Weaving nature mentions back into culture

In 1950s, nature words used to crop up all the time.

Now - barely.

Link to Miles Richardson’s recent research about the graph correlating nature connectedness with nature visibility.

https://findingnature.org.uk/

But of course, we don’t have surveys from the 1800s. So I turned to culture. Specifically, I used the frequency of nature-related words in books—words like river, blossom, moss, and bough—as a proxy for how connected people were to nature. These words reflect what people noticed, valued, and wrote about. And when their use is plotted over time, a clear decline of around 60% is revealed. Particularly from 1850, a time when industrialisation and urbanisation grew rapidly.

The modelled nature connectedness decline of 61.5% was very close to the 60.6% maximum decline of nature words in 1990. For context, in a cross-sectional survey of 63 nations, nature connectedness in the USA was 57.5% below the nation with highest level, Nepal, relative to the full range. This suggests the modelled decline is plausible.

So we’re not encountering the features of our nature in our media diets the way we would. this directly correlates with our nature connection drop.

there might be other reasons.

but one good theory of chance might be to populate culture

A U.S. Department of the Interior study found that the average American kid can identify 1000 corporate logos but can't ID 10 plants and animals .

Who is bucking the trend for this?

What are the charismatic species or nature beings that break the trend and make the mainstream? (the moon?)