y ago
  You mean like Tokyo or pretty much anywhere in Japan?
  - TedShiller 4y ago
    Exactly, just like Tokyo, one of the most expensive cities in the world
    - tomjakubowski 4y ago
      Cost to rent a typical 2br apartment vs. population density. * City A: $1,903/mo, 6,158 persons / km² * City B: $3,685/mo, 6,659 persons / km² Can you guess which is Tokyo (prefecture), and which is Hong Kong? 2019 report from Deutsche Bank https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000494405.pdf?undefined&realload=i7ezKQcH/OT1PQlRsCYT/9Ci35npB6~GHUHOpmV8b4VF19Rxgyip3C6nXeccKm0c https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049... Another fun data point: Seoul is ~16,000 persons/km² with rent around $1100/mo.
    - n8cpdx 4y ago
      I’ve been searching all over and I can’t find any evidence that any Japanese cities are among the most expensive, when looking at housing costs. Can you please share your sources?
      - TedShiller 4y ago
        Tokyo residents
    - skinpop 4y ago
      It's very easy to find affordable living in Tokyo or any other big city in Japan.
      - TedShiller 4y ago
        Easy depends on your income
- n8cpdx 4y ago
  What is the right amount of housing to lower rents? How many units should we destroy or prevent to make housing affordable? Does spreading houses further apart make infrastructure per unit more or less expensive? Are you seriously anti-housing? Are you pro-homelessness? I honestly don’t get how someone can seriously take an “anti-housing” position, which is what I assume you are when you otherize “pro housing” people.
  - TedShiller 4y ago
    I don't know anyone who's "anti housing". Housing is an essential need for everyone. But putting more housing into an area that is already dense is not the answer, and it never has been. You should study induced demand. Has building more highways in LA improved traffic? No, it has only made it worse. Ever notice how every airport in the world is always under construction, and still always overcrowded? Yep, induced demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
    - resoluteteeth 4y ago
      "Induced demand" is not inherently bad. It means that people are doing more of something because they can. Induced demand also only occurs because demand is elastic. It is the natural result of supply increasing. It is often considered bad in the case of cars by people who are opposed to expanding roads specifically because if reducing traffic on roads or total miles driven is the goal then induced demand will not be a good idea, but it is important to realize that induced demand from expanding roads also means that more people are able to, for example, live farther away and commute longer distances in the same time. In other words, whether induced demand is good or bad depends on whether you want people to consume more of an elastic good or not from a policy perspective, which should probably be no in the case if driving cars. Housing is something that everyone needs, not something that people adjust consumption of based on availability. It is also something you want everyone to be consuming, so it is extremely weird to apply the idea of induced demand to it, unless you think that not everyone should have access to housing.
      - 4y ago
- donthellbanme 4y ago
  Housing like they have in Ukraine. Big hugh apartment buildings would help. (I don't know the water is suspose to come from though? Especially in the Bay Area.)
- bell-cot 4y ago
  It's the ratio of people to housing that matters. The world has plenty of ghost towns, nearly-abandoned villages, etc. with under 100 housing units...which are dirt cheap, because the people/housing unit ratio is far less than 1.
throwaway894345 4y ago
This is the sort of thing I think about when the pro-urban/pro-density/anti-car people talk about their vision for the world. I live in a city now, and the lack of substantial nature is suffocating to the extent that I plan to move. The idea that we should all live this way to conserve space—a resource which is only scarce in these urban places—seems excessive to put it mildly. EDIT: A lot of urban folks are rebutting my “substantial nature” complaint with references to their city’s parks, which is amusingly illustrative of our differing perspectives. I was thinking “mountains and forests”, not just green spaces scattered amid the concrete. EDIT 2: A lot of urban folks are talking like the suburbs are swallowing up the countryside. I’m sure they’ve grown, but it’s still a big world out there people. I can’t recommend a cross-country road trip enough. Y’all need to leave your cities once in a while and see the world that you have such strong opinions about! :)
- tjr225 4y ago
  You’re presenting a false dichotomy. There are plenty of dense places with incredible nature within just an hours drive. In the USA, Maybe not so much outside of the West Coast of the USA however. Personally, living in a city close to nature(seattle area) has been the best thing for me so far in my life; I have spent a stupid amount of money making it happen but wouldn’t trade it for anything. On the flip side it’s not for everybody, so don’t just take my word for it. On the other hand I will be riding my bike to a ferry, and then riding to a camp site on a beach on an island after work on Friday- weather permitting.
  - aix1 4y ago
    Yes, this is absolutely a false dichotomy. I live in Zurich, with access to varied nature (hills, lake, river) all within a 15 minutes' walk and lots of stunning scenery easily accessible by train.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Yeah, I didn’t mean to frame it as a dichotomy, but it was a HN comment so I didn’t explore the full depth of nuance, and it was scoped to the US. Yes, some places are dense while still allowing some access to nature.
0des 4y ago
Nature has an allure, whether it is a window by your desk, or plants in your office. This year I made a resolution to add more plants to my office and home, and slowly both are filling up with various ferns and mosses and other indoor plants. The relaxing effects of being able to walk over to the garden shelf and have my thoughts to myself while I inspect them is something you don't get to enjoy often. If you find yourself staying at the desk for long periods and want to get up more, get a few plants, find an area with some light or a lamp and see what you can do. It is pretty cozy!
- radicality 4y ago
  Any resources you can recommend to learn more about house plants / how to choose them / how to care for them? So far I have a snake plant and an orchid but want to get more.
