In Search of Balance Page #7

This is mother nature, it's

the microorganisms in the soil

and that's what makes all

of the globe one big organism.

Restoring this

and rejuvenating

back to growing your own

beneficial microorganisms

and reinoculating them

into the environment

is really the only way to turn

the page into heal our forest,

to heal our ocean and the

systems that keep us alive.

On an ordinary

day out in a --

out walking in

the park or something

there might be maybe a 100,000

organisms per cubic meter,

but if you are out there

with your brush-cutter

on a summer's day

or if you're in a cowshed,

you're up to hundreds

of millions,

and so you are taking an

enormous number of organisms

from the natural

environment.

Our bodies

are not islands,

we're very, very

porous creatures

who are constantly

exchanging information

and exchanging DNA with

the environment around us,

and as we go on this

adventure to discover

what makes us healthy and

what keeps us in balance

that has to be part

of the equation,

it's sort of these

microscopic influences

that have a huge amount

to do with our well-being.

So there we are beginning

to have real evidence,

real hard evidence, the exposure

to the green environment

is doing things

to our immune systems

which is relevant to our

immune system's function,

which is therefore

relevant to human health.

The problem is we don't

live in either a natural

or an urban

environment anymore.

We live indoors.

To think that

we have evolved

with a contact

with nature

for tens

of millennium,

and to think that

moving ourselves

to a profoundly

official environment

have no consequences.

I think it would be willfully

naive to believe that.

As of 2008 more people live in

cities than in the countryside,

all around the world.

That's the first time

in human history.

It raises big questions

about the future of our cities.

It raises huge questions about

the future of the human race.

That means one or two things;

either the human species

will continue to lose whatever

connection the nature still has,

or it means beginning

of a new kind of city.

If you're interested in trees

and how they benefit people

and ultimately you

realize the trees

that give the greatest

benefit are in cities,

they are near the people,

the paradox of an urban society,

we get most of our interaction

with the natural environment,

in an urban environment.

'The Atlantic' did

an interesting piece

about this research

and they had a somewhat

provocative title,

it's 'When Trees

Die, People Die'.

Where there are trees, with

the nicest trees in urban areas

there are also the people who

tend to be whiter, wealthier,

they are educated,

they are more privileged,

they are going to people

who are going to tend

to have health

outcomes anyway.

I am trying to disentangle

that relationship,

it can be really --

it can be tricky.

The cold weather

nothing compared to

what the Emerald

Ash Borer can do.

This tiny bug is eating

its way through trees

and destroying landscapes

all across Western New York.

Let's see what happens when the

Emerald Ash Borer spreads out

from Detroit and see if there

are health consequences.

I looked at two

causes of death,

cardiovascular disease and then

lower, a respiratory disease.

We did see increased levels

of these two types of diseases

in counties that were infested

with Emerald Ash Borer.

There was a bigger impact

in wealthier counties.

If trees are good for you

and we know that those

wealthier counties

are going to have

more of them,

then killing those trees should

have a bigger health impact

and that isn't what we saw.

People who are at the bottom

end of the socioeconomic scale

and are not close to green space

are about twice as likely to die

in that five-year period

as they with people

at the top of the

socioeconomic scale,

as they get closer

to green space.

So this difference between

the top and the bottom

of the socioeconomic scale

starts to disappear.

Most people who talk in

the environmental movement,

talk about, you know,

the morality of it.

We have to protect nature

because it's the

right thing to do.

Well, I am an economist.

I study selfishness, and

what I understand is that,

you know, scolding people

do things ain't very effective.

The type of stuff I do in other

people is showing that looking

after a natural environment

is profoundly self-interest

and when you appeal

to people's self-interest

then that's

a different matter.

You know, if you can show

people this is really,

really in your best

interest to do that

then I think we are

going to see some change.

Nature deficit disorder is

not a known medical diagnosis.

Basically what it is, is a

metaphor to describe the harm

that comes

to the human species

when it doesn't have much

connection to the natural world.

And the way to show

that is not by saying,

this kid has nature

deficit disorder

and this kid exhibits

these symptoms.

You could do that but

what I would rather do

is look at all this

positive research

that's come out

and then ask,

if that's connected

to the natural world,

what happens when you take

the natural world away?

Shouldn't every

kid, and in fact,

I think every adult have

a right to the benefits

of being in

the natural world.

Really what it gets down to the

small choices about, you know,

we plant a tree here,

we preserve a part here,

that's what's going to really

make the day-to-day difference

in people's lives,

I believe.

I was in a hotel room

one day in San Francisco

and I picked up

one of those magazines

that you wonder where they

come from in the hotel rooms

and I was flipping through

it and I looked at the back page

and there was this

black-and-white photograph

of a little boy

on a beach.

He is running along and his

eyes are filled with life,

and the story next

to this photograph

said this little

boy had a problem.

He had the wiggles,

he couldn't sit still.

He was disruptive

in class.

The school finally

kicked him out.

The parents were

upset of course.

But they had been

very observant,

they noticed how a little

bit of time in nature

helped their little boy

calm himself and focus.

So for the next 10 years

they took their little boy

all over the great

western wilderness areas.

Now the kid

turned out okay.

The photograph

was taken in 1906,

the little boy's

name was Ansel Adams.

So here's a question.

What would have happened

if they had taken little Ansel

and put him in a chair

in front of a desk,

in front of a computer,

telling him to sit there,

take chess all day,

canceled recess,

which more-and-more schools

are doing, cancel field trips,

lengthen the school day,

lengthen the school,

and then given

him Ritalin.

Would we have the gifts of

nature that Ansel gave us?

Would we have the

political support

such as it is for the national

parks without his photographs?

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes