Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Fred Goodwin, CMA - 11 Oct 2006 03:59 GMT Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1011/p01s02-ussc.html
October 11, 2006 edition By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor POMFRET CENTER, CONN.
The great outdoors doesn't have the same pull it once did.
Attendance at national parks has slipped around 25 percent since 1987. The decline is even more precipitous at some state parks. Here at Connecticut's Mashamoquet Brook State Park, attendance on peak days has fallen by roughly half during the same period, says the park supervisor.
The main culprit, experts suspect, is a generational shift.
Today's youngsters and their parents are more wired and more scheduled than earlier Americans, leaving less unstructured time to spend outdoors. For the kids, that can mean missing out on childhood bonds to nature.
Alarmed, conservationists and government officials are looking for ways to reverse the trend. Connecticut has already started, with a new campaign this year called "No Child Left Inside." The idea: bring families back to parks, families like the Verdones.
"I was always in the woods. As soon as my bed was made, I was out the door," says Brenda Verdone, strolling with her family through Mashamoquet Brook. Pointing at her daughter, Deanna, who is skipping ahead after their white husky, "I want her to do this stuff. Being inside isn't good for you."
Connecticut has begun advertising and promoting the outdoors. Borrowing a concept from reality TV, organizers invited teams of families with kids to follow clues in an adventure contest spanning eight state parks.
A key to the adventure program was getting entire families to participate. Each team had to have at least one adult and at least one child. Families could share online photos and blogs of their trips. Some 400 families signed up, more than organizers could handle initially.
The "No Child Left Inside" idea is part of a larger national discussion among park wardens, government officials, and environmentalists about how to reverse a growing alienation from nature, particularly among youths. Those concerned cite the health of future generations, and the long-term support for conservation efforts by an indoor civilization.
"For thousands of years in human history, kids went outside and spent their childhood outdoors, in nature. In the matter of a few decades, we are seeing the disappearance of that kind of play ... and that has enormous implications," says Richard Louv, author of the recent book "Last Child in the Woods."
Studies of children, he notes, show that exposure to nature boosts attention spans, reduces stress, and could be an antidote to the rising problem of childhood obesity.
But the changing landscape of America - from grass and asphalt-only neighborhoods to highly structured schedules for kids - means this interaction with nature is no longer a given. Mr. Louv says parental fear of strangers also plays a role: A 1991 study found that the radius around the home that parents allowed 9-year-olds to wander had shrunk to one-ninth of what it had been in 1970.
Enrollment in the Boy Scouts fell 14 percent between 1999 and 2005. The Girl Scouts, meanwhile, are looking to augment their outdoor programs with indoor concerns like cyber-bullying.
These trends prompted academics and officials - including US Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne - to gather last month in West Virginia for a first-of-its-kind conference entitled "Children and Nature." Offering some hard data were the authors of a study that found a high correlation between the drop in national park visits and the increased time spent with TV, home movies, video games, and the Internet. While oil price rises also correlated to a lesser degree, the study found, many other factors did not, including vacation time and federal funding.
"We may be seeing evidence of a fundamental shift away from people's appreciation of nature ... to 'videophilia,' which we here define as 'the new human tendency to focus on sedentary activities involving electronic media,' " reads the study, funded by the Nature Conservancy and published earlier this year in the Journal of Environmental Management.
Patricia Zaradic, one of the study's authors, has discarded her TV and urges other parents to go outdoors with their children. "The kids are going to do what you do," she says. "If you are spending the majority of your time glued to some sort of boob tube, how can you tell them to go outside and play?"
Too often, argues Louv, children who don't have such experiences assume there isn't anything to do outside.
"Environmentalists also have a role to play in this because there has been this look-but-don't-touch ethic that has sometimes been appropriate, but sometimes not," he says.
The hunting community may offer lessons about engaging children outdoors, says Kyle Scanlon, editor of the fish and game magazine Outdoors. His home state of Vermont, like others, offers mentoring programs to teach kids gun safety and sets aside youth-only weekends during hunting season.
The proliferation of outdoor chic - from high-end REI or EMS camping gear to glossy magazines like Outside - suggests an ongoing connection with the outdoors.
"There are still plenty of people interested in outdoor activity, but there aren't as many people interested in extended trips," says Shannon Stowell, president of the Adventure Travel Trade Association. "They are more inclined to do day trips and be back somewhere comfortable for the night. And the gear sales reflect that as well." Day packs are in, overnight packs are out.
Ms. Verdone's efforts to reconnect her family with nature - including bike rides and hikes around southern New England - seem to be paying off.
On this day's walk with her parents, Deanna says she discovered "stuff you don't see every day." With wavy hand motions, she describes a tree she found with rippled bark: "It was really weird." She also saw a tree charred by lightning, as well as playful wildlife. "There was a squirrel jumping tree to tree and chucking stuff at us," she says.
As for other ways to get the next generation into the woods, her mother has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic."
nyc kid - 11 Oct 2006 18:23 GMT Turning off the TV, PC, DVD, PS2, PSP, DS, GBA and every other source of brain-drain could help...
> Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that > hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic." mcs - 13 Oct 2006 05:43 GMT go out and play as long as your in a good air zone, everyone else its more like go 0ut and get poisoned ..then pay for that poison with drugs
> Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that > hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic." rick++ - 13 Oct 2006 15:51 GMT There was a discussion about this in rec.backcountry. Another point was ethnic demographics. Some groups are rarely seen in NPs because it not their habit yet. And these groups almost the majority in the younger generation.
datalines@excite.com - 13 Oct 2006 23:04 GMT Today's kids are spoiled with digital electronics and are obsessed with materialistic, Hollywood type fashion. Better to join the Boy Scouts, NRA, or other outdoor groups. Tell those city-slicking youngsters to watch the classic movie, Deliverance, and they'll wet in their pants in the outdoors and be city slickers forever.
> Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that > hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic." marika - 14 Oct 2006 01:03 GMT > Today's kids are spoiled with digital electronics and are obsessed with > materialistic, Hollywood type fashion.
> Better to join the Boy > Scouts, NRA, or > other outdoor groups. Tell those city-slicking youngsters to watch > the classic movie, Deliverance, > and they'll wet in their pants in the outdoors and be city slickers > forever. In Anywhere but here, they approach the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question
is there a single teen who doesn't hate their parents
there was no good one-liner
it was more a character and anecdote type story
susan sarandon and natalie portman got out of wisconsin
they move to Beverly Hills.
Portman's first day at school she shows up in sweaters because she only has a wardrobe for three-dog night
this story is on all fours with almost every other teen is embarrassed of parent story. sarandon's way to take five is to always go out for ice cream.
I don't think that it really matters whether the setting was Hollywood or Wisconsion, it is six of one and a half dozen of the other. and so on. The saddest part was when sarandon got laid by this young handsome dentist, and of course she thinks he is in love with her, even though it is clear he is substantially younger than her and only wanted sex. She deludes herself into believing that maybe just maybe she will hear from him some day but why in the seven seas should she, I feel the same as she does waiting for that phone call.
She quits her job as a speech pathologist, just when the family is broke and needs money. Fortunately, she eventually trades that one in for another job, but she really is looking for a financial provider. In her new job in the nursing home, she meets a carpet salesman who is not particularly dashing, and she is on less than on cloud nine. It is clear he is not in her top 10 of sexy men. But at the eleventh hour she gives in and goes to dinner with him I don't know what this means
mk5000
"So Bill D, are you saying, in a sport which is suppose to be promoting HEALTH and fitness, when the bodybuilders are on stage, after weeks of dieting, getting their bodyfat percentages down to unhealthy levels, and possibly using muscle enhancing drugs, that that is healthy ? "-- billdthrill
nospam@nospam.com - 16 Oct 2006 16:58 GMT Not the boy scouts.. they don't teach love of nature.
>Today's kids are spoiled with digital electronics and are obsessed with >materialistic, Hollywood type fashion. Better to join the Boy [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] >> has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that >> hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic." none2u - 16 Oct 2006 17:28 GMT Generation gap My A--.Its the Government gap. The gap between what they spend and what they get in taxes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know as a kid you better hit the books, and get ready for college. They're prepping kids in 8th grade now for college. Everyone has to work , now, to carry our no control spending government. Everyone has to work , so I can send my kids to college. Everyone has to attend college or load boxes at night at Walmarts until you die. . Everyone has to pay off the college loans , and work, because their parents went camping, and got fired. . There is no time to do anything unless you want to live under a bridge, in a box. Or you want your kids to. Leisure time in America is finished. Its only a matter of time until they declare the parks or anything else that takes away from their tax income , or their ability to spend money overseas , off limits . Our government can't even rebuild new Orleans. Over half still has no water or electricity . Get used to it..