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    Find a local plant nursery and see if they have any advice. The sort of plants that will work for you will depend on how much effort you're going to put in, what sort of space you have, what kind of home climate you like to keep. Something that I have found very satisfying is to have a couple of small planters with herbs growing in them. Most don't take much effort, can survive fine by a window with decent light, and the net result is some fresh herbs once in a while.
  - 0des 4y ago
    Actually yes, there is a person named Planterina on YouTube with the most charming personality. There is a whole community for houseplants on YouTube, you'll see what I mean in the suggested videos. There is also a soft spoken young man by the name of Benjiplant, his videos always seem to pop up after I've been watching Planterina.
awsrocks 4y ago
Give me an afternoon at the beach, some beers, a little shade, beautiful people all around- nothing is more recharging for me.
Mikeb85 4y ago
I live in the mountains 400 km away from any city. Can confirm it's pretty nice.
- arminiusreturns 4y ago
  It rough for us mountain people who have to live in the city though. I miss the mountains and forest so much. What's even worse is my plan to retire back to the mountains is now going to be so hard because of all the outsiders inflating property prices that were already high. It is nice to have so many conveniences and things to do available in the city (a trip to the store isn't a once a month thing because it's so far away), but the spiritual/mental benefits of living in and near nature are second to nothing for me at least.
colordrops 4y ago
Analogous: Zoo animals are much happier and healthier when released into the wild.
- sexy_seedbox 4y ago
  Of course wild animals would be happier when released from their prison cells.
dilap 4y ago
I wonder how much of it is just relief from the constant psychological attack of advertising?
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  It will depend a lot on where you live and what media you consume though; I don't feel it that much over where I live. At best there's some signs along the main road.
radu_floricica 4y ago
Funny thing is, making cities more green isn't even _that_ difficult. I see above conversations on living closer to nature, or mountains vs parks - but the vast majority of time spent is walking and driving in the cities. So it seems a no-brainer that before everything else, before thinking about taking a 2 hour drive to hike, or making the time for a weekly visit to the park, we should first make sure the places people actually walk through and live in every day are as green as possible. There is no one solution, of course, since at the very least climates and budgets can be wildly different, but a good start is making sure every street has a green canopy above, starting with the largest. After that, take every space you can and put something living on it.
- diob 4y ago
  This is part of why I love visiting Japan, so much nature scattered throughout otherwise urban areas. Lot's of other places in the world like it as well. Makes me jealous since I love in the concrete wasteland that is Phoenix.
  - ema 4y ago
    Take a stroll around the intersection of north Randolph road and north 14th street. Randomly stumbled upon this when I was visiting Phoenix and it was a nice surprise. Overall I would say that concrete wasteland is a bit too harsh, at least the parts I walked through had a decent amount of vegetation here and there.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    Hey fellow Phoenician! I actually have a different experience in Arizona. The masterplan communities here are great at prioritizing community space. My neighborhood is connected by an interior park-like trail that twists and winds for 22miles. Most houses are within 2 blocks of an entrance to the trail system, and there are two separate k-12 schools attached to the trails so kiddos can ride their scooters/bikes to school in the morning. There’s also some of the best hiking in the world around here. The camelback ridge line is awesome, a bunch of abandoned mines with surrounding settlements to go explore, etc. and it’s only 45minutes to the rim where, thanks to the jump in elevation, you start seeing more green.
tonguez 4y ago
what is “nature”?
- whaaswijk 4y ago
  Grass and trees and such. Perhaps bushes and animals too.
- carapace 4y ago
  Four-billion-year-old self-improving nanotechnology.
anoplus 4y ago
I have set myself a daily dose of daylight exposure, either by going out or looking through windows. I feel my sleep has improved since I started a week ago. Although I don't want to jump to conclusions early. So maybe nature, or daylight, or good weather, or all of them - does it to me. I write this comment while sitting in a local garden to start my day.
betwixthewires 4y ago
The title is butchered, badly, and the article itself is written bullet point, pop sci style and not even that good. tl;dr "go outside."
d--b 4y ago
This what I liked living in lower Manhattan. Whenever I felt the stress levels going up, I’d rent a citibike early in the morning (forgot what they’re called now) and cycled down to battery park through the riverside and went back up on the other side. It’s not exactly the most nature-y thing to do, but it was so refreshing. Same thing in Los Angeles, just climb up the canyons and enjoy the view. Amazing really. I think the view does it for me more than nature. Being in front of some spectacular landscape gives me perspective (perhaps it’s why we call it persoective?)
koboll 4y ago
I wonder if this title isn't a bit backwards. We are creatures that emerged from nature; being in nature is baseline to us. A better way to phrase this might be "being constantly trapped in a world made of concrete and drywall causes enormous emotional and cognitive detriments to people".
- mjburgess 4y ago
  They're only artificial caves, where we spent much of our time anyway.
- playpause 4y ago
