Consumer Electronics Causing 'Death of Childhood'? 758
An anonymous reader writes "Top children's authors, including best-seller Philip Pullman (His Dark Materials), have written an open letter to the British Government claiming that consumer electronics have brought about the death of childhood. They say that children desperately need 'real play (as opposed to sedentary, screen-based entertainment), first-hand experience of the world they live in'. The letter writers also state that children have lost their imaginations because they are, 'pushed by market forces to act and dress like mini-adults and exposed via the electronic media to material which would have been considered unsuitable for children even in the very recent past.' The article asks, 'is modern life too fast for the supple human mind? Do children have a rev counter we're red-lining by exposing them to so much input?'" So what does Slashdot think? Are kids growing up too fast nowadays because of them new-fangled technologies?
LEGOs (Score:3, Insightful)
Current generation fears new technology. (Score:1, Insightful)
More on this... every generation from now.
Wrong Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally think that parents who make this decision are failing their children. The child needs to be aware of what's going on in the world. That's why I love school classes that have current events, I encourage my child to read and / or watch the news. If they're secluded from everything, they're going have no clue what's going on when they hit the real world.
Back in my day (Score:5, Insightful)
But sincerely,
Every generation has some aspect that is supposedly going to bring utter ruination to the future. And every generation manages to cope. I think we will be allright as long as parents bring some healthy balance to thier kids activities. When has that concept ever been new and fresh? It has always been that way.
No, right choice (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that kids are growing up too quickly... (Score:5, Insightful)
-also, as we over protect our children, we seperate ourselves more and more from the rest of the community. This splits our kids away from the available social networks and playmates - encouraging further isolation.
So, it's not the technology - but the fact that we don't teach or give our children any other options.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more than just electronic games. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also electronic content. A kid should not be raised by proxy in front of a video screen, whether he/she has a controller (or a mouse and/or keyboard) or not. There's more to growing up than that.
One should also be actively and physically engaged as well. Playing outdoors, running around, playing with physical objects (whether they be Legos or whatever).
Being raised is a matter of mind and body.
Technology changes us (Score:2, Insightful)
shouldn't it be an open letter to parents? (Score:5, Insightful)
what exactly does he expect the government to do?
Opinion Vs. Fact (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of me wants to dismiss his entire argument as nonsensical luddite ramblings. Another part of me wonders if he might have at least a small point. But it's where those two parts of me meet and ask "where's the proof?" that I finall come to the conclusion there is nothing to see here, move along.
At least, from the children I know and observe, I don't see them suffering developmentally from the fact that they can play their PSP all day. What I mean is, don't blame the PSP. The fact is, I think through simple, good, old fashioned parenting, a child can have a better upbringing today than ever before, as long as the parent is able to understand and integrate today's technology, within moderation, with the raising of their child(ren).
Maybe too many parents are becoming lazy, thinking technology can replace them in areas of parenting where it should not. But like I said above, about opinions.....
TLF
A childless adult's observation (Score:2, Insightful)
Kids nowadays spend all their time in front of video games, don't even know how to ride bikes (my nephew just learned at age 13 to ride a bike and so did his friends), never play ball in their yard and have schedules or routines that plan out their times at school, after school and at home on the weekend. Everything is planned and scheduled instead of impulse.
My observation is that this is fucked up.
Advertisment (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the opposite (Score:3, Insightful)
Not because of the toys (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they're growing up too fast (and often in unhealthy ways) because of poor parenting and poor education systems.
It is not rocket science that a child left unsupervised with an unrestricted TV, Internet-enabled computer and PlayStation n in their bedroom is likely to spend an unhealthy amount of time in front of a screen, and come into contact with less than suitable material for someone their age. The also-not-rocket-science solution to this problem is... not to give kids all the toys and the chance to use them unsupervised all the time.
Likewise, it's easy to let the kids buy junk food on the way to and from school, and to eat school meals with poor nutritional value and drink soda, and then to throw a quick microwave meal or frozen pizza in for dinner. And then we wonder why more of our kids are seriously overweight and developing health problems than any time in recent history. The revolutionary solution to this is... giving kids real food and drink at meal times.
Of course, it's much easier for parents to leave little Jonny and Suzy to play with their hi-tech toys and then cook them frozen pizza for dinner than it is to take an active part in their upbringing by, I dunno, talking to them, reading to them, having dinner with them, and taking them to see and do interetsing things. The work-life balance in many western countries is now so far left of stupid that many parents see the easy option as the only option, however.
