Here's a quote from one of today's electronic-gadget-loving kids: "The reason I prefer playing indoors is because that's where all the electrical outlets are."
That was shared by Richard Louv (Grist interview here), author of Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, during a conference call I hosted recently for the Orion Grassroots Network, to catch us up on what's new in the "getting kids back into nature" movement (full audio here). Turns out there's a lot.
The book documents how outdoor, unstructured play is critical to child development -- and is a bestseller, now in its 14th printing in five languages. But the amazing thing about this issue is that it really has legs, even with the notoriously finicky news media. Major outlets have printed multiple stories on the "indoor kids crisis" in the two years since the book came out. Even the 700 Club's Christian Broadcasting Network is concerned. Why? Louv has a couple thoughts about that.
During the conversation, he stated his contention that as a society, we're hungry for hope, and for something to agree on. This issue is hopeful in that people realize they can do something about it, today, unlike the big political and environmental issues of the day. And the benefit to kids is immediate and measurable in numerous ways: outdoor time fights disturbing childhood trends like obesity, attention disorders, and depression.
And he says that the issue brings people together regardless of creed, geographic locale, or political designation: a recent congressional subcommittee Louv testified for broke down into a series of reminiscences about special outdoor places which legislators from both parties pointed to as key to their childhoods. Heck, even developers and realtors are in the thick of this issue.
In answer, many regional efforts are sprouting to devise projects to get kids outside for unstructured play (and with their parents, too). This is one of the other big realizations: the parents of young kids themselves are in great need of outdoor time away from the kids' many activities, school, work, etc. And then there's the No Child Left Inside Act proposed in the U.S. Congress -- H.R. 3036 -- which would create a $100 million environmental education grant program as well as authorize spending from the "Fund for the Improvement of Education" for programs associated with the measure.
It seems like a simple thing, getting kids outside -- but in an era when green space is shrinking and parents worry for their kids' safety when alone in the out-of-doors, kids need all the help they can get. And the planet is going to need lots more kids from this generation that are not only computer-literate, but earth-literate.
Jonathan Safran Foer on his book “Eating Animals”
More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted
Comments
View as Threaded
JMG Posted 5:57 am
07 Aug 2007
(Although how they're going to fill in the bubbles on those standardized tests is a mystery ... ;^)
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:27 am
08 Aug 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
glattonfolly Posted 6:07 am
08 Aug 2007
As kids get more disconnected from nature, the rates of childhood obesity, attention deficits, and juvenile diabetes increase. This represents an opportunity as pretty much everybody (outside of DC) can agree that we care about the health of children. If we reconnect kids to nature, we will see their health improve.
The second part of the problem is the need for conservation leadership in the future. If kids are no longer connected with nature, who will give a damn about the parks and the forests in 20 years? Who will the leaders be, not only to protect habitat and wildlife, but to deal with the impacts of global warming?
The good news is that Rich Louv's fine book, built in part with the research of many folks over the past couple decades has sparked a movement that is growing, giving us reason for hope.
childrenandnature.blogspot.com
Permalink
EAR Posted 10:58 pm
11 Aug 2007
I am surprised and disappointed that this kind of kindergarten hasn't even started to emerge in the states. Given the abounding problems facing young children, this would be a great way to hit those problems where it hurts. I would also like to move back "home" at some point, but I can't image sending my kids to any other kind of kindergarten.
Permalink
mjvande Posted 2:04 am
20 Aug 2007
Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,
by Richard Louv
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.
But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.
On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not!
On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health -- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items.
It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. In other words, we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase the quality.
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.
Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.
Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.
Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.
Abstract:
It is anthropocentric thinking, and irresponsible, to promote the invasion of wildlife habitat without considering: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:05 am
20 Aug 2007
Our own Biodiversivist sounds like an excellent parent in this regard. I wish I could have had a father like him. Not that I would wish on him having a child like me! : )
When I was starting high school, we moved from the city (Philadelphia) to a single suburban house in a development cut out of an old Gatsby-era millionaire's estate. The hill behind our house was undeveloped, and some distance over it stood the abandoned Italianate mansion. I was not an out-doorsy explorer: the two or three times that I ventured up that hill, through the trees, I came back with poison ivy, which confirmed in my mind that there was not much point in exploring.
On the other hand, I loved observing the wildlife of those woods from inside the house. There were raccoons, skunks, snakes, and occasionally a deer. But my favorites were the pheasants (Phasianus colchicus; non-native), whole families of which would cross our backyard in peace. I could watch them forever. And so, imagine how appalled I was, when my cousin visited us, and he expressed surprise that we made no attempt to hunt, kill and eat our pheasants! Of course, his father my uncle had made the same stupid remark on another occasion.
My cousin, by the way, went on to become a chemical engineer, specializing in petroleum, and has made a career with Sun Oil.
In yesterday's NY Times, in the Week in Review section, Charles McGrath has an amusing little review of an odd old (faux-old, really) book that has been trundled out, "The Dangerous Book for Boys," by Conn and Hal Iggulden. Apparently it is a sort of how-to book which teaches little that one would think might interest boys, and very little that is at all dangerous. Even odder, the film rights have been purchased, and it is going to be turned into a movie, with some kind of narrative composed to sustain it. McGrath writes:
<<
Since the book has no story, writers will have to be hired to dream one up. A report in Variety suggested that the plot of the movie is likely to involve fathers who struggle to balance their instinctive need to protect and their offspring's craving for adventure, even though the evidence mostly suggests that these days it is the sons who are risk averse, unwilling to unplug themselves from their iPods, and the parents who are eager for their offspring to go outside and have some old-fashioned fun.
>>
On the matter of boys specifically, and not just all children together, irrespective of gender: Are we having a testosterone crisis in our culture? On the one hand, it seems there is ample evidence that when we send men and boys out into the outdoors, life is simply not worth living for them unless they can interpret the entire experience as a serious game, a competition, in which there will be a winner and a loser, and in which they hope to display their impressive manhood. On the other hand, we dread that our sons are turning into a generation of soft, shrinking, closeted wimps. So what is really going on?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:57 pm
20 Aug 2007
By contrast, I'd wager that very few kids come to the natural world from a beauty perspective and then "decide to protect it."
Anyhow, Louv doesn't promote interaction with wildlife as a way of connecting them to nature. My reading of his work is that parks, preserves, and the miscellaneous wild places right in kids' neighborhoods are the real focus, minor places where a sense of wonder can be sparked and nurtured by things like snails, butterflies, and wispy dandelion heads.
Your note that "We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us!" seems to put humans and the rest of nature in two camps, which is never helpful. Most forms of wildlife don't want contact with other forms, either, especially when predation is in the picture.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink