lip@amid..ARPA (Loren I. Petrich) (01/10/89)
In the book _Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, and Other Imponderables_ (by David Feldman, Harper & Row), we find an interesting proposed explanation of why people like lawns (pp. 47-50). One theory is that lawns represent a sort of indulgence, but why one indulgence and not some other, like a swamp? Picture people surrounding their houses not with lawns, but with swamps. Or dense forests. Or sand. John Falk of the Smithsonian Institution believes that this taste for lawns reflects the habitat of our hominid ancestors, which lived in the grasslands of East Africa. If they had a genetically programmed tendency for living in grassland, then some of their descendants (such as us) would still have "I want to live in grassland" genes. Falk also noted that common lawn ornaments, such as shade trees and fountains and pools, correspond to typical East Africa grassland trees and springs and water holes. He and psychologist John Balling have shown pictures of five terrains -- deciduous-tree forest, conifer forest, tropical rainforest, grassland, and desert -- to people the world over, and asked them where they would want to live. The first choice, they found, was the grassland, with their native habitat the second choice. This was even if the people had never seen grassland before. Children under 12 years old expressed an even stronger preference. Does anyone here on the net know of any attempts to check this research? If we are equipped with "I want to live in grassland" genes, then this may also explain why we find sunsets and the stars so beautiful. Both sunsets and stars are easy to see in open country, while both are difficult to see from inside a forest. Additionally, both sights are much easier to see when the sky is relatively free of clouds, which is true of semiarid or arid terrain, such as East African grassland. Water that falls as rain condenses as clouds first, and if there is little water to condense and make clouds, there will be little rain. There is a common objection that such experiences as love and beauty cannot be mechanistically explained, because they don't _seem_ mechanistic. But these would simply be how we experience our genetic programming, in the fashion of our other perceptions. "Pain" is bad because we are genetically programmed to avoid "painful" stimuli. Love and friendship may simply be how we experience genetic programming to be social animals. I do not mean that _everything_ we do is genetically determined. Language is a universal human feature, but most people speak only a small number of languages well, and sometimes find it hard to learn new languages after childhood. The language that one speaks well is most often the language that one has learned in childhood. Thus, there exist interactions between genetic tendencies and learning. Indeed, in some songbirds, it is known that the songs the birds sing are part instinct and part learned. _Homo sapiens_ may be no fundamentally different in that regards, though our species certainly has a much higher "learned" component. I note that the question of human social groupings may be a bit relevant to the question of human origins. Recent research with the genes of mitochondria -- energy-producing structures inside of cells that have their own genetic-transcription apparatus, and which are inherited only from the mother, in egg cells -- suggest that all present-day human mitochondria are descendants of the mitochondria of one woman who lived approximately 200 thousand years ago. The oldest split in the human family tree is between the Africans and all the others, which suggests that modern _Homo sapiens_ originated in, or near, Africa. This research has gotten headlines such as "The Search for Adam and Eve", but it is unlikely that humanity was descended from some primordial couple. Since living in groups of several individuals is a universal human feature, and also a feature of chimpanzees and gorillas (our closest living relatives); it seems likely that all of humanity's ancestors, _Homo erectus_, _Australopithecus africanus_, and so on, lived like that. So, modern _Homo sapiens_ may have originated when some genes for an expanded brain and more childlike features spread in some isolated population of a few hundred or thousand of _Homo erectus_ or "archaic _Homo sapiens_". The locale: Africa, most likely. This population grew and grew, and ultimately spread all over the world, apparently driving other humanlike populations, such as the Neanderthals, into extinction. More genetic studies may well reveal the details of this speciation event or events. Thus, we may truly understand the origin of our species. ------------- Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster lip@amid.s1.gov lip%amid.s1.gov@and.s1.gov lip%amid.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov (whichever one works)
gmark@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Stewart) (01/11/89)
In article <23468@mordor.s1.gov>, lip@amid..ARPA (Loren I. Petrich) writes: > > In the book _Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, and Other Imponderables_ > (by David Feldman, Harper & Row), we find an interesting proposed So, why do they? - Mark G. Mark Stewart ATT_BTL, Naperville, Ill. ix1g266 ihlpq!gms (312)979-0914