Similarly, one has to wonder at "education" systems that spend more time worrying about whether 7-year-olds can pass formal examinations than worrying about 7-year-olds learning to interact with other 7-year-olds, make friends, and play together. And yet, this is exactly where we're headed.
Society needs a wake-up call, particularly if it thinks it's worked this one out. Hi-tech toys are just the symptom, not the cause of the problem.
Re:Maybe, both choices (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, the key is balance. Exercising only the mind or only the body is unhealthy in a child, and in an adult.
Re:I've seen this first-hand (Score:3, Insightful)
Balance (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I also try to get him and his sister up into the woods each weekend to play in the dirt, eat wild clover and look at the banana slugs. We try to get some time in at the park every day after school. We draw frequently with pencil, crayon and paper.
We watch movies and videos on DVD, but we don't have cable or satelite TV at home. We also try to read each night.
Both my children have very fertile and active imaginations--my son is working on writing and illustrating his first book and, last week started a "math book". The problem isn't the electronics, it's relying on them too much.
I probably spent too much time as a child reading books. I'd probably be better adjusted socially if I'd have been out playing with other kids more instead.
Caligulazation (Score:5, Insightful)
But how many generations had their kids sitting in front of, essentially, puppet-shows (or some other analog equivalent) all day, every day? In fact, one could argue that the loonier offspring of the "idle" artistocracy and their highly entertained (but not so very challeneged, physically, etc) kids were the precursor to what we're seeing now, but across much larger swaths of the society: flacid minds, a sense of entitlement, no sense of causality or critical thinking... sort of the Caligulazation of a much wider population.
Basically, the standard of living for most of modern western society is now so high that most of us are living like (or better than) the aristrocracy of the not very distant past.
Yes, we all assume that our current generation's kids are the ones that will wreck civilization, but there's actually something TO this one, I think, at least a bit.
Re:The reason that kids are growing up too quickly (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have the mass media constantly scaring people about sexual predators that prey on children, is it small wonder why parents nowadays are absolutely scared about letting their children go out and play in the neighborhood? Small wonder why the only time you see children at a playground nowadays is with very strict parental supervision....
Re:Not my children (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, though, kudos to you both and good luck (because when she starts to school that first exposure to violence (and there will be some violence, mostly because the teachers can't be "violent" any more) is going to be a "culture shock" right down to her little shoes.)
Re:Not my children (Score:3, Insightful)
Does they know where chicken comes from? I'm not being sarcastic, here, but you're sort of setting them up for a bit of a shock the first time they turn on the news, or someone they know has a friend killed in a carjacking or something. It's not that you want that sort of unhappy reality foisted on them more than necessary, but being able to have a level-headed perspective about it is pretty important, isn't it? An informed one?
I wonder, sometimes, if the people that say if they only had a chance to have nice, quiet talk and some creative playtime with some sociopath, that that person would suddenly decide to stop being a destructive sociopath. I'm not saying that your daughters should steel themselves to deal with sociopaths, but it would be nice if they went into the world understanding that someone has to deal with them, and to respect what that involves. That way they won't resent paying taxes to hire police officers, etc. I know, sounds like a stretch - but I wouldn't mention it if I didn't perceive the trend in my own neighborhood's kids, and feel obliged to comment on it. Seems like in our area, we have either completely "street-wise" thug-wannabees, or completely sheltered kids that will be completely at the mercy of the other group once they all get to the same school. It's frustrating, that's for sure. Good on you for the gardening and dogs, though - that's stuff every kid should do and see, their entire lives.
Re:Article raises a good point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep - constant availability of gaming consoles, flash and other online games and television is like putting racks of candy bars all over your house. Six year olds shouldn't be eating a non-stop diet of chocolate and fried potatoes all day, nor should they be sitting on their asses playing video games and watching television all day. The challenge is that in some communities (especially suburbs) a couple of hours of this kind of play a day is the norm. And in that situation restricting your kids has got to be tough.
But I know of many households that restrict kids to four or less hours of electronic games & television a week. In my household we ditched television broadcasting (cable, dish, antenna) fifteen years ago and have *never* regretted it. We rent dvds a couple of times a month, that's it.
Sure, it means that kids don't get to watch their MTV when they were eight years old, but they did read "The Wind in the Willows" instead, they did learn how to play musical instruments, juggle, explore the local trails, wrestle, play with the dog, play with their friends, etc. All far better ways for kids to spend their time.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Our society ignores social ills by denying that they exist and using tools to pretend that reality is something else.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean no criticism of you and yours with the following; it's just something I thought should be said:
In a rational society, either the people's law enforcement system would take care of the problem of crack users, prostitutes, and polluteres ruining woody ravines near their homes, or the people would be empowered to take care of the problem themselves using whatever force is necessary.