  I imagine your comment was meant with a bit of humour, so don't read too much into the following! But it got me thinking about optimism and pessimism. The HN post title (at time of writing): > Nature has enormous emotional and cognitive benefits on people Yours: > Being constantly trapped in a world made of concrete and drywall causes enormous emotional and cognitive detriments to people It's just "Things could be better" vs "Things are bad". They are pretty much the same in terms of what they say/imply about current reality. I think the HN title is actually closer to an objective statement than yours. Yours is ornately, floridly pessimistic. I think a lot of people (esp. engineering types, including me) suffer from a recurring tacit belief that: pessimism is better than optimism for getting at objective truth. I used to argue that both leanings are equally likely to result in poor judgement, with 'realism' smack in the middle. But I now go further and believe that fostering a slightly optimistic lean is actually better than 'no lean' – not just in the sense that 'you'll have a nicer time', but in terms of maximising how often you are correct in your observations of reality, in the long term. Because zero lean is impossible to maintain all the time. Our observations almost always rely on heuristics to accommodate for incomplete data or insufficient time. So you are going to err in your objective judgements about reality sometimes. And when you err on the optimistic side in a way that matters, reality tends to tap you on the nose and correct you fairly promptly. Which can hurt a bit, especially for someone who spends most of their waking life working with complex systems that are unforgiving about tiny details being incorrect - this trains us to to think of all the ways something might go wrong, so we feel bad when we failed to predict a negative event. But for most of life outside of solving engineering problems, eg, dealing with more organic/nebulous things like 'other people' or 'long term goals' or 'relaxing', being optimistically incorrect in your judgements and then being corrected by reality is better than being pessimistically incorrect and not being corrected. When you make pessimistic errors in judgement, you don't get actively corrected as much, so your ability to make objective observations drifts further pessimistic, worsening your decision making, worsening your situation, and it cycles downward. Eventually some kind of correction comes, but usually after hitting a new low, by which point a few things have gone wrong in your life and the climb back up is difficult. A slightly optimistic lean doesn't seem to have the equivalent problem (of drifting ever more optimistic until you're problematically divorced from reality). At least for me, anyway. I think this might be because a positive state of mind tends to be more active and therefore able to run more thoughts in parallel, including thoughts that can gently correct others that have gone a bit too far, while a negative mindset is more monotone.
poxwole 4y ago
Duh!
dlkf 4y ago
Most of the studies in the linked APA article have all the hallmarks of the replication crisis: - Small sample sizes (O(100)) - Low correlation coefficients - Everybody is predisposed to believe the conclusion (what kind of monster doesn't like nature?) - There is zero incentive to report a negative finding And even if some of the studies do replicate, the response variable is often either self-reported, or performance on some written test or survey: so it's not really clear what we are even measuring. What is the unit of "general connectedness" ? How about "eudaimonic well-being" ? These are not legitimate scientific concepts. Nature is great. I find that a long walk in the woods is a good way to clear my head. But I'm not convinced that these studies add anything to my common sense intuitions about the matter. And by using weak methods to justify something we all already believe (or want to believe), we risk degrading trust in science that will be greatly needed when scientists reach a conclusion that isn't politically convenient.
- Helmut10001 4y ago
  Beyond that, to me "Nature has enormous emotional and cognitive benefits on people" is the same as putting a warning sign on car batteries saying "Don't drink the battery acid": This should be entirely common sense. Why would there be no cognitive benefit, when nature is the environment humans evolved in and that sustained life for millions of years?
- gmac 4y ago
  Two points on this: (1) If you want to know how people feel, I’m afraid self-reports are the gold standard (2) Some other studies have large sample sizes (e.g. this one, which is based on my PhD: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49376/1/Mourato_Happiness_greater_natural_2013.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49376/1/Mourato_Happiness_greater_...)
  - dlkf 4y ago
    > If you want to know how people feel, I’m afraid self-reports are the gold standard "How people feel" can't directly be measured scientifically, but it is a function of many things, some of which can be measured reliably (weight, blood pressure, money, etc). I'd rather have a reliable measurement of quantity that I believe contributes to well-being than a direct measurement of well-being that I think is unreliable. This is brought into sharp relief when you consider the applications of this research. Suppose intervention A is know to promote subjective well being, whereas intervention B is known to promote healthy blood pressure levels. What would you rather spend money on? > Some other studies have large sample sizes This is a fair point. The 2019 Nature study also has large-n. I also like that the authors of that one write "Future studies would ideally collate as much data via non self-report measures as possible." But as far as I can tell, all the large-n studies are observational. As other commenters have pointed out, when the treatment is so general it's really hard to control for confounding factors. The study you've linked (and the 2019 Nature study) both implemented controls, all of which look reasonable. But when we find an effect, we are still left the question: "What if we just missed a major confounder? What if the cumulative impact of small confounders for which we can't control for is responsible for the signal?"
Gatsky 4y ago
Yes, nature feels like home. This is most obvious when you let a young child loose in nature. They are both enthralled and tranquil at the same time, it’s quite a surprise to see the first time.
cortic 4y ago
Skeptical about these kinds of claims, they usually are mixing up cause and effect; People who are emotionally and cognitively healthy tend to go outside more because they are healthy, i don't know how you would control for that.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Not only healthy, but also able; live close to nature, own a car, or have enough money and time to seek it out, and of course inclination.
jwilk 4y ago
Text-only version: https://text.npr.org/1092822560 https://text.npr.org/1092822560
nathias 4y ago
Cities were a mistake, now that we have the technology we should disperse back into nature.
bigfudge 4y ago
Before people get too excited... I've examined a number of phds on this topic as a relative outsider to the field and have been pretty unimpressed by the claims of env-psych on green/bluespace. The methods used to unpack confounding by class/wealth are pretty minimal and, although lip service is occasionally paid to this in discussions sections after reviewers require it, nobody in the field seems to take it seriously. The effects are an order of magnitude smaller than those of social class. The real story here is 'don't be poor' rather than 'get outdoors more'.
- brohoolio 4y ago
