Tree Hugging Now Scientifically Validated

S & F. Op.

I enjoyed your thread.

from a fellow tree hugger.

Blessings,
Cirque

Delete

While I don't hug trees per say, I do agree that nature makes you feel better.

There is no anti-depressant on earth that is more effective for me than exercise and relaxing afterward on a sunny day under a shade tree at the park eating watermelon and drinking Ice Tea. They need to do a study on that combination.

Thanks for the wonderful thread purplemer, and all the enriching posts to keep the momentum ~~
And nice quote talklikeapirat
"It is not so much for its beauty that the forest makes a claim upon men's hearts, as for that subtle something, that quality of air that emanation from old trees, that so wonderfully changes and renews a weary spirit."
~ Robert Louis Stevenson ~
Anyone who has spent any time in Nature will confess the positive influence it bestows upon their organism...
This is science - Primary Perception & Earthing ~!


LOVE

I've hugged a few trees in my day

S&F

Interesting that you wrote this today OP....We went to Muir Woods forest in Ca. today because i felt the need to be with these trees for some healing!.They have HUGE redwoods there 258 ft highand beautiful ferns.It is a maigical wonderful place and i bought a season pass so we can go back many times this yr..I DID HUG Trees to today.

awesome! next time i see a 5 foot round tree gonna do this! get me some good vibes going :3 good post.

reply to post by Theflyingweldsman


Agree wholeheartedly that all things have degrees of sentience we may never (or never meant to) fathom.
Thanks.
But this video made me realize that if we (individually and collectively) dress things up with enough 'new age' and 'research' we blind ourselves to the potential damage we may be inflicting.

STOP TORTURING THE PLANTS.

Electrodes... 'Reading'...currents....???..WTF??..How would you like to be hooked up to electrodes, and stimulated to produce musical notes for some hippies enjoyment?? Could make the electrified Vienna Boys Choir really squeal like piggies!

The Japanese research whales too don't they? Wonder what noise they make when stimulated by a harpoon?

Did Mengele research?

ETC..

Thx

reply to post by purplemer


I don't think people who called others tree huggers ever believed that tree hugging was bad.. they simply said for them to go hug them since they love them sooo much ...

I fail to see the point between telling people to hug trees and thsi study....

reply to post by purplemer


The ecology of this entire planet is connected in ways we have only begun to understand, even while we work diligently to destroy those connections. This research serves to strengthen this truth.

I love trees, and I don't mean in the way someone loves a cheeseburger, or a TV show. I LOVE trees. I find peace in the forests, and I've always known there is more to it than just being in a quiet place. Most of the human species once called forests by their true name; "home."

Here's the funny thing about modern "conservatives": they don't know what a conservative actually is, nor do they know that they're actually liberals!

Back "then" who do you think protected national forests, parks, and monuments? Conservatives. Yep, that's right, the people who made the greatest strides to protect, forever, large portions of America just for the sake of protecting them, were, in fact, conservatives. Understand? If you're CONSERVatives, you should want to CONSERVE things like forests, resources, rivers, streams, lakes, animals, and other land assests, and not always for their monetary value. Imagine that! Sorry republicans, you're fake conservatives, as in, liberals who think conservatism refers to the conservation of unlegistable morality, which is the actual role you've been duped into playing. Oops!

reply to post by StrangeOldBrew


You're post is right on. Conservatives protected things in the past. The new ways of the radical environmentalists are counterproductive. Their destructive ways almost make me think they are infiltrated by the big businesses, any radical environmentalists would deflect the support of conservatives. I smell Rats.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by StrangeOldBrew

 

You're post is right on. Conservatives protected things in the past. The new ways of the radical environmentalists are counterproductive. Their destructive ways almost make me think they are infiltrated by the big businesses, any radical environmentalists would deflect the support of conservatives. I smell Rats.

I'm not sure what you mean by "radical environmentalists." If you're referring to groups like Greenpeace, or the WWF, etc. then yes, they are no longer protectors, and are businesses run for profit. If you're talking about individuals like Derrick Jensen, then you've missed the mark rather considerably. "Radical" can mean just about anything, and I think its a dangerous term to throw around without a degree of specificity.

True conservatives in the (distant) past sounded the early alarms about civilization's unsustainable depletion of resources and destruction of the land base. Liberals were always assciated with large business interests and the rapid depletion of the land and resources. Keep in mind that these terms had nothing to do with democrat or republican. Interesting how conservative has come to now mean the conservation of a completely unsustainable way of life, consumerism, and liberal now refers to anyone who claims to support wilderness and resource conservation, while not actually doing anything about it, apart from marching around waving signs made of trees after driving to their designated protest site in oil fueled vehicles. Language in the United States has become completely twisted, and this is by no accident, I assure you.

If by "radical" you refer to someone who supports a return to a truly sustainable way of life on this planet, in balance with it's ecology, then I'm a radical. Guilty as charged. If by destructive you mean the destruction of unchecked modern consumerism and the apparatus that supports it then, again, I'm guilty. Right now we're reaping the benefits of an abundant planet, while crippling the ecological systems that provide that abundance. We may look away as we do this, but our progeny will not be able to.

I have to say, though, that the slant I've taken with this post is rather off topic. My apologies.

Lol @ everyone on here acting like they've been hugging trees for years. "Oh tree hugging, oh yeah bro, I ALWAYS do this." Please.

Anyways.

We need more threads like this than fear/disaster doom spreading mass shooting self suicide threads...