It's irrational to create a society wherein good people hide behind walls while the criminals roam free.
Please, folks, wherever you live, work toward getting people who understand this into positions of power.
Send them all up chimneys! (Score:3, Insightful)
chimneys, down coal mines and out onto the streets to beg for
food.
Why, in my day, we lived in a cardboard box and had to eat lumps
of coal!
Re:We aren't so fragile of mind (Score:3, Insightful)
- Children's books authors are complaining about children not reading enough books.
- Rather than take responsibility for their falling sales, said authors complain to the government about their competition.
- Perennial computer addicts on
/. debate about children and video games.
- A lucid poster suggests parents take responsibility.
Dost mine eyes detect a recurring theme?Re:Opinion Vs. Fact (Score:2, Insightful)
"Put 'em straight to work" would have been the motto of old.
So how do we define what childhood actually is?
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Veering seriously OT, of course people need to work actively towards making their neighborhood more safe and less crack-addict infected. In Oakland, unfortunatley, the current political climate doesn't lend itself towards actually addressing the root causes or treating the symptoms (by like, arresting those people), and in fact I would argue that it works (unintentionally or otherwise) towards continuing the causes, so that the current power structure can stay in place.
Even worse, you get advice from police that basically says "stay inside, never confront anyone. By the way, if something bad happens, we won't show up, but by all means, never try to protect yourself." It's pretty much the definition of irrational.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:3, Insightful)
How remarkably sad. If I did not have a place to "free range" my kids I would reconsider my priorities regarding where I live. There is much that is learned from open ended play with peers that I do not believe can be learned in a game context. Sure a great deal of social dynamics is appearing in games, but the implications of considering them a viable replacement for REAL human interaction is frightening at best. I let my kids play video games and some of their play running around outside is an extension of some of the games they play.
Jumping forward to an adult context, having a relationship with your right hand a virtual girlfriend does not pose the risk of pregnancy or STD's, but it is hardly a fulfulling relationship. For some it is a sad substitute, but it would be considered disfunctional if an individual considered it adequate.
Re:Sad Sight (Score:5, Insightful)
We went to France once. Here my mother stood aghast at my total disinterest in the majesty of the cultural capital of the world. My regard for Paris paticularly offended her. I was bored out of my tree, and if I'd had a gameboy, I would have finished Metroid during that trip.
But in Paris, there was succor. The Musée des Arts et Métiers. Oh such joy! When my parents refused to take me, as they had more "cultured" places to visit, I went alone to what was one of the most memorable expieriences of my life. A menagere of scientific legend awaits all who enter. I went twice. If I'd had a gameboy, I would gladly have smashed it to pieces to get another tour.
I did finally manage to drag them to the Panthéon. They went for the "cultural" expierience, as some great men or other were entombed within. But I went for Foucault's Pendulum, one of the most elegant experimental proofs ever made. And within also, is a copy of Foucault's paper on the pendulum, containing his own mathematical equations, explaining the revolution of the pendulum as being caused by the rotation of the earth! Bliss!!
They left France thinking themselves "educated", and I a philistine, just as you might think that children dragged off to rocket launchings they have no interest in are similarly philistines. The simple reality is that people have different interests, and if you want to encourage your children to put down their gameboys you have to find activities that they find interesting, not activities you find interesting and simply want to force them into enjoying. So lay off sespairing at their lack of interests when you don't even know what their interests are.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real programmers are real people too (Score:5, Insightful)
We evolved in loose groups of 150-250 individuals. If you heard about someone getting eaten by a tiger then, chances are you should watch out because he was likely only a few hundred metres over that way, so the danger to you was very real.
Then we started to hear about things that happened to someone at the other end of the country, and suddenly it seemed like there were murderers and rapists and nutjobs everywhere, because barely a day went past when we didn't hear of someone getting killed in an inventive or gruesome way.
Now we've got the web, and e-mail, and satellite TV, and blogs, and we hear about it if a mouse farts in Buttfuck, Antarctica. And now it's not even safe to let your kids walk to school for fear of them getting molested, you can't get on a 'plane for fear it'll be bombed out of the sky, and you can't visit the toilet in your own house without getting abducted and beheaded by terrorists.
The only way to tackle this is by recognising what's going on and overruling your instincts. They served you well ten thousands years ago when you lived in a tree and had to avoid tigers, but now we're living in condos and keep small tigers in the house as pets.