  I’ll say from my own experience getting out in nature calms me and makes me feel better. Maybe it’s just the exercise of walking, maybe it’s seeing the trees and feeling the wind. It’s a good idea for folks to try it out and see how it makes them feel.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Aren't those substantially the same thing in modern cities? In my city the difference is clear and profound: wealthy white neighborhoods have grass and tree cover on all residential streets, and poor and minority neighborhoods are concrete and asphalt. On any similar metric you map the city by you see the same effects. Air pollution, noise level, and heat in the summer vary hugely by neighborhood but always follow this pattern.
ahwvd37js 4y ago
What’s the mechanism of action?
losvedir 4y ago
I totally believe in the value of being in nature. It's hard to go for a walk surrounded by trees and chirping birds and not come away happier and refreshed, in my experience. But I'm more skeptical about this in the article: > Need a quick break from your "work screen time" for some "fun screen time?" There's a nature fix for that: Check out the #FindThatLizard game on Twitter and Instagram. Science communicator and herpetologist Earyn McGee posts a picture of a lizard "camouflaged in its natural environment, and people have to find the lizard in the photo." You don't even have to leave your couch to play. I can't imagine there's the same benefits to looking at nature on Instagram or Twitter.
- kderbyma 4y ago
  in fact....twitter is sure to make your life more miserable.
bloopernova 4y ago
There's also research indicating that certain wavelengths of green light may help with chronic pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33155057/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33155057/
whiddershins 4y ago
One of the things about experiencing nature is it is a somewhat uncontrolled environment. I believe this affects my brain in a very specific way. In this regard, parks and such are a poor substitute.
throwawaycanal 4y ago
guggleet 4y ago
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RDZIU1Xk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RDZIU1Xk
lesgobrandon 4y ago
fillskills 4y ago
At HealingGardens.co we are bringing people closer to nature. We served 1400 customers so far in 1 year and plan to do more. Actively looking for a cofounder who can develop full stack. If interested, please email abhi@healinggardens.co
jasonladuke0311 4y ago
I found a huge increase in happiness when I moved from Vegas to Denver. I am outside much more often and frequently have the windows open at home. Supposedly the presence of trees has been shown to improve mood (no citation, read the abstract on HN somewhere). Of course, there have been other life changes that have contributed but I feel this is a large reason.
neonihil 4y ago
Yeah… so let’s cut the trees and pour concrete everywhere, so people will feel so miserable that the Metaverse becomes economically viable. /Slow clap </sarcasm>
naikrovek 4y ago
well maybe if nature would stop trying to asphyxiate me, and stop sending bugs which bite me and suck my blood preferentially over others, I would visit more. as of right now, i've learned that i am persona-non-grata anywhere there is not air conditioning.
kderbyma 4y ago
Don't design cities for driving, design them for thriving and literally build ecosystems beyond our artificial urban landscapes
hombre_fatal 4y ago
Wouldn’t be an NPR blog post without bringing up colonialism, and sure enough, there it is.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Yeah, I remember being a proud NPR listener back before they went off the deep end. I’m still hoping it’s a phase they grow out of.
  - president 4y ago
    I realized this too, then realized all of their sponsored segments are left leaning organizations and foundations.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      Pretty sure that was also the case before they found religion.
    - teachrdan 4y ago
      Do you have any data to back up this assertion? The latest list of sponsors I've found, from 2019, shows these companies in the $1,000,000+ category. Can you spot a single one that is "left leaning"? (I'm tempted to make a bad joke here about a misunderstanding around the name "Progressive Insurance".) Angie’s List General Motors Corporation Lumber Liquidators Northwestern Mutual Foundation Novo Nordisk Progressive Casualty Insurance Company Prudential Financial State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company https://media.npr.org/documents/about/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf https://media.npr.org/documents/about/annualreports/NPRSpons...
  - sg47 4y ago
    Maybe it's because the right wing has gone off the deep end trying to do coups because they can't win elections legally.
    - 4y ago
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
In the difference in air content between in door air and outdoor/forest air able to have cognitive and health aspects? see e.g. potential unintended cognitive consequences of CO2 emissions: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269881111415729 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026988111141572... Any documentation on the variance of percentage of C02 and oxygen ? Do polyphenols (via pollen?) have relevant effects intranasally ? off-topic but related to title is plant blindness https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190425-plant-blindness-what-we-lose-with-nature-deficit-disorder https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190425-plant-blindness-...
- comboy 4y ago
  A few minutes with window open and you are back to the outside CO2 levels, so I don't think it's just CO2 (unless you have really high levels of it, sensors are pretty cheap nowadays and can serve as a good reminder to let in some fresh air). Not sure about pollen but trees produce chemicals that kill pathogens which attack them. Which is why it's healthy to breath forest air especially when you have a cold. Plus they are great at filtering air. btw 'Think of time in nature as a "multivitamin" — it's best to take it every day' - I don't know how this ends up in articles like this with so much research against it (multivitamins that is), they might have as well been suggesting draining your blood everyday.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Except people don't open their windows because it's cold or the someone in the office doesn't like the breeze or the temp or the sound..... Loosing blood has many beneficial effects including increasing blood oxygen levels as new blood cells are generated with better mitochondrial activity
    - LeonB 4y ago
      Yes - so better comparison would be “think of it like leeches- best applied regularly to reduce your circulating blood volume”

