With the first episode of Blue Planet II airing last night, it’s clear this series will yet again wow us with incredible videography of our oceans. But despite this, in a statement that is likely to win me few friends, as awe-inspiring as these documentaries are, they do little to aid in the conservation of real nature. In fact, they have the potential to completely undermine what little interest people have in protecting our planet.
The environmental movement experienced a crushing loss of momentum towards the end of the 20th century. While people know all about the problems we face, they do less and less about them. This can, at least in part, be attributed to the fact that our new generation grew up spending more time in virtual worlds than outside in the real one. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with this. But the by-product is a loss of interest in the outside and a loss of interest in conserving it.
The increasingly widening gap between children and the natural world has been labelled as Nature Deficit Disorder. While it may appear a little dramatic to call this a disorder, a large body of research links spending less time in a natural environment to both mental and physical health problems.
With access to a plethora of video games, movies and television programmes, it is undoubted that today’s children spend a lot less time outside than they used to. A long day spent on a wetland with the hope of seeing a rare bird, is not as fun as a virtual game with instant rewards. And the cold, the wet and the mosquitoes mean it is certainly not as comfortable.
So we come around to Blue Planet. Surely anything that reconnects people with nature and shows them its wonders is a good thing, right?
Sometimes, sadly not. The issue arises because the snapshots that are broadcast in these shows are the result of months of work. Hundreds of hours of filming can provide a few seconds of content. With the exception of the ten minutes at the end of each episode, it is hard to grasp the amount of effort involved. Real nature can be uncomfortable. Too hot, too cold, things that bite, hard treks and even life-threatening diseases. A person may spend a lifetime studying and filming snow leopards and see them only a handful of times.
However, nature documentaries like Blue Planet are designed to wow us, not show us the difficulties and tribulations of real nature. They show nature only at its most spectacular, as that is what makes good television. We watch in awe from the comfort of our sofas, without really thinking about the effort that went in to capturing the shot. This gives rise to a product that is more spectacular than the real thing and with the development of VR, this will only become more true.
Nature at its best, not at its realist
So, inadvertently, we’re left with a documentary removed from reality. Pretty much the opposite of its intention. While an older generation won’t have a problem recognising this distinction, our new generation may. The millennial generation is one raised on easy to access images, films, videos and social media. If our kids want a ‘virtual’ reward or some sort of gratification, they can get it with the flick of a button. It’s the same with Blue Planet. Want to see some amazing animals? Here you go. But when it comes to recognising how these images were captured and the amount of time and effort they took, would this generation have the patience to bother?
So what does this mean for the future of conservation? Some researchers suggest that experiencing images and videos of nature has similar benefits to being in real nature. If we can gain all the benefits without connecting to the real thing, what will inspire us to protect it?
In order to encourage future generations to experience real nature, we must appreciate that it’s not just valuable because of the benefits it has for us. All of it, whether it is a drab British woodland or the Great Migration across the Mara river, has value apart from ourselves. Nature is difficult, tiresome and trying. But it’s real and incredible raw and it’s one of the only things that bonds us to our ‘natural’ selves.
Everything you will see in Blue Planet II is under threat. If we don’t reconnect with the real thing, it may be that these films are all we have left of it.
There’s no denying Blue Planet is an incredible documentary. But what’s your opinion on what Nick is arguing? Do these documentaries threaten our connection to real nature?