Nicola Staff asked 4 years ago
There is a spiritual impact from living in an unnatural setting. Humans were created to live within nature. This is an innate desire and a yearning of the heart. You are primed to desire and appreciate natural beauty and living things. To not have living things around you will create stress and a feeling of isolation. This observation is spot-on in addressing a major deficiency of this lifestyle. There is no substitute for nature other than nature itself. Planting greenery that is unnatural acts more as a reminder of nature in providing some eye appeal than truly a nature setting that is deeply satisfying to the senses and sensibilities. Keep in mind that it is the city that is the most abnormal and unnatural of all, so suburbia is a compromise in between the urban and the rural that would be more ideal than a suburban housing development can emulate, but even in rural settings there was a more savage destruction of forests and prairies than was necessarily needed to provide living space for a growing population. There were certainly few greatly concerned about conservation, other than having small city and village parks to provide some place for children to play, not truly as a nature preserve that could emulate deep, natural areas of plant life.
This denuding of things is actually quite sinister. It is a manipulation applied again and again and again whenever there is something under construction and plans need to be drawn up. There are some independent contractors, often working for individuals in possession of land that might be handed down from one generation to the next, who will go over the plans with a keen eye to preserving as much of the native foliage, especially trees, as possible to create a new dwelling but within a more natural setting. Not only are such homes highly prized, it is amazing this is not a universal expectation and demand that is seen to by developers to do more landscaping and even preparation of tracts of land done well in advance of the housing developments themselves to get trees in place so there will be growth of size dispersed among the individual plots of land.
We understand that takes money as well as coordinated efforts. The reason it is not done is more that it is discouraged and such thinking blocked by the interlopers who want humans to be living in abject conditions to the extent that can be arranged readily. That is why there are so many impoverished nations still, it is why people live in harsh lands with visibly low prospects for abundant food and water, but this continues generation after generation. They are living, in effect, as slaves unable to break free. Even though they are not contained by visible barriers, they are nonetheless chained to those harsh lands and are hemmed in by neighbors not wanting them in any event. That, too, is an orchestration, so this is a dilemma that is self-perpetuating but at the behest of the interlopers controlling things behind the scenes.
So even in affluent countries, every effort is made to diminish the quality of life even when affluent areas are under development. The fact some wealthy neighborhoods end up being beautiful is a testament to the wealth of the homeowners themselves, not planners, not the government officials overseeing those areas. It is the appreciation of the individual citizens in having a well-constructed, attractive home, architecturally speaking, as well as many delightful touches with the planting of trees and shrubs and often ornamental gardens that make some neighborhoods appear to be like a paradise. As always, nature will cooperate given half a chance but there must be the will of the people themselves to value the enriched atmosphere that architectural landscaping can bring.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
