Talk:Biophilia hypothesis

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biology Low‑importance Biophilia hypothesis is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amhuggett.

Above undated message substituted from

The section "Biophilia and conservation" has a sentence "Therefore, reestablishing a connection with nature has become more important in the field of conservation." with a note asking for a better citation. The following pdf links are from the New Zealand Department of Conservation. I'm not familiar with the syntax for adding these citations, so if somebody could add these, if they suffice: http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/getting-involved/students-and-teachers/effective-approaches-to-connect-children-with-nature.pdf http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/getting-involved/students-and-teachers/benefits-of-connecting-children-with-nature.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.27.23 (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is among the most interesting of ideas that I've encountered in a while.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a lot of thought and effort went into developing the selfish gene section and so I do not want to abruptly remove it. However, I think it needs to be reworked in light of E.O. Wilson's work over the last 5 years, i.e eusociality and multi-level selection. The primacy of selfish gene theory is being heavily debated in the evolutionary journals these days. I suspect that the biophilia hypothesis is consilient with multi-level selection theory, but I will investigate this matter further. If my hunch is correct then I will propose a section rewrite the puts the questions of both theories in broader context rtv125 (talk)

The Selfish Gene Theory never held primacy in the evolutionary biology community.

Savagedjeff (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "biophilia" literally means "love of life or living systems." It was first used by Erich Fromm to describe a psychological orientation of being attracted to all that is alive and vital.[2] Wilson uses the term in the same sense when he suggests that biophilia describes "the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life.”

This is inaccurate.

1. Wilson doesn't mention Fromm at all in his original book (1984). Kahn (2011) observes that there is no known connection.[1]
2. Kellert & Wilson (1995) differentiate the definitions. They are not used in the "same sense" as Wilson narrowly defines the term while Fromm uses a broad definition.[2]

Changes forthcoming... Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biophilia hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803114304/http://www.canada.com:80/vancouversun/news/westcoasthomes/story.html?id=80606332-50e8-42d7-bb11-9f92a2dc3045 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoasthomes/story.html?id=80606332-50e8-42d7-bb11-9f92a2dc3045

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The long summary of the novel Perdita in the Biophilia in Fiction section seems out of place. Is this section necessary? There is only one book in it and the book does not appear to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.40.58 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]