> Not the boy scouts.. they don't teach love of nature. > [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] >>> has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that >>> hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic." R. Steve Walz - 18 Oct 2006 04:59 GMT > Generation gap My A--.Its the Government gap. The gap between what they > spend and what they get in taxes. ------------------ That "gap" is NEGATIVE, it's called the deficit. Nobody is being given handouts except the rich, LEGAL ones, make them ILLEGAL, the GAP IS ACTUALLY THE RICH GAP, everything YOU DON'T HAVE is because the RICH DO have it, stolen from our wages as "profit", and windfall payment to rich corporations for military overcharging! That's why the Rich Republicans always crank the budget up into the red, the deficit is paid to the rich and your families have to pay it off for 50 YEARS! Steve
>;^} - 24 Oct 2006 23:37 GMT > That "gap" is NEGATIVE, it's called the deficit. Nobody is being given > handouts except the rich, LEGAL ones, make them ILLEGAL, the GAP IS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Republicans always crank the budget up into the red, the deficit is > paid to the rich and your families have to pay it off for 50 YEARS! Hey Steve, that reminds me of a "story" my uncle used to tell me, about the Federal Reserve being actually privately owned, primarily by the "usual" rich families (DuPonts, Rockefellers, etc...). The story went kind of like: these families pressured the government to put in place the Income Tax to support borrowing from their private bank, thereby pressing the populace into "bondage" to pay, via taxes, straight into the pockets of the rich, only under the name of "public debt".
I have never been able to tell if my uncle's story is literally true, but your account seems similar - is this scary picture really what we're dealing with ?
R. Steve Walz - 25 Oct 2006 06:04 GMT >;^} wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > about the Federal Reserve being actually privately owned, primarily > by the "usual" rich families (DuPonts, Rockefellers, etc...). ----------------- Nope. That's just a Right Wing conspiracy theory that ignorant lower-class losers tell each other to try to explain why they never got rich and why they still vote Republican, even though the Repubs are all ignorant losers.
The reason you're a loser is you sh.t are so well brain-washed that you keep voting for the rich people that keep you enslaved and poor. Steve
>;^} - 25 Oct 2006 15:31 GMT > >;^} wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The reason you're a loser is you sh.t are so well brain-washed that > you keep voting for the rich people that keep you enslaved and poor. Still casting about aimlessly for someone to call names, eh ? I've never voted Republican in my entire life. I wasn't even looking for an argument, I was merely curious about your perception of that "story", which isn't all that different than the picture you painted: the rich somehow get the system set up to direct wealth into their pockets at the expense of the poor.
Why you choose to act like an a.s, and at times an irrational one at that, is puzzling...
R. Steve Walz - 25 Oct 2006 21:14 GMT >;^} wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > set up to direct wealth into their pockets at the expense of > the poor. ------------------ I guess you've never heard of interest, appreciation, or mortgage and house rental. Those mechanisms are enough BY THEMSELVES to deprive the working man of MORE than the HALF of his income that the nobles or yore required as his rent on land in FEUDAL TIMES! Steve
>;^} - 30 Oct 2006 23:13 GMT > I guess you've never heard of interest, appreciation, or mortgage > and house rental. Those mechanisms are enough BY THEMSELVES to > deprive the working man of MORE than the HALF of his income that > the nobles or yore required as his rent on land in FEUDAL TIMES! Thanks, that's a much better response... makes a ton of sense. So you don't think there's room for even heavier burdens to encumber those that manage to adapt to those "cost-of-living" weights on the yoke ?
R. Steve Walz - 31 Oct 2006 00:24 GMT >;^} wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > encumber those that manage to adapt to those "cost-of-living" > weights on the yoke ? ------------------------- And when you breed a stronger slave are you ready for him to break his chains, hold your face in the mud, and butt-f.ck your sorry a.s? Steve
>;^} - 31 Oct 2006 02:09 GMT > > So you don't think there's room for even heavier burdens to > > encumber those that manage to adapt to those "cost-of-living" > > weights on the yoke ? > ------------------------- > And when you breed a stronger slave are you ready for him to break > his chains, hold your face in the mud, and butt-f.ck your sorry a.s? OK, I get the idea of the oppressed "rising up"... I'm more asking about where the "breaking point" is - it doesn't seem to be at our current state, which is what led me to wonder why the interest/rent/mortgage burden that you refer to would be the limit of oppression - surely there are other, more concealed, and possibly more "dastardly" forms of theft being committed by the rich - isn't the main reason the poor haven't risen up the fact that they aren't privy to all of the nastiness going on behind their backs ?
R. Steve Walz - 01 Nov 2006 01:02 GMT >;^} wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the poor haven't risen up the fact that they aren't privy to > all of the nastiness going on behind their backs ? ------------------------------------ No, actually it's a combination of feeling too tired after their day's work to think about it, and not hearing anyone else saying the things that they're thinking quietly to themeselves all the time and are afraid to tell anybody about for fear of being either shunned or being under suspicion or arrested with no result. Lots of people are not really aware of their rights of speech and of assembly and political activity. They don't know law and are simply afraid that if they express themselves they will be victimized.
That along with simply having been brainwashed that "politics" is as they have always been told repeatedly, that "you can't fix it" "you can't fight city hall" and that "things will never change" along with a media programmed pre-occupation with sports asnd celebrities as a diversion from their secret hates and resentments.
Because of this persistent brainwashing that is the world according to television, this power of wealthy media over the individual voice prevents the Majority from taking power and serving the needs *OF* the Majority, which obviously the Majority could easily do, remove the wealth from the wealthy and run government and the economy as benefits the greatest number and not merely the rich and lucky.
The restrictions in the Constitution don't actually help or free the individual or the Majority, though they are portrayed to do so. Actually they simply PREVENT Majority power *FROM* doing things like authorizing Majority government to start non-profit businesses that directly compete with private business, and which could undersell private business and drive them out of the markets with that very power of its NON-PROFIT nature, and it could take away the Money Funnel that currently pipes a constant flow of funding to the Right Wing Rich who control the media and out-shout everyone else. The Profit that is UNEARNED WINDFALL grabbed by the rich is in part shipped right off to defend their wealth by funding the media version of "THINGS AS THEY ARE" in the constant unchanging DIN of the media and the lies about what "HAS TO BE" so that the rich can continue to Profit by UNDERPAYING WORKERS! Majority Authorized NON-PROFIT business could equalize all wages resulting in treating every work-hour EQUALLY!
And it is the nonsense of "eminent domain" that requires the Majority pay for land that it OWNS and prevents the Majority from simply dictating that everyone's home is NOW OWNED BY its RESIDENTS, and NOT the Banks, Insurance companies, and Landlords. Can you imagine the change in America if everyone OWNED their own home free and clear and BY LAW NOTHING COULD EVER THREATEN THAT HOME?? The Majority can do this anytime it wants by a stroke of the pen!! Steve
>;^} - 01 Nov 2006 06:14 GMT > No, actually it's a combination of feeling too tired after their day's > work to think about it, and not hearing anyone else saying > the things that they're thinking quietly to themeselves all the > time and are afraid to tell anybody about for fear of being either > shunned or being under suspicion or arrested with no result. Damn, you are so right about that - I even had to read it from you before I remembered that I have thought much the same before, but those thoughts either never made it beyond idle musings or had been mostly forgotten, exactly as you describe...
> along with a media programmed pre-occupation with sports asnd > celebrities as a diversion from their secret hates and resentments. Yes, another great point.
> Actually they simply PREVENT Majority power *FROM* doing things like > authorizing Majority government to start non-profit businesses that > directly compete with private business, and which could undersell > private business and drive them out of the markets with that very > power of its NON-PROFIT nature I wonder if we see a demonstration of something close to that in OpenSource. Maybe not exactly, but boy do the rich corporate software moguls hate it ! Not to mention the "partisan" investors expecting to get rich off of their scraps...
> and it could take away the Money > Funnel that currently pipes a constant flow of funding to the Right [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Profit by UNDERPAYING WORKERS! Majority Authorized NON-PROFIT business > could equalize all wages resulting in treating every work-hour EQUALLY! You've already enlightened me as to how the equal work-hour solves so many problems, and I can see how the non-profit business can be an effective and feasible way to start fighting the profit-machines - what is it that prevents or hampers non-profit business from being leveraged - you mention something about how the government works ? I didn't get what you mean there...
> Can you > imagine the change in America if everyone OWNED their own home > free and clear and BY LAW NOTHING COULD EVER THREATEN THAT HOME?? I can begin to imagine an immensely positive impact, even without completely understanding all the subtleties.
> The Majority can do this anytime it wants by a stroke of the pen!! I agree that this could literally happen - I've always assumed that a significant element preventing this is that the Majority has a hard time identifying itself, let alone coordinating itself. I personally have never considered myself part of the Majority, merely just because I rarely seem to agree with the "observed" majority around me, but that might be fairly localized - maybe I've been incorrect about that all along.