Try my patented Lightning Test: Look up the statistics of whatever the latest mania/terror/panic is about, and worry about it if it's more likely than.. oh... say... getting hit by lightning.
Try terrorism - look up the number of deaths form terrorism each year, then look up the number of people who get hit by lightning.
Now if someone's advocating taking away civil rights because of terrorism, or locking up our children because of paedophiles, you can apply the simple test: Are they also advocating the compulsory wearing of earthed metal hats and rubber gumboots?
If not, then their little pet crusade is clearly disproportionate and can be safely ignored.
This has been a Public Service Announcement from the Lets All Get A Fucking Grip Society. Have a nice day.
Re:Wrong Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:4, Insightful)
In a rational society the medical system would take care of the problems of crack users and prostitutes.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually in a rational society the people would just legalize drugs and prostitution and the problem goes away tomorrow. Decades of whatever force is necessary has turned this society into a police state full of frightened and abused citizens.
See how simple that was?
Re:No real programmers either (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says we do?
I think the generation that missed out on programming in severely constrained environments (I came in the tail end of it myself) are never forced to code with any discipline. If there's a problem, just throw more giga[bytes/hertz/whatever] at it.
Why do you think each successive version of Windows requires twice as much memory as the version before?
Unless you have worked in a very constrained environment and/or developed a set of tools from the ground up (say, the basics of a run-time library or class library), then it is not very likely you will have the discipline you need to write good code. To me, this is why throwing CS Freshman at Java is a Bad Idea. Throw 'em at an 8080 assembler with 16k or RAM. Things like Java can come along, but later.
Re:Caligulazation (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm not saying we or our governments will use that power responsibly or evenly, but it's there.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it's a difficult issue -- do you move to the suburbs so your kids can play outside more freely, but you commute for two hours wasting gas (and time you can spend with your kids), contributing to exurban spawl and living somewhere that should be arable cropland or open space?
My point, really, was that this is a super complicated issue, and can't simply be blamed on consumer electronics!
Let's see what they look like when they're 50 (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had kids they could play all the video games they wanted, but the hardware would be powered off deep-cycle batteries charged by a stationary bicycle. You play, you ride.
The Simple Life... (Score:5, Insightful)
My great-uncle became "man of the house" at age ten, when his father died in a farm accident. Today, he'ld be given counselling; then, he was given a household full of siblings and a farm to take care of. And he did it, because that was his duty as a man. Today, nineteen year old men are still considered "kids". They've had the luxury of growing old without growing up.
Two of my dad's eight siblings died during or shortly after childbirth. Most of my parent's family ended up with farm related injuries and scars. My uncle is missing a leg from where it got caught in a baling machine. My cousin died down a well, trying to fix it so that his family could have clean drinking water.
We don't want the simple life back. It would kill half of us, and lead the other half back to an early grave. Kids today aren't being "forced to grow up too fast". Try taking on adult experience at age 14. Try getting through life with a grade 3 education, because your Dad made you go to work to earn money for the family before you even finished grade school, like happened to my Dad's father.
Then try whining to me about how kids are growing up "too fast" compared to their forefathers. I don't see it. To me, they're barely growing up at all.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm convinced that the next couple of decades are going to be very difficult ones for parents throughout the Western world, simply because our priorities have become skewed due to pressures beyond our presumed reach.
When I was public school, I was in a Gifted program. It was a hard experience, mostly because you're labeled "different" and "strange" due to the fact you loved reading up on history, science and other "nerdy" topics. The sense of isolation was so bad sometimes that there were days when you'd trade in all those intellectual skills you were given just so you could get along with people more easily. I know the easier way was to confine myself to watching TV (something I did far too much) and reading books - distinctly non-social activities. I spent a lot of time wondering what was wrong with me instead of really trying to deal with the problem. Being a kid and feeling like your only true friends were "things" as opposed to people is one of the worst experiences of modern childhood. It's not like instant pain; it's like a sustained, slow burn into your self-confidence and self-esteem. It's taken my years to get over it and I'm still not entirely there, but believe me I want to succeed.
I know the only way I got through it was through my mom, who really tried to help me get involved in sports (softball, floor hockey, still loads of fun) and other outside activities. I knew I was born different and that was hard for me, but I worked hard and tried to become more social on an intellectual level, as opposed to an instinctual level that many other people seem born with.
