Hacker News Reader

Comment by hotnfresh | Hacker News Reader

Nature’s boring enough that it’s not really worth the downsides (bugs, travel for most people, humidity/ice/whatever) to go out and “enjoy” it in large stretches of the country.

There are cities where the nicest outdoor areas in 200 miles wouldn’t make the top-100 list of outdoor areas in the same radius, for other cities.

View on HN

It's hard for me to relate to this point of view. Sure, my local park isn't the Grand Canyon, but on a day-to-day basis, failing to make the "top-100 list" doesn't impact my enjoyment of the outdoors.

Fresh air, literally. Sunlight during parts of the year. Observing the changing seasons. Seeing plants, and maybe animals. Exercising by myself or in organized sports. Being in a shared space with others in my community enjoying themselves.

These all seem like pretty small asks for an outdoor space. Sure you probably won't appreciate them in a highway median, but I also doubt that most people would have to drive 200 miles to find something like this.

Yeah, we take the kids to parks and stuff, maybe some really-lame like 30 minute trails, but hiking? Camping? Ew, no. Not around here.

Where is here? I started camping with my kids when our twins were 2, but we live in SoCal and have an abundance of amazing options within range.

edit/ I've also lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Texas, and spent significant time in the Carolinas, Alabama, and New Orleans. I'm stretching my brain to think of a single place where I've spent time that didn't have access to compelling outdoors. Texas is the one that really comes to mind, seeing as there's little public land there.

A few largish “flyover country” cities don’t have many outdoor spaces within a half-day travel that aren’t ugly and generally unpleasant. Wading in a stream? Disgusting mud up to your knees, far deeper than the water was, and an odor that will survive multiple showers despite your being quite certain none of it touched your skin. You learn to avoid all water, because it’s simply gross. “Woods”? Short Mordor-like bunches of trees and if there’s not a well-maintained path you’ll be cutting your way through poison ivy, wicked sticker bushes, and cobwebs every step, while assuredly picking up some ticks. And you’ll be covered in mud if it’s rained in the last 72 hours. You learn to avoid wild areas with trees. Drive a couple counties over to a state park with “falls” in the name? It’s a four-foot drop and more “mud slide” than falls. Nice views as a reward for any of this? LOL.

There are parts of this country that make one long for the emptiness of Kansas. At least there’s a kind of stark beauty in seeing nothing until the Earth curves away at the horizon. And biking on those zero-elevation-change-for-miles arrow-straight country roads can be meditative.

> Fresh air, literally. Sunlight during parts of the year. Observing the changing seasons. Seeing plants, and maybe animals

You can do all of these by just opening a window.

>but I also doubt that most people would have to drive 200 miles to find something like this.

You're right, I don't have to drive anywhere, I can stay indoors and get all that by opening a window.

Yeah, it's like sex, it's so overrated when there's p0rn!

Show me the lie

The exception is in the context of a relationship, but you only enter those by meeting rare drop people with good chemistry (which is precluded by staying indoors all the time) or as a coping strategy for low single income (but you're on HN hahaaa $$$).

You'd do great in prison.

Or on a Mars colonization mission!

The Earth, like socializing outside, is jejune. We are adapting for the new world.

As a city person, I don't really miss nature. I miss the city when I'm out of it.

I'm deeply introverted, but I love the energy and bustle of people, and especially love the brownian motion of ideas and cultures colliding in big cities.

I associate nature with deep loneliness because there are so few people out there, and those who are out there don't really talk to each other. I've been camping, been on hikes, etc. with and without friends, but it's really not my thing. I like going fishing with friends, but forests are not my thing. As a kid I watched a movie about cabin life in Oregon and it left an indelible mark on me: I told myself I never want to live that life. It's so isolating.

I love being around people, even if I don't talk to them. I could sit in a cafe by myself and feel full just feeding of the energy of the overheard conversations and the relationships of people around me.

But as a Chicagoan, I do love talking to people. I love the inconsequential interactions like asking the receptionist how her day was, or the person in line about the weather.