temptemptemp111 4y ago

TedShiller 4y ago

The pro housing people always think more housing will lower rents. Apparently they’ve never been to a big, dense city.

ajmurmann 4y ago
I am sure cities would be more affordable if we got rid of some of the residential buildings there...
alephnan 4y ago
You mean like Tokyo or pretty much anywhere in Japan?
- TedShiller 4y ago
  Exactly, just like Tokyo, one of the most expensive cities in the world
  - tomjakubowski 4y ago
    Cost to rent a typical 2br apartment vs. population density. * City A: $1,903/mo, 6,158 persons / km² * City B: $3,685/mo, 6,659 persons / km² Can you guess which is Tokyo (prefecture), and which is Hong Kong? 2019 report from Deutsche Bank https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000494405.pdf?undefined&realload=i7ezKQcH/OT1PQlRsCYT/9Ci35npB6~GHUHOpmV8b4VF19Rxgyip3C6nXeccKm0c https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD000000000049... Another fun data point: Seoul is ~16,000 persons/km² with rent around $1100/mo.
  - n8cpdx 4y ago
    I’ve been searching all over and I can’t find any evidence that any Japanese cities are among the most expensive, when looking at housing costs. Can you please share your sources?
    - TedShiller 4y ago
      Tokyo residents
  - skinpop 4y ago
    It's very easy to find affordable living in Tokyo or any other big city in Japan.
    - TedShiller 4y ago
      Easy depends on your income
n8cpdx 4y ago
What is the right amount of housing to lower rents? How many units should we destroy or prevent to make housing affordable? Does spreading houses further apart make infrastructure per unit more or less expensive? Are you seriously anti-housing? Are you pro-homelessness? I honestly don’t get how someone can seriously take an “anti-housing” position, which is what I assume you are when you otherize “pro housing” people.
- TedShiller 4y ago
  I don't know anyone who's "anti housing". Housing is an essential need for everyone. But putting more housing into an area that is already dense is not the answer, and it never has been. You should study induced demand. Has building more highways in LA improved traffic? No, it has only made it worse. Ever notice how every airport in the world is always under construction, and still always overcrowded? Yep, induced demand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
  - resoluteteeth 4y ago
    "Induced demand" is not inherently bad. It means that people are doing more of something because they can. Induced demand also only occurs because demand is elastic. It is the natural result of supply increasing. It is often considered bad in the case of cars by people who are opposed to expanding roads specifically because if reducing traffic on roads or total miles driven is the goal then induced demand will not be a good idea, but it is important to realize that induced demand from expanding roads also means that more people are able to, for example, live farther away and commute longer distances in the same time. In other words, whether induced demand is good or bad depends on whether you want people to consume more of an elastic good or not from a policy perspective, which should probably be no in the case if driving cars. Housing is something that everyone needs, not something that people adjust consumption of based on availability. It is also something you want everyone to be consuming, so it is extremely weird to apply the idea of induced demand to it, unless you think that not everyone should have access to housing.
    - 4y ago
donthellbanme 4y ago
Housing like they have in Ukraine. Big hugh apartment buildings would help. (I don't know the water is suspose to come from though? Especially in the Bay Area.)
bell-cot 4y ago
It's the ratio of people to housing that matters. The world has plenty of ghost towns, nearly-abandoned villages, etc. with under 100 housing units...which are dirt cheap, because the people/housing unit ratio is far less than 1.

throwaway894345 4y ago

This is the sort of thing I think about when the pro-urban/pro-density/anti-car people talk about their vision for the world. I live in a city now, and the lack of substantial nature is suffocating to the extent that I plan to move. The idea that we should all live this way to conserve space—a resource which is only scarce in these urban places—seems excessive to put it mildly. EDIT: A lot of urban folks are rebutting my “substantial nature” complaint with references to their city’s parks, which is amusingly illustrative of our differing perspectives. I was thinking “mountains and forests”, not just green spaces scattered amid the concrete. EDIT 2: A lot of urban folks are talking like the suburbs are swallowing up the countryside. I’m sure they’ve grown, but it’s still a big world out there people. I can’t recommend a cross-country road trip enough. Y’all need to leave your cities once in a while and see the world that you have such strong opinions about! :)

tjr225 4y ago
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. There are plenty of dense places with incredible nature within just an hours drive. In the USA, Maybe not so much outside of the West Coast of the USA however. Personally, living in a city close to nature(seattle area) has been the best thing for me so far in my life; I have spent a stupid amount of money making it happen but wouldn’t trade it for anything. On the flip side it’s not for everybody, so don’t just take my word for it. On the other hand I will be riding my bike to a ferry, and then riding to a camp site on a beach on an island after work on Friday- weather permitting.
- aix1 4y ago
  Yes, this is absolutely a false dichotomy. I live in Zurich, with access to varied nature (hills, lake, river) all within a 15 minutes' walk and lots of stunning scenery easily accessible by train.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Yeah, I didn’t mean to frame it as a dichotomy, but it was a HN comment so I didn’t explore the full depth of nuance, and it was scoped to the US. Yes, some places are dense while still allowing some access to nature.