Truth be told, I've made mistakes along the way and there are times when I've felt socially underdeveloped in comparison to other people my own age. But I've worked hard and I feel like I'm doing better. I've earned multiple university degrees, got a great job, a lot of good friends now, I work out, a rich full life and a wonderful, supportive partner. I'm refusing to let past hurt defeat me. I know my childhood was better because of my mom.
What's the point of this? I'm worried that technology could isolate permanently a lot of kids if their parents are too busy, too harried to sit down with them to have dinner, help their kids with homework, talk to them and let them feel loved and supported. I don't think I'm perfect now by any means - no one ever is - but I know for a fact that if my mom hadn't been there to help steer my childhood in a positive way, I'd be in far, far worse shape today. Technology is a wonderful thing, but it is ultimately artificial, a replica of reality that simply can't replace the real and wonderful experiences that make life worth living. Kids need balance now more than ever in a world that regularly broadcasts such media events as 9-11, Paris Hilton and 50 Cent - hardly examples of media's power to inform and shape the mental environment. If you can't help guide them towards a balanced lifestyle when they're kids, how do you expect them to live that way as adults? Through powers of suggestion? Through merely "getting on with it?" No way, not going to happen.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, what makes you think Mom's don't know about the "kinds of
My wife is in child care, and has been for over 28 years. You'd be amazed by the number of kids today that come through our center that really have NO imagination, and haven't learned to play by themselves. They expect the *adults* to intertain *them*! Some of them are really pathetic, and they are the kids of upper middle class parents, usually both working professionals.
Play is learning about being a human. It takes training - lots of interactive play - for kids to actually learn how to intertain themselves. Kids don't raise themselves, and that's what's happening when kids sit in front of these electronic devices. Parents are substituting the electronics for real parenting, so no real values are being taught.
Certainly not the values of their parents.
Re:Caligulazation (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see now. First, it's pretty apparent that Marie Antoinette never actually said that. Not that she wasn't idlely rich and non-productive (other than as a celebrity - still a busy occupation today, in a different form), but she was probably more sheltered and ignorant of the average peasant's plight than actually contemptuous of them. Read up here [straightdope.com].
And as for the "they hate us for our freedom" concept. Well, that's actually correct. In fact, the architects of events like 9/11 and their spokesmen frequently take to the air expressly to remind us that's true. They refer to democracy as "un-Islamic" and speak in terms of beheading any that show up at the polls, etc. Democracy is exactly the freedom we hold most dear, because it's through that structure that we create and defend the rest of them (um, like allowing women to work, or their daughters to read and write). Have you not ever watched any of the footage from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan? People (like mothers teaching their daughters to read) were shot in public at lunchtime exactly for pursuing those freedoms that we consider inviolate. The west is built upon those freedoms, and stands for them. People who hate the intrusion of annoying trends like the right to vote (or read) into the medieval theocracy they want to re-instate at the point of a gun do hate those freedoms and those that seek to establish and defend them elsewhere.
And you know what? It probably wouldn't matter so much, except the people who want the world to live in that mysoginistic, backwards way are also the ones that realize their neighborhood is full of oil they can sell in Europe, Asia, India, and the Americas, etc. That allows the people willing to kill to posses those fields to have the cash with which to further entrench their jihaddist/wahabbist ways. And when part of that activity includes running training camps for thousands of militants, some of which then kill thousands of people going to work in the morning in New York and Washington, then you get the conflict right up there on the surface where you have to call it what it is: a conflict between world views. One that, to stick with the same example, thinks your wife or daughter is property that should be kept illiterate, and one that does not.
So basically it IS the same old complaint, then (Score:3, Insightful)
So you found one thing to support the idea that _this_ generation of kids is in trouble. But that's actually the whole funny thing: so did the previous generations. Every single generation had their own bogeyman they waved around as the downfall of the next generations. Every single generation found some X that they didn't have and the new generation has, and latched onto it as _the_ thing that will doom us all. Pretty much no matter how far you could go in time, you'd find generation N-2 whining, bitching and moaning about generation N. And if you went two more generations back, you'd find the N-2 generation presented as the decadent and doomed ones by generation N-4. And so on.
So you think that this one is certainly _the_ one that finally is a real threat. Funny thing is, so did they. They were invariably wrong. What makes you so sure, then, that your bogeyman is any different?
Even your argument that "Basically, the standard of living for most of modern western society is now so high that most of us are living like (or better than) the aristrocracy of the not very distant past." isn't actually that new. The same could be said at any point in time before. And probably some old fart at the time actually said it.
I can think of a _lot_ of inventions and changes in the past (starting with the fire, the wheel, pottery, animal husbandry, irrigation, etc, all the way to modern stuff like antibiotics) which had exactly the effect you describe: the resulting standard of living was better than even aristocracy lived before that.