I grew up in a large metropolis, and lived there for 30+ years.

I can't stand it anymore. I found out I really enjoy living in the countryside, with access to some nature.

I associate nature not to loneliness, but to solitude, which I usually find desirable. And the bustle of people around me is deeply annoying. I can enjoy going to a cafe when it is mostly empty. If I start to listen to people talk, I feel an urge to leave.

I wonder if it has something to do with a personal trait, or to the specific metropolitan area I grew up in that made me dislike crowded places so much.

I’m the same way. I like people too but can’t stand to be around them for very long. Especially now that our culture is so vapid and hyper political.

> As a city person, I don't really miss nature. I miss the city when I'm out of it.

Polar opposite here! I dread a landscape of brick, concrete and asphalt. Whenever I visit a large city I feel the need to escape as soon as possible. Large cities contain more people but less community than small centers, in which it's easier to get cozy with the people living around you geographically.

> Large cities contain more people but less community than small center

Large cities comprise neighborhoods where lots of community is found. Chicago has 77 and very warm.

Same here. There's nothing like going out in the city, feel the bustle and let it fill you with energy, and you can meet friends there just as well, or feel lonely in the crowd when so inclined. Because nature by itself doesn't solve our problems, the change of scenery and relaxation do - and that you can actually have anywhere.

Arguably there’s plenty of benefit and enjoyment to be had in the outdoors regardless of whether wherever you are would make a “top-100 list”.

I also think that too many Americans today err on the side of avoiding potentially rewarding activities because of the chance that they might be uncomfortable–stuck in such a narrow comfort zone that’s basically counter to experiencing things that promote happiness and fulfillment.

Bugs is a big one. I have a hard time enjoying wherever I’m at if there’s a bunch of mosquitos or wasps around for example, even if I’m wearing repellent.

I guess that means I should move somewhere that’s frequently snowy if being outdoors often is a goal.

Alaska has pretty gnarly mosquitos.

I've been told that Alaska has 4-engine mosquitoes.

Alaska is much nicer in the winter, if you don't mind being cold.

We also have no-see-ums, which I find more irritating personally.

If you want to avoid mosquitos move by a prevailing ocean breeze.

> There are cities where the nicest outdoor areas in 200 miles wouldn’t make the top-100 list of outdoor areas in the same radius, for other cities.

That's "why bother with romance when you almost certainly won't be with one of the 100 most attractive people in the world" logic.

Never lived somewhere with a really bad outdoors situation, I take it?

To use your analogy, it’s more like living in a city where the most-attractive person once came in 3rd in an ugliness competition, and also everyone has unpleasant personalities. It’s less that you don’t have any of the best options available, and more that you don’t have any that are better than “still fairly bad”. You visit a buddy few couple states over, rave about how wonderful and pretty all the locals are, and your buddy’s like “dude wtf we’re infamously the ugliest town in this state, and the reputation is deserved, I need you to say these things to some of my local pals so they can have a good laugh”.

Why bother, indeed.

> Never lived somewhere with a really bad outdoors situation, I take it?

I'm guessing I probably have (by your definition), as a matter of fact.

But what exactly is a "really bad outdoors situation" anyway?

Most of the bad parts of nature—mud, the usual unpleasant insects, an ecology dominated by poison ivy and thorn plants of various sorts—without the good parts. Nice, long views, pretty hills or mountains, ocean or nice lakes, dramatic rock formations (even for very modest values of “dramatic”), tall forests that aren’t edge-to-edge carpeted three feet high with poison and thorn plants, rivers and streams that are more than sluggish smelly mud-ditches? None of that. Zero. Not close enough to visit on a normal weekend unless you want to spend twice as much time driving as being in the place you wanted to go. You wanna go outside and enjoy “nature”, you do it somewhere that sees a lawn-mower on a regular basis, and/or is partially paved.

Really bad.

Climate change (less predictable weather, higher temperatures) is and will likely continue to be a factor as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com