Technological nature may be better than no nature, but substituting technological nature for real nature raises concernsTechnological nature engages people with nature through some form of technology, such as videos, webcams, robot animals, and virtual reality technology. This research summary addresses the question of whether or not it matters for the physical and psychological well-being of humans if actual nature is replaced with technological nature. The authors suggest that it does matter. They draw from evolutionary and cross-cultural accounts, as well as recent psychological research, to support their position.
The authors’ review of the literature includes reference to E.O. Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis, which suggests that humans are genetically inclined to affiliate with “life and lifelike processes/“ Research in support of this hypothesis indicates that people prefer natural environments to built environments and that engagement with nature benefits humans in multiple ways. Related research with children also supports the biophilia hypothesis, in that children in diverse cultures have demonstrated meaningful and moral relations with nature. Further research conducted by the authors and other colleagues focused specifically on the benefits of technological nature. Benefits identified through this research included increased connection to the wider social community and natural world, enhanced psychological well-being, and increased cognitive functioning. Their findings led the researchers to conclude that “interacting with technological nature provides some but not all of the enjoyments and benefits of interacting with actual nature.”
While this conclusion may seem to support substituting technological nature with actual nature, the authors suggest that doing so presents “an insidious problem.” This problem is referred to as “environmental generational amnesia” or “shifting baseline syndrome.“ “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.”
If members of each generation construct their idea of what is environmentally normal based on the way they encountered the natural world during childhood, the idea of what is normal will steadily reflect a more degraded natural environment. In essence, this means that “we as a species will adapt to a loss of actual nature” and, because of this, will suffer serious physical and psychological costs. While engagement with technological nature may be better than no nature, there are real concerns about using it as a replacement for engagement with real nature.
The Bottom Line