I mean, yes, but this article and “study” are stupid. Trying to measure “connection to nature” by references in print over time is definitely not some quantifiable yardstick.
why not? I’d argue literature is like societies diary…the word choice reflects mood and general themes…if nature words aren’t being used as much as they used to be, I can’t think of another reason other than that the general mood toward nature has shifted from connection to disconnection. can you? and writers/artists are often a populations most likely to be connected to nature, so seeing a huge decline in this field over the last 220 years is as significant a sign as any, imho
I mean, yes, but this article and “study” are stupid. Trying to measure “connection to nature” by references in print over time is definitely not some quantifiable yardstick.
why not? I’d argue literature is like societies diary…the word choice reflects mood and general themes…if nature words aren’t being used as much as they used to be, I can’t think of another reason other than that the general mood toward nature has shifted from connection to disconnection. can you? and writers/artists are often a populations most likely to be connected to nature, so seeing a huge decline in this field over the last 220 years is as significant a sign as any, imho