« A Quiet Weekend | Main | Under Pressure »
August 03, 2008
British Kids Flummoxed by Nature
Half of youngsters aged nine to 11 were unable to identify a daddy-long-legs, oak tree, blue tit or bluebell, in the poll by BBC Wildlife Magazine. The study also found that playing in the countryside was children's least popular way of spending their spare time, and that they would rather see friends or play on their computer than go for a walk or play outdoors.I'm not sure I could tell a bluebell from any other blue flower, and I'm terrible at identifying any bird that's not a chickadee or a cardinal. Still, what's interesting about this story is not what it found, but who is being blamed.The survey asked 700 children to identify pictured flora and fauna. Just over half could name bluebells, 54 per cent knew what blue tits were and 45 per cent could identify an oak. Less than two-thirds (62 per cent) identified frogs and 12 per cent knew what a primrose was.
Experts blamed the widening gulf between children and nature on over-protective parents and the hostility to children among some conservationists, who fear that they will damage the environment. They said that this lack of exposure to outdoor play in natural environments was vital for children's social and emotional development.Ah, the fruits of short-term thinking. In their attempts to "protect" the environment, conservationists are creating an entire generation of kids who have no connection to nature. Lacking that connection makes these kids less likely to support the policies of those same conservationists in the long-term.Dr Martin Maudsley, play development officer for Playwork Partnerships, at the University of Gloucestershire, said that adults had become too protective of wild places: "Environmental sensitivities should not be prioritised over children."
It's true that kids tend to destroy whatever environment they inhabit. When my oldest daughter wanders around in our backyard, she picks flowers, stomps on garden plants and pulls leaves off budding trees. While her behavior seems destructive, it's not malicious - most of these "offenses" to the environment are a result of simple exploration. She's two and doesn't know that pulling on a particular flower will result in its destruction, or that stepping on plants is a bad thing.
In the short-term, my daughter's actions are destructive to the environment. However, it's clear her need to touch and interact with the environment is a result of her love and connection with the outdoors. She is never happier than when she's running around in the yard, or playing with the flowers. I'll wager that the time my daughter spends 'destroying' nature will give her a stronger bond to the environment than can be gained through the hectoring lectures of 'conservationists' who want to shut off nature from those who wish to enjoy it. That connection will make her more likely to support policies that protect the environment. 'Conservationists,' take note.
Posted by slublog at August 3, 2008 10:00 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.slublog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3839