Hiking, lawns, pets, and environmentalism

Thought for the day: I wonder if people's desire to go hiking, their desire for lawns, a love for pets, and environmentalism all have a common source buried deeply within our 'firmware' or instinctual evolutionary preferences.

I have not read anything about this and I haven't done a literature search to see if anyone has done any work in this area. To some extent this blob post hopefully will serve as a reminder for me to go back and see what is known about this subject. Feel free to post comments if you know of any work in this area.

It stands to reason that, part of the evolutionary legacy that is born into us is some sort of preference toward environs which will would make good habitat for a species such as us. It would be a sort of subtle psychological prompting that would help an individual or a troupe recognize a good habitat. In much the same way that even bacteria move away from toxic substances or plants grow toward light or our predisposition toward symmetry in our conception of beauty, we would find ourselves drawn toward environments which would make suitable habitat.

Here are some details that contributed to this idea. Many people like open places such as parks or wilderness. A good habitat might be unpopulated like wilderness and open spaces are. Wilderness generally has more intact ecosystems with various living things occupying different ecological niches. Intact ecosystems may not be as economically productive as developed ecosystems but they are more productive in biomass than developed land. Developed land is more sterile and devoid of life. A richer more diverse ecosystem is more likely to provide the various resources that an omnivorous species such as ourselves might need to get through a whole year.

Lawns and parks tend to be watered and are green and lush. Lush ecosystems support more and various life. Again a trait that leads to better habitat. As I understand it, unlike our relatives in the pan genus, we evolved not in the jungle but out on the savanna. Could it be that our preference of habitat is the grass lands that resemble a savanna and consequently we like lawns and parks.

When we bring a pet or even a houseplant into our habitat, our home, we are adding just a little bit of the wild back into our extremely sterile environment. Could this be we are tricking this deeper part of our aesthetic preferences by placing more life around us. Could it be that the low resolution pattern match that this evolutionary preference triggers off of picks up on the fact that there is more life around and concludes that this environ is able to support this life and therefore it is 'OK' to live here.

Much environmentalism seems to operate on people more on an emotional level than on a rational level. If my hypothesized connection between habitat preference and psychological prompting really exists, then part of the emotional drive for environmentalism might come from a desire to maintain "good habitat" for ourselves.