this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2026
84 points (81.3% liked)
Solarpunk
8746 readers
38 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a clickbait/ragebait headline, which has little to do with the article itself.
The article itself is essentially a travel blog post about this guy's vacation and the very emotional emotions he experienced during it.
The title and post content are just weirdly judgemental nonsense. If you want to go into nature to lay under a tree and listen to crickets chirp, that's great. Do that. But if you want to go into nature to challenge yourself, that's also great, you can do that, too. If someone shows up at a trailhead and says "Imma run around this loop and try really hard", then their experience will be different from listening to crickets chirp, but no less legitimate - they will feel their body moving, their lungs burning, their heart pounding. The wind on their face and their sweat on their skin. And they will finish with a visceral experience of being in that particular place, doing that particular thing, at that particular time. But importantly, they were able to have that experience because they set the goal "run around the loop".
Yes and you just described a totally internal experience that relies little on the details of the outside environment other than the burden and challenge it places on the body.
I am not bashing this type of pursuit I am saying it is fundamentally selfish and is a different pursuit than trying to actually connect with, observe and know nature by listening instead of pressing your body to its physical limit just to prove you can and get those sweet exercise drug chemicals going in your brain.
The person who spends time listening to crickets chirp will walk away with an externally rich memory of all the wildlife they listened to carefully, all of the rhythms of the forest and the unique creatures and events they happened to catch by being slow and quiet. The person who spent the entire time running will primarily remember the experience of running, the details of the external are just snapshots and set dressing to theme the run in their memories.
That really comes off as very elitist, IMO.
Why?
By saying jogging through nature is inherently selfish compared to walking through it. I'd also say you pretty clearly look down upon those who like to exercise in nature based on your other comments here, and your framing of people doing it for 'the drug chemicals'.
You say you're not bashing them, but I'm not sure that defense works since you're kind've framing a different way of experiencing nature as inherently inferior and 'selfish' compared to your preferred way, instead of framing it as two equally valid ways to experience it (as long as it doesn't hurt the local ecology, or leave any litter).
The overall vibe I get is a sense of elitism that only your own preferred slower way of taking in nature and pondering it is the truly valid and meaningful way of experiencing it. But that's just my 2 cents.
I like drugs, I have no problem with taking drugs I just don't like when people pretend they aren't taking drugs when they are.
Yes and you are framing this conversation in a way that if I criticize a broad cultural movement centered around the outdoors for being shallow this necessarily means I think I am superior. You allow no other perspective other than one that agrees with your own unless that perspective is relativistic about everything with no judgements possible at all.
I can criticize outdoor culture without being selfish or adopting a position of assumed superiority and even if I was those things it doesn't actually negate the points I am making since I am arguing the overall selfishness of outdoor culture is even greater? We are all a part of this problem as we are all part of the same society.
There are many people who do not appear to experience 'runners high'. I am one of those people, I have never experienced any noticeable pleasant side-effects from exercise itself, just a rather unpleasant burning sensation in my lungs. Regardless, I still ride my bike or jog to maintain my health, and I vastly prefer doing so amongst nature if I can.
Claiming the way an entire subset of other people experience nature is inferior and shallow compared to yours is kinda the definition of a sense of superiority, yeah.
I have no problem criticizing people who litter in nature, or destroy it in some way, but putting every jogger into the same box, with disregard to the variability of those people's respect and appreciation of nature just due to the way they personally enjoy it? Oof.
Have you tried exercising less intensely? I never got runner's high until I started jogging in the low aerobic range, which is when you can speak in full sentences while running without getting out of breath (around 133 bpm for a 30 year old). If you're getting a burning sensation in your lungs, you're touching the anaerobic range (around 152 bmp for a 30 year old), which is too fast for a runner's high AFAIK.
For me, coming out of competitive ameteur/high school sports, it felt unnaturally slow to learn jogging, even embarrassing at times, shuffling around at 8 km/h. Yet at the end there was regularly a runner's high, and over time and mixing it up with higher-end aerobic exercises and anaerobic sprints, my aerobic running speed increased. I learned to be in conversation with my body rather than relying on external metrics, now I just run at a speed that feels natural and playful, varying from run to run based on how I feel in the moment.