In fact, most of those had bigger effects on the standard of living back then than consumer electronics have now. E.g., I bet that the effects of a tribe's discovering the fire were a lot bigger than the effects of the iPod. We're not just talking "it kept them warm", but cooking also allowed them to eat a _lot_ more vegetables than ever before. In a nutshell, yes, in one fell swoop, it raised the standard of living to a point that their grandfathers couldn't have even imagined before.
So it's happened before. And it's a safe complaint that someone has voiced the same complaint at the time. "Bla, bla, bla, people have it too easy these days, they're growing weak, flacid, weak-minded, obese, etc." I can just imagine an old caveman bitching all day about how these young hoodlums staying warm and cooking vegetables on fire lack the mental stimulation of _having_ to track an antelope through the snow. Uphill both ways. And we liked it that way. How the whole civilization will grow weak and stupid because of relying on fire instead of solving problems the old fashioned ways. How people will become loners and unable to function in society because they can just sleep near the fire instead of having to huddle together to stay warm in winter. Etc.
Or take weaponry. _Millions_ of years the primitive hominids had to basically play a game of stealth, and figure out ingenious ways to get a dead gazelle from the sabertooth tiger without becoming the second course for the tiger. Just because they had no natural weapons to actually kill either the tiger or the gazelle. And then suddenly one of them goes and invents a stone-tipped spear or knife, and everyone has all the meat they can hunt _and_ a means of self-defense, with no mental challenge whatsoever involved. Just hold the blunt end and thrust the pointy end at the prey or tiger. Gee, surely that will make the next generations stupid and weak.
But, again, the funny thing is that all that never actually happened. There have been bigger changes, bigger jumps in the life standard, and none of them actually made humanity become weak and stupid. In fact, some of the things I've mentioned (fire, stone tools, etc), we actually have evidence that they resulted in a _higher_ brain capacity. What makes you so sure that yours will be any different?
Pullman Not Very Careful (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Caligulazation (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I say she did? I used it because its a well known statement symboblising the disconnect between the ruling class and those being ruled over.
Let me ask you this, how many people in the third world have you actually spoken to? How many deep conversations on their world views have you had?
I have met people that support Osama bin Laden. These people were not in the middle east. They were not muslim. They were just people struggling to survive while watching fat Americans living a life of luxury. Just glad that the US got a taste of the hardship they have to deal with everyday.
We seem to have this notion of the "noble poor". That they are well informed, liberal and free thinking. That they will engage in passive resistance to get fair treatment.
Wake up. The poor are ignorant. What the hell do you expect, they don't get much of an education. They can barely survive. So yeah some of thier ideas are going to be backwards. But they do know they don't like things the way they are.
Say you're a young muslim man. You can't find work. You look at globalisation is doing elsewhere in the world. Prostitution. Child labour. Slavery. And globalisation is now coming to your country. Your children will work in sweatshops and grow up to be prostitutes like everywhere else in the third world unless you can stop it. What are you going to do?
You turn back to your traditions. The only education you have tells you about Muhammed conquering everywhere he went with the power of the Koran and Sharia law. It worked then maybe it can work now.
So do they hate you for your freedoms? Well they see what "freedom" has brought the rest of the developing world and they hate that. And I can't say I blame them.
Re:Growing up too fast? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is there any evidence in any society anywhere in the world to indicate that if a contraband drug is legalized that the addicts all stop using them?
No. However, no one in the history of the universe who advocated drug legalization has ever made that argument, so we're all out here wondering what dimension you are from.
One of the main arguments is that legalized drugs would be cheaper and easy to get, so the druggies don't have to break into your home, kill you and rape your daughters to get their fix. There's also the argument that every dollar spent on the drug war (instead of treatment) is money uselessly burned.
Or maybe humans ARE grown up at 14 or so (Score:3, Insightful)
E.g., in ancient Egypt, the age of marriage was 12 for girls and 15 for boys. That's it. That was the age when you'd be supposed to be mature enough to care for your own family, not just for an iPod. Forget having your mom pack you lunch and watch you playing with dolls. At age 12 as a girl you'd be supposed to cook lunch for your husband, and raise your own real kids, not dolls.
And you can find examples where even more responsibility was bestowed upon people at such ages. Ivan The Terrible IIRC became tzar at the age of 16. (Although that's just the age when he took a new title. He was Grand Duke of Muskowy earlier.) At 16 years old Alexander The Great was left a regent, i.e., someone with the full powers of a King, as his father went abroad to war. Etc. There are plenty of generals and kings and admirals that got their power and shaped the destiny of nations even earlier than that, a lot of them as early as 12 or 13.