Thanks for sharing Purple I just got back from my local park and I feel fantastic, I wonder why

Originally posted by Kromlech
Lol @ everyone on here acting like they've been hugging trees for years...

Anyways.

Would "tree defenders" or perhaps "proponents of tree rights" be more appropriate terms to you? I don't think any of us who have actually hugged trees before would care either way.

There are trees in the forests I visit that I have hugged, sat beneath, climbed, sat in, slept under and slept inside of many times. After a while they speak to you, if you know how to listen, of course. Is that odd? Am I odd?

reply to post by StrangeOldBrew


Radical environmentalists are the ones that destroy loggers equipment, greenpeace which is harassing fishermen that are legally fishing, and so on so forth. Instead of hassling the fishermen, work at changing the laws of the country to protect the fish. These tactics cause more harm than good, getting the working man to raise his eyebrows and roll his eyes. I see this and have even rolled my eyes in the past. I have always loved nature but the actions of some of the people made me dislike the pushiness of the environmentalists. It's funny, the businesses were laughing, they got new equipment with the insurance and they got local support against the environmentalists.

I always felt that the environmental groups were infiltrated by business funded radicals that fired up the environmentalist groups to cause them to lose credibility with the public.

My worst nightmare. Renewable fuels. They are going to run the power plants around here with pellets. They are clearcutting land and chopping up every scrap of wood in the name of ECO friendly. They are depleating the soils to make corn gas. They allow any sort of chemicals to be used on this corn for fuel and it is destroying the land and rivers. This is the biggest ecological joke there is.

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by purplemer

 

I love this!

One other fascinating laboratory that studies plant vibrational energies is Damanhur,

an intentional community in Italy.

In this peaceful and spiritual ecovillage there is a laboratory in the woods

that offers a beautiful choir of singing trees.

Yeah, you read that right... singing trees.

Since 1976, researchers at Damanhur have invented and

developed equipment that can capture electromagnetic changes on the surface of leaves and roots,

transforming them into actual sounds.

The best part is, these trees seem to control their electrical responses via a feedback mechanism,

and demonstrate a kind of awareness and preference for types of music.

The singing plants and trees of Damanhur have sparked off such a

worldwide fascination that the people began organizing “Plant Concerts”,

where musicians perform to the music created by the trees.

Here's the video from your link..singing plants....

one of Damanhur’s researchers explains the phenomenon.

Tfw.

edit on 12/5/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: Singing trees!!!!!!

This is so beautiful and inspiring! I find it very healing to listen to.

Having grown up in the country and always loving the forest, I've always felt the consciousness of the forest. Some plant lovers have found that when you talk to and nurture plants (with positive emotion/energy and physical contact) they grow stronger (or stay in bloom longer) than otherwise.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

It matters not if you think scientific results are interesting if they are repeastable. If it is not repeateble it is not science. I clafied that in the first definton you requested from me..

I said that it is not interesting TO science if it's not repeatable, as it wouldn't be science.

The pink elephant analogy is intresting. Now you are begining to understand and accept that science has limitation..What for example if evolution theory is a pink elephant. You cannt disprove it...

I used the pink elephant as an example how science deals with nonsense.
It is interesting that you interpret it as a limitation in science.
What does fiction have to do with the real world?

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific

The opposite of the elephant, yes.

OK and for the final time science more than gives a rats backside about the subject / object relationship. It is a building principle of science..

What I said was that science doesn't give a rats behind about pink elephants. Because they are by definition nonsense and not science.

In philosophy of science, dualism often refers to the dichotomy between the "subject" (the observer) and the "object" (the observed). Another dualism, in Popperian philosophy of science refers to "hypothesis" and "refutation" (for example, experimental refutation). This notion also carried to Popper's political philosophy.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm sorry.. but.. quantum physics IS science.....? No "principles of science" are breaking down.

Quantum Physics will be the end of dualism...

No, it will be the start of understanding our world even better. Hence, we still observe the subject and learn interesting new things.
This sounds like a leap from the interesting observation "problem" in quantum mechanics to complete nonsense on what it really means.

As for finding papers.. It is not a breeze. Many papers have to be paid for..

As I said, it is usually a breeze to find them. And as I said, in the worst case you'll find the reference and need to decide whether or not to buy it. But, I have not found the paper.
Just like you can find things on Amazon, it doesn't mean you need to pay for it first, does it?

Originally posted by LittleByLittle
If you mean it is not dogmatic and small minded like much science is then yes it is pursuit of knowledge wherever it leads no matter preconceived ideas of what is. Science has blind spots where the people doing science do not want to go.

edit on 12-5-2013 by LittleByLittle because: Spellchecking

Tell me, where doesn't science want to go, and why?

To go there you have to move beyond being a scientist. You will have to be a seeker of truth.

That is actually a very good description of a motivated scientist?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Nevertheless

Does that make it any less valid.

In medicine, no. As long as you're not trying to treat something that actually needs real treatment.

I'm with you on the concept of "Western Science" being some form of oxymoron, but "Western Medicine"... a great deal of the pharm drugs (chems), especially "chemo" drugs (chems), are based on plant sources (chems). Big Pharm and their FDA minions aren't in the business of legitimizing non-patentable chems, instead only chems that are patented are because they rake in the big bucks. If something isn't patentable then it almost never reaches phase 2 and especially not phase 3 trials. Instead it goes back office, they switch a molecule or 2 around, patent that, then make $10,000+ per dose.

Yes, that sounds like good ol' capitalism.
Not sure if this is very on-topic, though.