R. Steve Walz - 03 Nov 2006 01:27 GMT >;^} wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > leveraged - you mention something about how the > government works ? I didn't get what you mean there... ---------------------------------- Because there is no mechanism to encourage INVESTMENT in non-profit business, since there's no profit to be made, so it HAS to be started by volunteer organizations or by the biggest volunteer agency of all, namely, Democratic Government!! The ones you know well are the various non-profit utilities that have been created as government-owned monopolies, and the US Postal Service, and all of these are EXTREMELY efficient and produce FAR better for us than profit business! Why is this true? Because profit business is intended to let the rich profit wildly from it and hijack its resources and reinvestment potential as PROFIT to give them obscene incomes, financing their many vacations and purchases of vast homes, lands, and industries, doing folks like YOU out of the control of their lives and their NATION!!
> > Can you > > imagine the change in America if everyone OWNED their own home > > free and clear and BY LAW NOTHING COULD EVER THREATEN THAT HOME?? > > I can begin to imagine an immensely positive impact, even > without completely understanding all the subtleties. -------------------------- If you own your home and it cannot be threatened, you have far greater power to save a warchest to use in striking for higher wages, or in lasting without taking LOW paid work because you're terrified of eviction!! And in a fully Democratic nation, the People's Democracy owns all land, factories and utilities not allocated to inviolable residences, and it controls and equalizes all wages by that power, preventing abuse of workers, because THEY decide all wages and all business practices and investment. The People invest in their own industries according to what they vote to produce and to build as infrastructure in their nation.
> > The Majority can do this anytime it wants by a stroke of the pen!! > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that might be fairly localized - maybe I've been incorrect about > that all along. ----------------------------------------------- The Majority is confused by the Untruth that they are shouted down with by the Rightist Rich-owned Media. Most of it makes no sense which makes it impossible to analyze, and the Media is careful NEVER to discuss theory of government on their Media organs. Have you EVER even SEEN a program detailing theoretical Democratic Communism? Of course not, it would be suicide for them! Communism is only discussed as an "obvious" evil with examples that violate what you learn in college about communism!! They use Russia and China, which were NEVER communisms, because they had/have huge wealthy classes that own most everything that True Communism would NEVER permit to exist! What Russia and China had/have is a Right-Wing controlled Slave State, similar to a modern versiion of the Medieval Feudalism, and which Captialism also resembles! Steve
Victor Garrison - 26 Nov 2006 18:21 GMT Maybe this is a joke that I've missed and I'm just being defensive.
If not I don't understand where this comment is coming from. Scout material is based on a love of the outdoors. As a Cub Leader for my sons Pack I place an emphasis on outdoor activities like camping, hiking and orienteering. Family participation with youth at this age is mandatory so some can't make it on these trips because of thier parents. But if you ask most any scout in my Pack what thier favorite activities are the top 5 answers will be camping, hiking, fishing, compass navigation and archey / pinewood derby (tie). This is coming from boys 6-10 years old. Teaching youngsters this age about the Leave No Trace program is not easy. Honestly, I did a lousy job trying to incorporate it into our last trip. But whatever they did get out of it was much more than they would have gotten watching a Spongebob dvd in the back seat of thier parent's SUV on the way to McDonald's had they not gone camping that weekend. I'll just work harder preparing the material for next time.
I did manage to focus them for about 2 hours on compass navigation which they all were fascinated with. Some are still, one month later, carrying around compasses and checking bearings for the fun of it. They had the time of thier life and learned an essential outdoor skill. Chalk one up for Cub Scouts.
This coming year I'm starting a Boy Scout Troop for the 3 communities on our island. The older scouts will be working on conservation projects with state and local govt. Camp trips and hikes will be longer and more frequent. Leave No Trace will be practiced faithfully.
A love of nature seems to be inherent in all youngsters. What needs to be TAUGHT is a respect for nature. Through teaching wilderness and survival skills, frequent outdoor "adventures" and being a role model full of "love" of the outdoors, I expect to play a big part in the development of the relationship these children will have with nature throughout thier lives. It's a role that I don't take lightly (though I make sure these lessons are as much fun fun as possible), and it's a position that I'm immensely proud of , even though I know adults may be smirking when I pass by in uniform. (I don't mind...I have a good sense of humor!). I invite everyone to participate in this manner in your own communities.
Bob - 29 Nov 2006 03:12 GMT I think this quote sums it up best:
" We cannot always build the future for our youth, but we can build our youth for the future."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Triman - 24 Oct 2006 22:56 GMT http://www.tri-mansworldmailboxofficesupply.com/
> Generation 'In' gets a new nudge: Go out and play > [quoted text clipped - 128 lines] > has a novel idea: "You know what they should do is tell guys [that > hiking] is a cheap date. And the girls will think it's romantic."
|
|
|