So basically what I'm saying is that:
1. If all that consumer electronics do is getting some people to act like adults in their teen years... GOOD! Biologically the _are_ adults, and have the brain and body of an adult. (It's not even a human-only thing. Any other species of mammal is the same: the age at which the body becomes fertile is the age when the brain and body have evolved, and the animal is perfectly capable of fending for itself and raising its own offspring.) Forcing someone to keep behaving and thinking like a kid at that age, is more detrimental than having them start acting like an adult.
2. If all the evil adult stuff there is that they get to watch TV and listen to music on an iPod... GOOD! Compared to what humans had to do in their teen years for _millions_ of years, that's still a pampered existence.
The modern aberration of artifficially forcing someone to be a kid until their 20's, is just a speck at the scale of human existence. Even looking back only 10,000 years, to the time of the first cities, a century of redefined "childhood" barely covers 1% of that time. For the other 99% of that time interval, that "kid" would be at the age where he gets to raise his own family, work in the fields, and occasionally take arms and fight for his country. Not just mock combat with toy swords, but real combat with sharp steel swords. Deadly stuff. So if all the dangers of the modern era are an iPod, a cell phone, and a Nintendo DS, heh, I don't see that much harm coming from that.
Re:Childhood's End (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would like to take it one step further and point out that it is also a relatively recent idea that children must be entertained at all times. In this day and age it seems that a child cannot make their own fun; rather, their entertainment must be provided by their parents (or other responsible adults). When did the threat of "go find something to do or I'll find something for you to do" lose its effectiveness?
Also, I have learned that many parents use electronic entertainment (TV, video games, computers, etc.) as a way to not have to deal with the responsibilities inherent in raising children. It seems to me that too many adults aren't willing to have the kids "underfoot" while they are doing things like cleaning house, fixing the car, doing lawn work, etc. However, this attitude has gone on for long enough that there are teenagers (and even adults) these days who leave home and suddenly realize that they don't know how to run a washing machine (as an example).
One of the best ways that children learn is to imitate their parents, and believe it or not children actually like spending time with their parents, just about no matter what their parents are doing. Even if a child is too young to actually help with what the parent is doing, they will be more than happy to play with related tools (e.g. if parent is cooking dinner, child plays with pots and wooden spoons). It may require a little more supervision and (possibly) a lot more noise than plunking your kids in front of the TV while you make dinner... But aren't kids supposed to be noisy and actually require effort to raise?
(And no, I'm not saying that kids can't try a parent's patience and need to be distracted by something, anything quiet far away from where the parent is. I'm specifically talking about people who do this as a matter of course rather than as an exception.)
Re:The reason that kids are growing up too quickly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what you're mentioning here (perhaps accidentally) describes a little theory I've developed. For a long time now teachers and parents have been pounding the "you're special" and "just be yourself" messages into kids until they've developed this "I don't care what anyone else thinks, I'm me and I'm pursuing happiness" attitude. We celebrate attitudes like that in adults, too. I think this is a perversion of an idea that was supposed to make you always comfortable enough to do the right thing, regardless of outcome, into an idea that you don't owe anyone anything and anyone who expects anything of you (most of all sacrifice) is trying to prevent you from "being you".
I think we owe everyone arounds us something. I owe it to my neighbors to take my garbage out, keep my music down to a sane level and return their dog if I see him running down the street. I owe it to my parents to come help move furniture when they call. When I have kids, I'll owe it to them to make sure they get what they need, when they need it. In turn, each one of these people has certain responsibilities.
In an effort to bolster childrens sense of self-worth by ridding them of shame or guilt, we've thrown out responsibility with the bath water. I think we SHOULD care about what people think of us, and might have to start teaching kids that.
Just a thought I had.
Just stay in your growth tank! (Score:2, Insightful)
I think we've spent enough time as a society worrying about what we should keep our kids from doing. Guidelines are great for those who need them, but if anything is in danger these days, I'd say it's common-sense parenting.
Re:Caligulazation (Score:3, Insightful)
'The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in lace of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.'
-Socrates (possibly miss-attributed but still very old)
To repeat myself... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The same things could be said and _have_ been said before.
E.g., a Pope actually considered the crossbow to be such a devastating new weapon that he forbade, upon penalty of excommunication, the use against fellow christians. I'm sure someone somewhere was feverishly praying that people have the mental agility and cultural perspective to not use such a destructive new weapon wrong.
