‘Green’ Kids Befuddled by Nature
Let kids experience nature — don't lecture them about it.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
A few weeks ago, the results of a BBC Wildlife Magazine survey on kids and nature caused a stir in the British press. The survey found that less than half of those who took the test could identify common birds, insects and plants and that most of them would rather spend time on the computer or with friends than go for a walk outdoors.
Documentary maker Sir David Attenborough (writer and narrator for the BBC’s excellent Planet Earth documentary) worried about the implications for future conservation efforts, saying “nobody is going to protect the natural world unless they understand it.” Fergus Collins of the BBC agreed, asking “if we can’t spark an interest in nature when our children are young, how can we expect them to look after the planet and its wildlife when they are adults?”
In a sense, I can sympathize with the kids who took the test. By virtue of my age, I’ve spent a lot more time with nature, and I’m not sure I could tell a bluebell from any other blue flower, and I’m terrible at identifying the song of any bird that’s not a chickadee, cardinal or a crow. At first blush, this story seems like one we’ve heard many times before — children aren’t spending enough time outdoors, they’re spending too much time in front of television, video games and the computer. Normally, the parents play the role of villain in these stories. What’s interesting about this article, however, is not the findings of the study, but who is being blamed.
According to the article, some are pointing fingers not just at over-protective parents, but at conservationists who fear children will damage the environment. Quoted in the article is Dr Martin Maudsley, play development officer for Playwork Partnerships, at the University of Gloucestershire, who says that “environmental sensitivities should not be prioritized over children.”
Peter Cook lives in the great North outdoors and blogs at Slublog.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
20 Comments
1. Ronsonic: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.
Aug 16, 2008 - 7:21 am 2. Sissy Willis: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.”
Aug 16, 2008 - 9:29 am 3. HChambers: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.
Aug 16, 2008 - 9:59 am 4. corbusier: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
Aug 16, 2008 - 10:37 am 5. BackwardsBoy:This is to be expected when the truth gets twisted by radical environmentalists.
Aug 16, 2008 - 10:43 am 6. David Gillies: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.
Aug 16, 2008 - 11:54 am 7. Self-hating boomer: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.
Aug 16, 2008 - 3:46 pm 8. Tamara Wilhite: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.
Aug 16, 2008 - 6:41 pm 9. Donna: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.
Aug 17, 2008 - 12:58 pm 10. Jake von MN: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.
Aug 17, 2008 - 6:09 pm 11. Jake von MN: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”
Aug 17, 2008 - 6:11 pm 12. Javelin:Ronsonic,
Aug 17, 2008 - 8:19 pm 13. HeatherRadish: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?
Aug 18, 2008 - 9:02 am 14. Jeb: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.
Aug 18, 2008 - 11:53 am 15. Vance: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.”
Aug 18, 2008 - 2:10 pm 16. Roderick Reilly:–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.
Aug 18, 2008 - 3:32 pm 17. Jude:To all our radical environmentalists, always remember that a blackberry is red when it’s green.
Aug 18, 2008 - 6:05 pm 18. John Blake:“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!
Aug 19, 2008 - 9:09 am 19. Bill R: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
Aug 21, 2008 - 5:12 am 20. bill-tb: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.
Aug 24, 2008 - 7:40 am