Here, you describe a case where the author’s assumptions seem terribly uninformed. Stereotype and generalization might be the kindest comments. I love the observation, for example, that we have lost our ability to read the natural environment. The average urbanite (his audience?) might have undeveloped navigational skills in the bush, but surely we are pretty good at getting around town. I remember distinctly being able to assist one of my research informants visiting Vancouver for the first time. He was pretty uncomfortable navigating streets, taxis, buses, traffic lights, etc, and was pleased to have me and my local knowledge at hand. Perhaps the city is not the natural world, but that kind of statement only serves to drag us into a debate about ‘nature’ itself and what it takes before a natural world becomes a cultural one. (This sounds a little like the comment that the Inuit have lots of words for snow and thus the Inuit are highly knowledgeable about their environment. That idea ignores, of course, all of the other people who ski or hike or have a driveway to shovel … think they don’t have lots of words for snow?)

But, you know what … at least the ethnographers are here to straighten this out!