‘Green’ Kids Befuddled by Nature
To be fair to the conservationists, they do have a point. Children tend to cause destruction in whatever environment they inhabit. I have a two-year-old daughter who loves the outdoors. When she wanders around in our backyard, she picks flowers, stomps on garden plants and pulls leaves off budding trees despite our best attempts to limit the damage. While her behavior is destructive, it’s not malicious — most of these “offenses” to the environment are a result of simple exploration. She’s two and doesn’t know that pulling on a particular flower will result in its death, or that stepping on plants is a bad thing. If conservationists are preventing kids from exploring wild spaces in an attempt to protect them, they are engaged in some potentially harmful short-term thinking. By attempting to “protect” nature from kids, they are creating an entire generation that has no connection to the natural world.
In the short term, my daughter’s actions are destructive to the immediate environment, to the dismay of my wife, who is the green thumb in the house. However, it’s clear my daughter’s need to touch and interact with the environment is a result of her love and connection with the outdoors. She is never happier than when she’s running around in the yard, running her hand over a leaf, or playing among the flowers.
Studies have shown that interaction with nature is important not just to a child’s understanding and appreciation of the environment, but to their physical and emotional development. Children who spend time in nature do better on tests, have better motor development skills, less stress and are more imaginative.
In addition, as Attenborough and Collins have indicated, people who develop a connection to nature as children are more likely to support policies that protect the environment when they reach adulthood. Environmentalists should be aware, though, that this does not give them license to simply lecture kids about nature. Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, which explores connections between lack of exposure to nature and increased rates of obesity, attention disorders, and depression, says adults should beware of focusing too much on issues like global warming. He says “If we emphasize environmental destruction at too early an age in the absence of a joyful experience, we are setting up kids to associate nature with the end of things and fear and disaster. That’s important, but we also need to emphasize the positive that nature plays simply by being there.”
Fortunately, that lesson is being learned. In Canada and the United States, government officials are working to make playgrounds and public places greener in an attempt to expose children to little touches of nature. As the father of a child who is learning just how important that exposure is, those actions are laudable and appreciated.
I’ll wager that the time my daughter spends “destroying” nature will give her a stronger bond to the environment than can be gained through the hectoring lectures of “conservationists” who want to shut off nature from those who wish to enjoy it or scare kids with stories of environmental destruction. Our flower garden may suffer, but flowers grow back. My daughter will never get a second chance to be a child.
I think the enviro-nuts are perfectly happy to have a generation of people completely ignorant of the natural world. Such ignorance can be exploited and turned into idealization and romanticizing of nature. Such unfamiliarity can be exploited to preach that even footprints and bicycle tracks destroy and despoil the pure wilderness.
How many radical environmentalists and their supporters and apologists never leave New York City.
Don’t expect the greenies to educate children about nature, they prefer manipulating ignorance to engaging in informed debate.
Bluebell ID is one thing, but how about this, from the article:
“Less than two-thirds (62 per cent) identified frogs.”
As I blogged about the irony of it all the other day:
“It seems impossible. Even if they are out of touch with nature, haven’t these kids ever seen “Sesame Street”? Can you say Kermit the Frog? ‘Guess that being green is even harder than we thought.”
I remember college days in the 1970s. I listened to passionate rallying for wilderness areas, where the only way to enter would be to backpack in. I’d ask, Who would pay? Taxpayers. So… the person in the wheel chair, or the guy working Mon to Fri with 2 small kids, gets to pay but doesn’t have the ability to take himself and his family to what he paid for? In contrast, the public college kid, who’s tuition in California was paid mainly by the taxpayer back then, who doesn’t yet pay much in the way of taxes, who has the time and youth to be physically fit can? Shrug. The feeling was that the special people who knew how special wilderness areas were should protect it from the regular people. Money no object, if it wasn’t yours. The Sierra Club lost me as a supporter after 1 or 2 of those discussions at the ripe old age of about 20.
HChambers,
Your comment addresses one of the glaring problems about some of the more coercive strains of environmentalism: the lack of social equity. When environmental policies are enacted, the beneficiaries are an elite few while the rest are subjected to added burden.
I talk about this in a post I wrote here:
http://architectureandmorality.blogspot.com/2008/04/green-mark-up-who-pays-for.html
This is to be expected when the truth gets twisted by radical environmentalists.
HChambers: that’s hardly surprising. It’s not just the inequity of environmentalism. The lion’s share of all government spending is captured by the middle classes. The rich don’t need to bother and the poor are marginalised by their lack of political access to the levers of power. The middle classes, by comparison, are numerous, educated and motivated to grab the low hanging fruit. They organise, they lobby, and above all they vote. Then the Lefties see this and call for tax increases on the rich. What these fools don’t see is that there aren’t enough rich people from which to mulct the necessary amount of money. The only way the genuinely disadvantaged can be provided with essential welfare is to shrink the size of the state. And ‘the whipped cream on a cake’ (as Vaclav Klaus put it) that is modern environmentalism should be the first to be defunded. If people want wilderness areas then they should pay for them directly. Probably the best way to safeguard wild areas would be for the Federal government to sell off the bulk of its land (Uncle Sam is by far the biggest land owner in the US). Sell it at auction to private individuals (and use the cash to reduce the national debt, rather than make-work programmes for more bureaucrats). The Audubon Society and the Sierra Club have deep pockets. Let them put their money where their mouth is. Hell, Ducks Unlimited is probably the greatest force for good in environmentally-responsible land management there is. At present we are in the classic Tragedy of the Commons as identified by the late Garret Hardin. Even Aristotle recognised that land owned in private but enjoyed in common was the best solution. So let the landowners charge what they see fit for the upkeep of their publicly-accessible land, and then the guy in a wheelchair or the hard-working man with two kids and no free time isn’t coerced into subsidising those who are able to enjoy the great outdoors.
