Comment global issues/next generation (Score 1) 349
Make the theme global warming. Our generation has little motivation to deal with it, and there are few opportunities to find out whether the next one cares any more than we do (read: in the US).
It seems to me that the 2 days would do most to 'change the world' if it utilized the information collected over a longer period of time. The point therefore is not to change/educate the children, the point is to do so for a significant part of the world's population. (define the audience: will significance be evidenced in number of individuals, or significance be evidenced in few but powerful?)
Global warming is a scenario which the world is confronting based on its risk taking/risk aversion. Those that are least able to avoid reprocussions, are also less likely to accept risk. Those that have most to gain, or can pawn off their liability, (or maybe feel they have nothing left to lose) are most likely to take the gamble.
One can imagine interesting games with this scenario: would the kids in the hurricane-prone Caribbean be more averse? would the kids in the northern US be more reckless? how would the strategies differ by family status or cultural perceptions of community/responsibility? Would the results be the same after an intervention informing the actors of the effects their strategies were having on others? After an intervention with incomplete information? After an intervention with a reshuffling of 'risk'? The outcomes would be an interesting lesson for all of us.
"You teach best, that which you most need to learn" -R.Bach
It seems to me that the 2 days would do most to 'change the world' if it utilized the information collected over a longer period of time. The point therefore is not to change/educate the children, the point is to do so for a significant part of the world's population. (define the audience: will significance be evidenced in number of individuals, or significance be evidenced in few but powerful?)
Global warming is a scenario which the world is confronting based on its risk taking/risk aversion. Those that are least able to avoid reprocussions, are also less likely to accept risk. Those that have most to gain, or can pawn off their liability, (or maybe feel they have nothing left to lose) are most likely to take the gamble.
One can imagine interesting games with this scenario: would the kids in the hurricane-prone Caribbean be more averse? would the kids in the northern US be more reckless? how would the strategies differ by family status or cultural perceptions of community/responsibility? Would the results be the same after an intervention informing the actors of the effects their strategies were having on others? After an intervention with incomplete information? After an intervention with a reshuffling of 'risk'? The outcomes would be an interesting lesson for all of us.
"You teach best, that which you most need to learn" -R.Bach