0des 4y ago

Nature has an allure, whether it is a window by your desk, or plants in your office. This year I made a resolution to add more plants to my office and home, and slowly both are filling up with various ferns and mosses and other indoor plants. The relaxing effects of being able to walk over to the garden shelf and have my thoughts to myself while I inspect them is something you don't get to enjoy often. If you find yourself staying at the desk for long periods and want to get up more, get a few plants, find an area with some light or a lamp and see what you can do. It is pretty cozy!

radicality 4y ago
Any resources you can recommend to learn more about house plants / how to choose them / how to care for them? So far I have a snake plant and an orchid but want to get more.
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  Find a local plant nursery and see if they have any advice. The sort of plants that will work for you will depend on how much effort you're going to put in, what sort of space you have, what kind of home climate you like to keep. Something that I have found very satisfying is to have a couple of small planters with herbs growing in them. Most don't take much effort, can survive fine by a window with decent light, and the net result is some fresh herbs once in a while.
- 0des 4y ago
  Actually yes, there is a person named Planterina on YouTube with the most charming personality. There is a whole community for houseplants on YouTube, you'll see what I mean in the suggested videos. There is also a soft spoken young man by the name of Benjiplant, his videos always seem to pop up after I've been watching Planterina.

awsrocks 4y ago

Give me an afternoon at the beach, some beers, a little shade, beautiful people all around- nothing is more recharging for me.

Mikeb85 4y ago

I live in the mountains 400 km away from any city. Can confirm it's pretty nice.

arminiusreturns 4y ago
It rough for us mountain people who have to live in the city though. I miss the mountains and forest so much. What's even worse is my plan to retire back to the mountains is now going to be so hard because of all the outsiders inflating property prices that were already high. It is nice to have so many conveniences and things to do available in the city (a trip to the store isn't a once a month thing because it's so far away), but the spiritual/mental benefits of living in and near nature are second to nothing for me at least.

colordrops 4y ago

Analogous: Zoo animals are much happier and healthier when released into the wild.

sexy_seedbox 4y ago
Of course wild animals would be happier when released from their prison cells.

dilap 4y ago

I wonder how much of it is just relief from the constant psychological attack of advertising?

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
It will depend a lot on where you live and what media you consume though; I don't feel it that much over where I live. At best there's some signs along the main road.

radu_floricica 4y ago

Funny thing is, making cities more green isn't even _that_ difficult. I see above conversations on living closer to nature, or mountains vs parks - but the vast majority of time spent is walking and driving in the cities. So it seems a no-brainer that before everything else, before thinking about taking a 2 hour drive to hike, or making the time for a weekly visit to the park, we should first make sure the places people actually walk through and live in every day are as green as possible. There is no one solution, of course, since at the very least climates and budgets can be wildly different, but a good start is making sure every street has a green canopy above, starting with the largest. After that, take every space you can and put something living on it.

diob 4y ago
This is part of why I love visiting Japan, so much nature scattered throughout otherwise urban areas. Lot's of other places in the world like it as well. Makes me jealous since I love in the concrete wasteland that is Phoenix.
- ema 4y ago
  Take a stroll around the intersection of north Randolph road and north 14th street. Randomly stumbled upon this when I was visiting Phoenix and it was a nice surprise. Overall I would say that concrete wasteland is a bit too harsh, at least the parts I walked through had a decent amount of vegetation here and there.
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  Hey fellow Phoenician! I actually have a different experience in Arizona. The masterplan communities here are great at prioritizing community space. My neighborhood is connected by an interior park-like trail that twists and winds for 22miles. Most houses are within 2 blocks of an entrance to the trail system, and there are two separate k-12 schools attached to the trails so kiddos can ride their scooters/bikes to school in the morning. There’s also some of the best hiking in the world around here. The camelback ridge line is awesome, a bunch of abandoned mines with surrounding settlements to go explore, etc. and it’s only 45minutes to the rim where, thanks to the jump in elevation, you start seeing more green.

tonguez 4y ago

what is “nature”?

whaaswijk 4y ago
Grass and trees and such. Perhaps bushes and animals too.
carapace 4y ago
Four-billion-year-old self-improving nanotechnology.

anoplus 4y ago

I have set myself a daily dose of daylight exposure, either by going out or looking through windows. I feel my sleep has improved since I started a week ago. Although I don't want to jump to conclusions early. So maybe nature, or daylight, or good weather, or all of them - does it to me. I write this comment while sitting in a local garden to start my day.

betwixthewires 4y ago

The title is butchered, badly, and the article itself is written bullet point, pop sci style and not even that good. tl;dr "go outside."

d--b 4y ago

This what I liked living in lower Manhattan. Whenever I felt the stress levels going up, I’d rent a citibike early in the morning (forgot what they’re called now) and cycled down to battery park through the riverside and went back up on the other side. It’s not exactly the most nature-y thing to do, but it was so refreshing. Same thing in Los Angeles, just climb up the canyons and enjoy the view. Amazing really. I think the view does it for me more than nature. Being in front of some spectacular landscape gives me perspective (perhaps it’s why we call it persoective?)

koboll 4y ago

I wonder if this title isn't a bit backwards. We are creatures that emerged from nature; being in nature is baseline to us. A better way to phrase this might be "being constantly trapped in a world made of concrete and drywall causes enormous emotional and cognitive detriments to people".