I can't say that I've done a purposefully slow jog. I tend to push myself to where I become out of breath and then need to walk to catch it (which is kinda easy for me to do, and may be related to having asthma as a kid, but not entirely sure), so that could be why. A friend gave me a fitness band a while back that can display bpm, I'll try using it next time to see what happens if I maintain that 133bpm range. Thanks for the suggestion! :D
I prefer the "can you talk in full sentences" measure as a low tech thing that more directly measures what you want. The right bpm varies with age and cardiovascular health and other factors, but the goal is to keep your blood well-oxygenated and whether you have enough breath to spare on talking is a more direct measure of that.
I am arguing our cultural framing around outdoor culture is inferior and shallow compared to a deeper more thoughtful relationship with the natural world and and an awareness of the living history of colonialism as it bends and warps our perspective our relationship with nature.
If you do not allow me this without labelling me as attempting to claim I am superior than you simply do not allow any kind of criticism of your beliefs/actions in this area. How else am I supposed to interpet this?
My opinion is that painting with such a broad brush that anyone who simply jogs in the woods is performing a selfish act and unable to appreciate nature the correct way is an elitist claim, as it doesn't allow for people who do deeply respect and appreciate nature, but who may also enjoy exercising among it, or for people who experience nature differently from the way you do.
You seem to have an absolutist viewpoint that there is objectively only one correct way of experiencing nature. No one is stopping you from making that argument, but you are not entitled to everyone agreeing with that viewpoint or how it is presented.
I'm planning to climb an El Cap route in about a week. I expect that my goal oriented pursuit will leave me with some equally rich memories of the sun beating on my back as starlings swoop past me. I will see hawks gliding on the thermals at eye level. The breeze across the face will be a welcome relief, and I will become intimately familiar with the bumps, edges, cracks, and seams in the rock as I search for placements for my hooks and pitons - my attention heightened by the potential to take a 100' fall if I make a poor descision. And with my day's labor done, I will lay in my portaledge dangling several hundred feet off the ground and look at the stars, marvelling at the beauty of nature around me and the joy of being in such an incredible position.
I am currently thinking about going out into the park near where I live and experiencing a beautiful sunny day as songbirds fly by me.
An invasive species introduced by someone with a vision about what nature should be not what it was.
That sounds very nice. I hope you enjoy that.
I just think they're neat
So... you like the aesthetic of them and you aren't interested in examining it any deeper?
Exactly. I am witnessing nature rather than egotistically analyzing it, making myself feel big and smart by categorizing living creatures into categories like "invasive". I have moved beyond the need to do such things (it's very impressive - are you impressed?), and now am able to appreciate the true beauty of nature and the connectedness of the world - unlike those big dumb dummies who keep insisting that "doing things" like "thinking" is a valid way to live
No I am not impressed you don't examine the world around you with a curious and analytical mind.
Where do you live? If it's not Africa, then you are an invasive species. Maybe go scowl in a mirror at the indignity of your own existence.
Look at you proving your own point. So you're saying that your way of hiking is inherently better and more meaningful? Yeah that certainly sounds like an out of control ego.
Not everyone enjoys things the same way you do. Not everyone finds meaning the same way you do. As long as they aren't preventing others from enjoying the trail whichever way they use the trail is valid.
You seem to have strong opinions on how other people enjoy things. You also seems to want to dictate the proper way to enjoy what you enjoy. You also seems to think you can predict what memories will form in someone else's mind. Check your own ego. I think the call might be coming from inside the house.
Yes I have strong opinions about people enjoy nature, that does not mean I want to dictate the way to enjoy what I enjoy it means I am criticizing the motivations at the heart of some other people who enjoy a thing I enjoy.
I have checked my own ego, I have not claimed I am better than other people for enjoying nature the way I do, rather I am pointing out that the embedded assumptions in popular outdoor culture are problematic and we need to examine them. How is that being egotistical?
Criticizing someone's motivations for enjoying a thing you enjoy is inherently placing yourself above the people you are criticizing. That is the essence of egotism.
You called people selfish for using hiking trails for exercise and personal lmorovement. That is saying that your motivations are better than theirs because selfishness is generally recognized as a negative trait and you are saying that their motivations are selfish while yours are somehow not
You enjoy a quiet hike through nature, taking note of the beauty of the natural world around you. Others might enjoy a run through challenging terrain and pushing their body past their previously believed limits. Still others might enjoy a noisy walk through the woods with their family as they trek to the perfect cook out spot to enjoy their time together. None of these is any better than the others. No one needs to be calling anyone else selfish for having these motivations.
If you had some other point you need to do a better job of communicating it.