Ever wondered why the most extreme environmentalists are city-dwellers? It’s harder to delude yourself into believing that nature is falling apart when you interact with it every day. This is also why most of the purported environmental crises are happening in parts of the world where nobody goes.
Environmentalists have raised nature to a no-human zone, and now find that by making much of it off limits, much of the next generation has no contact with nature.
These kids raised in a digital cocoon will have little sympathy for “mining is ugly” or “we need to save these pretty views”. They’ll want to drill, build, and burn their way to cheap power for their lifestyle. Don’t like the view? Digitize it, just like the Chinese 2008 olympics opening ceremony!
Ever wondered why the most extreme environmentalists are city-dwellers?
Here’s another reason – it’s easier to sentimentalize wild animals if the only place you ever see them is at the zoo.
You can think of critters like bears, foxes, mountain lions, deer, etc. as cute ‘n cuddly living, breathing stuffed animals if you don’t have to worry about them killing your livestock and pets or destroying your crops, or even your suburban garden.
I understand the stab at mainstream “green” mentality but,
Who CARES the difference between a black speckled blue jay and a bluebell? (totally random animal names there)
As long as we dont do around intentionally causing extinctions, lets just leave the damn things alone.
EDIT: I grew up in the country, i know and have experienced nature my whole life, so don’t think I advocate “burning it down”
Ronsonic,
your generalization is so stupid and pathetic that the only nuts you know about are your pathetic duo.
Who CARES the difference between a black speckled blue jay and a bluebell?
If someone can’t tell the difference between a bird and a flower, why on Earth should anyone trust their judgement? Especially when they’re lecturing us on how the whole world will be “destroyed” if we don’t yield to their totalitarian desires?
Your backyard/garden, city and suburban parks are not the areas that are put off limits. In the several places I have lived (Southeast, West Coast, and HI) there were some few places that were completely off limits to the general public or with serious restrictions (generally but not always for good reason), but many many more that were open to the general public for camping, hiking, fishing, or just relaxing and many of those with wheelchair access. Everywhere I have lived in the US has ready access to the nature you describe in your examples (gardens and neighborhood parks) along with more wild places with easy access where one can see a variety of cultivated and wild plants along with somewhat acclimated wild animals. Of course your daughter and all other children and adults should have access to natural or naturalized environments to enjoy. In the US all but the poorest urban dwellers have a plethora of choices for this and even they still have options if they are somewhat more limited. Western Europe with its orders of magnitude higher population density has much more difficulty with this but even the Netherlands (the most densely populated EU nation) has plenty of easily accessible naturalized areas for all to enjoy.
The reason the vast majority of children don’t have more exposure to nature is because parents do not make the effort to expose them to nature early for whatever reason. It appears that those reasons are generally that the parents are tired and would rather do something else (shop, watch tv, or browse the internet), not that it is particularly difficult.
Sorry, Javelin, Ronsonic is dead right, at least by my experience in CA. The environuts depend on ignorance to push their agendas.
(Oh, and nice, reasoned response to Ronsonic’s comment, too. Bravo.)
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed–and hence, clamorous to be led to safety–by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
–H.L. Mencken
Radical environmentalists don’t care as much about actual Nature as they claim (or even think) they do. Nature to them is a means to the end that gets them 1) a cushy lifetime sinecure of some kind, and 2) power over other people’s lives.
To all our radical environmentalists, always remember that a blackberry is red when it’s green.
“The greatest poverty is not to live in the natural world.” As certified metropolitanos now ensconced in deepest suburbia, our family finds a solution ready-to-hand: The Boy Scouts. Girls jump around playing outdoor sports, but boys need heavy dosages of outdoor incentives to emerge from Video Game Hell in darkened cellars.
Hiking, Scout camps, sailing trips to Key West, trekking the high country of New Mexico– affordable, doable on a group basis which families simply cannot accomplish on their own. Scouting seems a matter of temperament (I never joined), but programs under devoted leaders could not be more positive. Kids learn leadership, responsibility, awareness of the Great World from an early age… scouting ensures that everyone will find a niche, kids literally are not allowed to fail. Not phony “self-esteem” but genuine performance inculcates respect for others, confidence in one’s own unique abilities.
Even in urban environments, nothing prevents field trips to shrines like Gettysburg and Valley Forge, hiking the White Mountains, overnighting on the battleships “Massachusetts” in Fall River, “New Jersey” in Philadelphia while visiting Independence Hall. Missing such activities in formative years, one will never appreciate American history, natural beauty, in such romantic ways. For kids fortunate enough to participate, get past “Scout food,” whole new dimensions beckon.
Raising Guitar Heroes in the basement? Pack ‘em up to Harriman State Park, tour West Point, visit historic Old Dutch estates up the Hudson River from New York. Kids won’t know the difference, if you don’t; but parents will sense a deep-seated grounding, quietude, once offspring find their ways. Be Prepared!
Stampedes quickly form regarding environmental issues. Average people are too ready to join a game of tug-of-war, pulling on solutions to problems that really aren’t well defined.
Educational and media ecosystems controlled by careless thinkers infect children with their carelessness. In the end, natural ecosystems become less important than the contrived ones.
Thanks for the post Peter
Ronsonic:
You nailed it, first out of the chute. This is the only way the global warming hoax is perpetrated, by spreading the ignorance. By defining the problem as ‘plausible’ in most people’s uneducated minds, the enviro-nuts can successfully fool more and more people — Mostly by scaremongering.
Instead of brainwashing students, the guberment screwl system should try educating them, in science, chemistry and mathematics.
Blackberries are red when green, who knew.