mjburgess 4y ago
They're only artificial caves, where we spent much of our time anyway.
playpause 4y ago
I imagine your comment was meant with a bit of humour, so don't read too much into the following! But it got me thinking about optimism and pessimism. The HN post title (at time of writing): > Nature has enormous emotional and cognitive benefits on people Yours: > Being constantly trapped in a world made of concrete and drywall causes enormous emotional and cognitive detriments to people It's just "Things could be better" vs "Things are bad". They are pretty much the same in terms of what they say/imply about current reality. I think the HN title is actually closer to an objective statement than yours. Yours is ornately, floridly pessimistic. I think a lot of people (esp. engineering types, including me) suffer from a recurring tacit belief that: pessimism is better than optimism for getting at objective truth. I used to argue that both leanings are equally likely to result in poor judgement, with 'realism' smack in the middle. But I now go further and believe that fostering a slightly optimistic lean is actually better than 'no lean' – not just in the sense that 'you'll have a nicer time', but in terms of maximising how often you are correct in your observations of reality, in the long term. Because zero lean is impossible to maintain all the time. Our observations almost always rely on heuristics to accommodate for incomplete data or insufficient time. So you are going to err in your objective judgements about reality sometimes. And when you err on the optimistic side in a way that matters, reality tends to tap you on the nose and correct you fairly promptly. Which can hurt a bit, especially for someone who spends most of their waking life working with complex systems that are unforgiving about tiny details being incorrect - this trains us to to think of all the ways something might go wrong, so we feel bad when we failed to predict a negative event. But for most of life outside of solving engineering problems, eg, dealing with more organic/nebulous things like 'other people' or 'long term goals' or 'relaxing', being optimistically incorrect in your judgements and then being corrected by reality is better than being pessimistically incorrect and not being corrected. When you make pessimistic errors in judgement, you don't get actively corrected as much, so your ability to make objective observations drifts further pessimistic, worsening your decision making, worsening your situation, and it cycles downward. Eventually some kind of correction comes, but usually after hitting a new low, by which point a few things have gone wrong in your life and the climb back up is difficult. A slightly optimistic lean doesn't seem to have the equivalent problem (of drifting ever more optimistic until you're problematically divorced from reality). At least for me, anyway. I think this might be because a positive state of mind tends to be more active and therefore able to run more thoughts in parallel, including thoughts that can gently correct others that have gone a bit too far, while a negative mindset is more monotone.

poxwole 4y ago

Duh!

dlkf 4y ago

Most of the studies in the linked APA article have all the hallmarks of the replication crisis: - Small sample sizes (O(100)) - Low correlation coefficients - Everybody is predisposed to believe the conclusion (what kind of monster doesn't like nature?) - There is zero incentive to report a negative finding And even if some of the studies do replicate, the response variable is often either self-reported, or performance on some written test or survey: so it's not really clear what we are even measuring. What is the unit of "general connectedness" ? How about "eudaimonic well-being" ? These are not legitimate scientific concepts. Nature is great. I find that a long walk in the woods is a good way to clear my head. But I'm not convinced that these studies add anything to my common sense intuitions about the matter. And by using weak methods to justify something we all already believe (or want to believe), we risk degrading trust in science that will be greatly needed when scientists reach a conclusion that isn't politically convenient.

Helmut10001 4y ago
Beyond that, to me "Nature has enormous emotional and cognitive benefits on people" is the same as putting a warning sign on car batteries saying "Don't drink the battery acid": This should be entirely common sense. Why would there be no cognitive benefit, when nature is the environment humans evolved in and that sustained life for millions of years?
gmac 4y ago
Two points on this: (1) If you want to know how people feel, I’m afraid self-reports are the gold standard (2) Some other studies have large sample sizes (e.g. this one, which is based on my PhD: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49376/1/Mourato_Happiness_greater_natural_2013.pdf https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/49376/1/Mourato_Happiness_greater_...)
- dlkf 4y ago
  > If you want to know how people feel, I’m afraid self-reports are the gold standard "How people feel" can't directly be measured scientifically, but it is a function of many things, some of which can be measured reliably (weight, blood pressure, money, etc). I'd rather have a reliable measurement of quantity that I believe contributes to well-being than a direct measurement of well-being that I think is unreliable. This is brought into sharp relief when you consider the applications of this research. Suppose intervention A is know to promote subjective well being, whereas intervention B is known to promote healthy blood pressure levels. What would you rather spend money on? > Some other studies have large sample sizes This is a fair point. The 2019 Nature study also has large-n. I also like that the authors of that one write "Future studies would ideally collate as much data via non self-report measures as possible." But as far as I can tell, all the large-n studies are observational. As other commenters have pointed out, when the treatment is so general it's really hard to control for confounding factors. The study you've linked (and the 2019 Nature study) both implemented controls, all of which look reasonable. But when we find an effect, we are still left the question: "What if we just missed a major confounder? What if the cumulative impact of small confounders for which we can't control for is responsible for the signal?"

Gatsky 4y ago

Yes, nature feels like home. This is most obvious when you let a young child loose in nature. They are both enthralled and tranquil at the same time, it’s quite a surprise to see the first time.

cortic 4y ago

Skeptical about these kinds of claims, they usually are mixing up cause and effect; People who are emotionally and cognitively healthy tend to go outside more because they are healthy, i don't know how you would control for that.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Not only healthy, but also able; live close to nature, own a car, or have enough money and time to seek it out, and of course inclination.

jwilk 4y ago

Text-only version: https://text.npr.org/1092822560 https://text.npr.org/1092822560

nathias 4y ago

Cities were a mistake, now that we have the technology we should disperse back into nature.

bigfudge 4y ago

Before people get too excited... I've examined a number of phds on this topic as a relative outsider to the field and have been pretty unimpressed by the claims of env-psych on green/bluespace. The methods used to unpack confounding by class/wealth are pretty minimal and, although lip service is occasionally paid to this in discussions sections after reviewers require it, nobody in the field seems to take it seriously. The effects are an order of magnitude smaller than those of social class. The real story here is 'don't be poor' rather than 'get outdoors more'.

