From Parklane Landscapes

Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS) is what happens when we forget how vibrant the natural world used to be. Each generation grows up with a more depleted environment and calls it “normal,” simply because it’s all they’ve ever known.

Think about walking through a park and thinking, “This seems healthy.” But maybe 30 years ago that same park had twice as many birds, wildflowers, or insects. If you never saw that version, you don’t feel the loss - and that quiet forgetting becomes the new baseline. Over time, we start accepting degraded ecosystems as normal.

Researchers warn that this shift lowers our expectations, increases our tolerance for decline, and reduces our urgency to protect what’s left.

What helps:

Intergenerational conversations that reconnect us with what nature used to be.

Direct experiences with nature that sharpen our awareness of change.

Remembering (knowing) the past is the first step to restoring the future.

Not a sponsor, I don’t think it’s an AI graphic, and I think it has something important to say. Plus it does have an owl. We can’t save our animals if we don’t save them the spaces they need to thrive.

  • kernelle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    20 days ago

    I saw a post recently about how butterflies are always drawn like that, wings spread all the way out. That’s only for dead/preserved specimens, in nature their wings are much more overlapped and I can’t stop thinking about it

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      Most animals are drawn in a way that the viewer can identify them.

      It’s not a realistic image.

    • ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      20 days ago

      Interesting observation. Often one of the best times to spot and identify butterflies is really in the morning before they’ve warmed up and are basking in the sun with their wings wide open. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to draw butterflies as they’re most easily seen.

    • anon6789@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 days ago

      Having spent so much time looking at owls now, probably 90% of owl drawings I see have the feet drawn in really silly ways. They’re not always impossible ways for them to have their toes, but how they actually need to use them to hunt or to distribute their body weight is just not often depicted correctly. I think it’s because most depictions fail to capture the correct ratio of foot:body and it doesn’t look right (because it isn’t), so they stick the outer toes in places they don’t belong to fill that space.

      The butterfly is probably the same way. We’ve seen that incorrect image displayed so much that the falsehood has replaced the truth for many of us. Even after we’re shown it’s incorrect, we often can have trouble reconciling it with years of having it ingrained the other way.

      • kernelle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        20 days ago

        I agree, another example that comes to mind was this initiative by Matt Parker to change the sign for a football (or soccer ball for my US homies) to an actually accurate football. The representation now was geometrically impossible but the UK basically said “it’s a depiction that gets the point across and people are used to it, we won’t change it”

        • anon6789@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          20 days ago

          As soon as I saw the sign in question, I started counting the sides to see if that’s what it was. I don’t know squat about soccer, but even I knew the ball didn’t look right and should be pentagons and hexagons. You would think someone in the production chain would have caught it…