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (01/12/89)
In article <23468@mordor.s1.gov> lip@s1-amid.UUCP () writes: > > In the book _Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, and Other Imponderables_ >(by David Feldman, Harper & Row), we find an interesting proposed >explanation of why people like lawns (pp. 47-50). One theory is that >lawns represent a sort of indulgence, but why one indulgence and not >some other, like a swamp? Picture people surrounding their houses not >with lawns, but with swamps. Or dense forests. Or sand. John Falk of >the Smithsonian Institution believes that this taste for lawns >reflects the habitat of our hominid ancestors, which lived in the >grasslands of East Africa. You're quite right; it's a very interesting theory. Personally, though, I think it's bunk. I believe more recent, and common-sense, reasons explain our grass fetish. First, except in urban areas, some territory surrounding your house is necessary. In the 1700's, you needed it for outbuildings, a garden, etc. Now, some of that land will be "unused"; but you have to cover it with something, or it'll erode from rain and wind. Swamp is out; breeds mosquitos and other pests, with accompanying diseases. Dense forests are impractical, as they block too much sunlight and are generally unattractive. Sand isn't native to much of the area, is subject to erosion, and is hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Grass, on the other hand, prevents erosion, is comfortable to walk on, easy to care for, and cheap; if you do nothing at all, you'll get some sort of wild grass. Now, naturally, you'll want some trees, too; they provide shade in the summer, and windbreaks. The theory presented is interesting, but I don't see it as a better explanation. ------------------------------ valuable coupon ------------------------------- Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language. Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke ! ------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
dbf@myrias.UUCP (David Ferrier) (01/13/89)
In article <23468@mordor.s1.gov> lip@s1-amid.UUCP () writes: >> In the book _Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise, and Other Imponderables_ >>(by David Feldman, Harper & Row), we find an interesting proposed >>explanation of why people like lawns (pp. 47-50). In article <3057@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >Grass ... prevents erosion, is comfortable to walk on, >easy to care for, and cheap; if you do nothing at all, you'll get some >sort of wild grass. > >The theory presented [by Feldman] is interesting, >but I don't see it as a better explanation. What you get around your house if you do nothing at all (except maybe pull weeds and saplings), is "meadow", what occurs in nature where larger plants are unable to thrive. Meadow is comfortable to lie or walk on (if you are into walking around your house), easy to care for because it requires no care at all, and much cheaper than trying to maintain a velvety evenly-trimmed greensward (no mower, no chemical fertilizer). The two disadvantages to meadow are [1] it is clear to your neighbors you have done nothing to your lawn, and [2] it is not orderly. If these are the only ways grass is superior to meadow, I suggest the decision by people to have lawns around their houses instead of meadow (or swamp etc.) is not rational, i.e. related to the relative objective merits of grass [Thacker], nor the result of some primordeal urge [Feldman], but due to psychological needs, i.e. to appear hardworking and orderly [Ferrier]. -- David Ferrier Edmonton, Alberta alberta!myrias!dbf (403) 428 1616
arrom@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee ) (01/13/89)
>Dense forests are impractical, as they block too much sunlight and are >generally unattractive. ... >Grass, on the other hand, prevents erosion, is comfortable to walk on,... Er--if you are trying to explain people's preferences for lawns, it's putting the cart before the horse to use in your explanation that certain things other than lawns are "generally unattractive" or that grass is "comfortbale to walk on"... -- EARTH --Kenneth Arromdee smog | bricks UUCP: ....!jhunix!ins_akaa AIR mud FIRE INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu soda water | tequila BITNET: g49i0188@jhuvm WATER (please, no mail to arrom@aplcen)
pepke@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) (01/13/89)
In article <3057@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >Now, naturally, you'll want some trees, too; they provide shade in >the summer, and windbreaks. Yes, and remember that people pay a lot more for a lot with a lot of trees. (Sorry, it just came out that way.) >Bill Thacker att!cbnews!wbt -EMP
gss@edsdrd.eds.com (Gary Schiltz) (01/14/89)