brohoolio 4y ago
I’ll say from my own experience getting out in nature calms me and makes me feel better. Maybe it’s just the exercise of walking, maybe it’s seeing the trees and feeling the wind. It’s a good idea for folks to try it out and see how it makes them feel.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
Aren't those substantially the same thing in modern cities? In my city the difference is clear and profound: wealthy white neighborhoods have grass and tree cover on all residential streets, and poor and minority neighborhoods are concrete and asphalt. On any similar metric you map the city by you see the same effects. Air pollution, noise level, and heat in the summer vary hugely by neighborhood but always follow this pattern.

ahwvd37js 4y ago

What’s the mechanism of action?

losvedir 4y ago

I totally believe in the value of being in nature. It's hard to go for a walk surrounded by trees and chirping birds and not come away happier and refreshed, in my experience. But I'm more skeptical about this in the article: > Need a quick break from your "work screen time" for some "fun screen time?" There's a nature fix for that: Check out the #FindThatLizard game on Twitter and Instagram. Science communicator and herpetologist Earyn McGee posts a picture of a lizard "camouflaged in its natural environment, and people have to find the lizard in the photo." You don't even have to leave your couch to play. I can't imagine there's the same benefits to looking at nature on Instagram or Twitter.

kderbyma 4y ago
in fact....twitter is sure to make your life more miserable.

bloopernova 4y ago

There's also research indicating that certain wavelengths of green light may help with chronic pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33155057/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33155057/

whiddershins 4y ago

One of the things about experiencing nature is it is a somewhat uncontrolled environment. I believe this affects my brain in a very specific way. In this regard, parks and such are a poor substitute.

throwawaycanal 4y ago

guggleet 4y ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RDZIU1Xk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RDZIU1Xk

lesgobrandon 4y ago

fillskills 4y ago

At HealingGardens.co we are bringing people closer to nature. We served 1400 customers so far in 1 year and plan to do more. Actively looking for a cofounder who can develop full stack. If interested, please email abhi@healinggardens.co

jasonladuke0311 4y ago

I found a huge increase in happiness when I moved from Vegas to Denver. I am outside much more often and frequently have the windows open at home. Supposedly the presence of trees has been shown to improve mood (no citation, read the abstract on HN somewhere). Of course, there have been other life changes that have contributed but I feel this is a large reason.

neonihil 4y ago

Yeah… so let’s cut the trees and pour concrete everywhere, so people will feel so miserable that the Metaverse becomes economically viable. /Slow clap </sarcasm>

naikrovek 4y ago

well maybe if nature would stop trying to asphyxiate me, and stop sending bugs which bite me and suck my blood preferentially over others, I would visit more. as of right now, i've learned that i am persona-non-grata anywhere there is not air conditioning.

kderbyma 4y ago

Don't design cities for driving, design them for thriving and literally build ecosystems beyond our artificial urban landscapes

hombre_fatal 4y ago

Wouldn’t be an NPR blog post without bringing up colonialism, and sure enough, there it is.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Yeah, I remember being a proud NPR listener back before they went off the deep end. I’m still hoping it’s a phase they grow out of.
- president 4y ago
  I realized this too, then realized all of their sponsored segments are left leaning organizations and foundations.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    Pretty sure that was also the case before they found religion.
  - teachrdan 4y ago
    Do you have any data to back up this assertion? The latest list of sponsors I've found, from 2019, shows these companies in the $1,000,000+ category. Can you spot a single one that is "left leaning"? (I'm tempted to make a bad joke here about a misunderstanding around the name "Progressive Insurance".) Angie’s List General Motors Corporation Lumber Liquidators Northwestern Mutual Foundation Novo Nordisk Progressive Casualty Insurance Company Prudential Financial State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company https://media.npr.org/documents/about/annualreports/NPRSponsorsDonors08.pdf https://media.npr.org/documents/about/annualreports/NPRSpons...
- sg47 4y ago
  Maybe it's because the right wing has gone off the deep end trying to do coups because they can't win elections legally.
  - 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

In the difference in air content between in door air and outdoor/forest air able to have cognitive and health aspects? see e.g. potential unintended cognitive consequences of CO2 emissions: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0269881111415729 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026988111141572... Any documentation on the variance of percentage of C02 and oxygen ? Do polyphenols (via pollen?) have relevant effects intranasally ? off-topic but related to title is plant blindness https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190425-plant-blindness-what-we-lose-with-nature-deficit-disorder https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190425-plant-blindness-...

comboy 4y ago
A few minutes with window open and you are back to the outside CO2 levels, so I don't think it's just CO2 (unless you have really high levels of it, sensors are pretty cheap nowadays and can serve as a good reminder to let in some fresh air). Not sure about pollen but trees produce chemicals that kill pathogens which attack them. Which is why it's healthy to breath forest air especially when you have a cold. Plus they are great at filtering air. btw 'Think of time in nature as a "multivitamin" — it's best to take it every day' - I don't know how this ends up in articles like this with so much research against it (multivitamins that is), they might have as well been suggesting draining your blood everyday.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  Except people don't open their windows because it's cold or the someone in the office doesn't like the breeze or the temp or the sound..... Loosing blood has many beneficial effects including increasing blood oxygen levels as new blood cells are generated with better mitochondrial activity
  - LeonB 4y ago
    Yes - so better comparison would be “think of it like leeches- best applied regularly to reduce your circulating blood volume”