It's not a case of what nature displays - it's what man has spoilt - for example, bins everywhere, fences everywhere, telegraph poles and cables everywhere, roads everywhere, litter everywhere, the destroying of our forests, the poaching of our animals, the poisoning of our atmosphere - shall I go on?
If you want to see nature in the raw, you should be thanking photographers who remove such wonderful displays of man's ingenuity at spoiling our world. Man's "advancement" is not on a linear scale - it is more on a logarithmic scale - which gives us about 60 years before armageddon.

I have read/been told that every time you edit a jpeg file you lose some information. I am not questioning this fact. However, some people imply this is a problem; others say no big deal. When I save my jpegs, I do so at the highest quality the program allows.

My question: are there Hoggers who have discarded formerly good jpeg pictures because they became degraded over time with multiple edits? I am curious if this is a real world problem or more a theoretical concern. If you have lost pictures, can you estimate the number of discrete editing sessions they underwent.

I assume the degradation becomes more noticeable as the print size increases, correct?