E.g., someone thought that the Armageddon is nigh if the good Christians don't appease God by freeing His tomb from the infidels' occupation. It proved quite a popular idea too, as the exodus of people to join the first Crusade showed. I'm sure a lot of people prayed that others have the wisdom and cultural perspective to do the right thing there... i.e., take arms and prevent the end of the world at the hands of a pissed-off God.
Sometimes they were even right too. The consequences, for example, of greed to get the wares out of a ship before the quarantine ended, has caused a Black Death outbreak in Marseille that wiped out some 75% of the city and the whole county it was in. So, yeah, consequences for bad judgment could be dire in old times too.
Humanity has somehow survived anyway.
2. Again, the "connecting the dots" has been before, at least for the last 3000 years. Probably longer, but that's how long we have written records about it. Someone felt the dots connecting when starting from all sorts of other stuff. E.g., there's been quite some heavy-duty dot-connecting that caused the aforementioned Crusades. Don't take it as an insult. Connecting dots is, after all, a human trait and one of the big advantage the species has. But then again, in this particular domain it's invariably been wrong before, so I'm still not too concerned.
Re:The Simple Life... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's wonderful, but I'm sure that you have had an active role in helping her develop that imagination, whether you actively encouraged it or not. There are probably millions of children in the U.S. alone whose parents use the television and video games as babysitters, and give the kid barely a whiff of personal attention. I know at least one example of this, quite well. My nephew (my wife's sister's son) is 8 years old. Once when I was convincing him to go outside and play, he said there wasn't anything to do outside. I told him to use his imagination. His response? "I don't know how." Let us examine his story.
His mother became pregnant with him the day she met his father (probably -- it was definitely within the first week). Nine years later, they are still together, despite his having spent nine months in prison for domestic violence, and being a worthless prick in general. I suspect she stays with him out of habit, and he stays with her so he won't have to pay child support to another family(he has a teenage son with another woman). Neither of them wanted their child, and it's obvious that they resent him for simply existing (proof of their carelessness that won't go away). Since I first met him, when he was three years old, he has had many behavioral issues. First it was frequent tantrums, nowadays it's lying, stealing, and breaking things/setting fires. He also has had a television, DVD player, and Playstation in his bedroom.
I think it is no coincidence that he has these issues and he is neglected by his parents. They force him to spend all his time alone in his bedroom, and yell at him if he comes out for some real human interaction. Since I met my wife, I have spent more time with her nephew than his parents have.
A couple of months ago, he was over at my house, playing with my daughter's toys in the rumpus room (or so I thought). When I went back to check on him, he was masturbating. Not a month past his eighth birthday. Since then, I have caught him twice more, and so have others who watch him. I don't think that it's much of a stretch to say that this is a result of him not getting the pleasure of human interaction that he needs, so he finds it other ways. I also believe that him being able (required, actually) to watch anything he wants on TV is to blame.
I realize this isn't a normal case, but it's not unique, and it is an example of one child growing up faster (in at least one sense) after excessive exposure to electronic entertainment.
Cool links. [blogspot.com]
Re:The Simple Life... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Simple Life... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahhh, but that is not the subject at hand - electronic entertainment cannot be blamed for the poor state of parenting in this country today. I would most definitely agree that the general quality of parenting today does seem worse than the quality of parenting when I was young.
Your closing statement where you say:
... does not, IMO, have any bearing whatsoever with the rest of your statement. Looking at this logically, my daughter has high exposure to electronic entertainment and has a good imagination. Your nephew has high exposure to electronic entertainment and has a bad imagination. Therefore, high exposure to electronic entertainment cannot be said to be indicative of either result.
Now, admittedly, this is a pretty small sample group but I still stand by my statement - bad parenting, not electronic entertainment, is to blame for your poor nephew's situation.
Re:The Simple Life... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Simple Life... (Score:2, Insightful)
Excessive exposure to electronic media can be bad for the development of children, when controlled by bad parents. Your story shows this very well, two bad parents, don't spend time with their child showing him how to act and treat others, using a TV and PS to babysit the child, and not putting forth effort to control the images the child recieves. Video consoles don't cause children to learn to lie, cheat and steal, *some* video games make it seem okay, because the parents do not ensure that the child knows these things are wrong. Without parents to guide the child the child could learn these lessons anywhere (books, magazines, movies, TV, video games, and the real world).
Re:Send them all up chimneys! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's see what they look like when they're 50 (Score:3, Insightful)