In article <3057@cbnews.ATT.COM>, wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: > > Swamp is out; breeds mosquitos and other pests, with accompanying diseases. > Dense forests are impractical, as they block too much sunlight and are > generally unattractive. Personally, I consider monocultured grass lawns to be pretty unattractive (where's the variety?) and impractical (can I really spare 5 hours each summer weekend for mowing grass, here in the 'Land of Briggs & Stratton'?). My idea of the ideal cover for my yard is whatever grows there if I just leave it alone. I could even just plow it up first (safer than burning it) and watch succession over the years (better than TV). Now, if only my neighbors would agree :-) I don't have any emperical evidence for my position, but I have a different explanation for why people like grass lawns better than naturally occurring flora. I think that there are two major reasons. First, I think that modern man has become scared of that which he is unable to control, i.e. the natural world. I often hear my neighbors making statements like: "I had to cut the brush around the edge of my property, because there might be SNAKES hiding in there [and, of course, all snakes are bad, right] ...", or "I cut the dandelions out of my yard because they attract BEES [and, or course, we wouldn't want Junior to get stung, now would we?]." Secondly, I believe that the manicured yard appeals to the over inflated importance given to a "work ethic". A yard does take a lot of effort to keep manicured (watered, mowed, weeded, fertilized), especially compared to just letting whatever grows there grow there. To just take what comes and appreciate it would seem lazy to our society, and that is preceived as bad. Anyway, I've rambled long enough. -- /\ What cheer, /\ | Gary Schiltz, EDS R&D, 3551 Hamlin Road | / o< cheer, <o \ | Auburn Hills, MI 48057, (313) 370-1737 | \\/ ) / cheer, \ ( \// | | \ / cheer!!! \ / | "Have bird will watch ..." |
barbara@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Barbara Chapman) (01/14/89)
>What you get around your house if you do nothing at all >(except maybe pull weeds and saplings), is "meadow", what >>occurs in nature where larger plants are unable to thrive. > >Meadow is comfortable to lie or walk on (if you are into walking >around your house), easy to care for because it requires no >care at all, and much cheaper than trying to maintain a velvety >evenly-trimmed greensward (no mower, no chemical fertilizer). > >The two disadvantages to meadow are >[1] it is clear to your neighbors you have done nothing to your lawn, and >[2] it is not orderly. My parents once tried having "medow" around their house -- that is, they had at one time had a lawn, but they did not cut or weed it. They liked the result: tall grass with flowers (others might call them "weeds") Unfortunately, the neighbors did *not* like my parents' medow, and complained. My parents were polite, but firmly stated that they could grow whatever they wanted to on their own property. The city, however, did not agree (this was Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and forced my parents to start mowing. I believe the cited ordinance had something to do with "eyesores..." Maybe this is why people "like" to have lawns around their houses: city officials all had ancestors in the grasslands :)
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/17/89)
In article <115@arcturus.edsdrd.eds.com> gss@edsdrd.eds.com (Gary Schiltz) writes: >Secondly, I believe that >the manicured yard appeals to the over inflated importance given to a "work >ethic". A yard does take a lot of effort to keep manicured (watered, mowed, >weeded, fertilized), especially compared to just letting whatever grows there >grow there. To just take what comes and appreciate it would seem lazy to our >society, and that is preceived as bad. How about: "a yard expresses a measure of wealth and success." The best lawns are those possessed by the wealthy, who wouldn't know a weed from a weasel. Maybe the lawn is to our homes what the fur is to our backs... --Blair "Opulent hypocrisy. Do you know how many dandelions died to give you that Shady Lane texture?"
tom@chionia.amara.uucp (Tom Doehne) (01/18/89)
In article <1908@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > Maybe the lawn is to our homes what the fur is to our backs... For an venerable (early this century) explanation of why people like lawns (as well as a lot of other things), take a look at "Theory of the Leisure Class", by Thorstein Veblen. It's a classic of political science/economics. So why do people have lawns? As Blair noted, > "a yard expresses a measure of wealth and success". A couple of hundred years ago, only the nobility and wealthiest merchants could afford lawns. Lawnmowers did not exist, and lawns were kept cropped by sheep, and gardeners. One had to be able to afford these, and few could. Therefore, a lawn, especially a large one, was a status symbol (a measure of how much money one could p*ss down the drain). Much like Jaguars, Mercedes, etc. today. Veblen is full of examples of this kind of behaviour -- current customs that arose in the general population from imitation of the `leisure classes' (rulers) of previous centuries. This is a more parsimonious explanation of why people like lawns, buttressed by a theory with a wealth of supporting evidence (other instances of analogous behaviour). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Doehne Applied Dynamics International tom%amara.UUCP@umix.cc.umich.edu 3800 Stone School Rd. ...(uunet|umix)!amara!tom Ann Arbor, Mi 48108 -------------------------------------(313)973-1300-----------------