I read an article in The Washington Post yesterday on "
inside children" (children who don't go outside to play and experience nature), and I wasn't sure what to make of it.
(warning: long and rambling)
Yes, I do think it is horrible that children are not getting out and playing and really getting a chance to commune with nature. But of course a number of other thoughts ran though my head at the same time.
I spent tons of time outdoors when I was a child, but did not really spend it in a natural environment, and yet turned out to be an advocate for protecting the environment and protecting open space, natural places, etc. Is there a difference between spending time outdoors and spending time in a natural environment?
One of the directions I am trying to go here is to say that I lived in a community that seemed well designed for playing outside. No, we did not each have vast backyards to play in (having a house with a vast backyard seems to be a factor in a lot of the mcMansion sprawl we have to put up with these days, as if if using a riding lawnmower was a real way to connect to nature). By living in a community where all the houses were compact and right next to each other, it was always easy to find other children around to go play with. The community was laid out well enough that no child needed to be driven around by a parent to gain access to other children. In many modern developments it is hard for one child to meet up with other children, houses can be spread further apart, and poor designs, like those wretched cul de sacs make it hard to get from one block to the next.
If children are not going to go outside, will developers give up on the wasteful ways of sprawl and start building compact smarter growth again?
So that is a long way of saying that we are designing neighborhoods that help make the situation worse. And if that wasn't enough, when poor development it is even harder to get to nature for those times when that is really what you want to do. I can't imagine not having access to a park via bike or mass transit. How can a kid really experience nature if they are always dependent on Mommy or Daddy to take them to nature?
This of course leads to another issue: Fear Factor.
It seems that when I was a child most children were given a lot more free reign (the exception being this young girl that lived down the street from me (Macy, I think), who wasn't even allowed to cross Drury Lane). Even at a fairly young age I was able to go (I assume I had permission) to the five and dime, which was beyond city limits (trust me, I made that sound more impressive than it really was).
Yet I don't think as many children would be given the same latitude in this day and age. Parents are worried that bad things will happen to their children and don't want to let them be outside without supervision. the general statistics are that children really aren't in greater danger, but that the bad incidents are more hyped, creating a greater sense of fear. At my elementary school, we were taught how to be smart about situations (don't get in the car with someone you don't know) and taught some basics on what to do if you end up in a bad situation. But we were never taught to be afraid of being outside. I wish I knew how to collectively pull our country out of fear mongering.
Just some of my initial thoughts.
-- Andy
Labels: Environment, Rant
