Children and the Natural World

Jayzesake

Here's a topic.

One of the worrying trends these days is the apparent increased detachment of children from the natural world. There are probably a variety of explanations for this, ranging from the attractions of the virtual world, i.e. video games, cell phones, etc., to the fact that parents are now often much more paranoid about letting their kids go off exploring wild places by themselves - that's if there even are any nearby, which is not a given these days.

The future implications of such a detachment are not good, as when they grow up these children are unlikely to be able to relate to, or care about the plight of, the natural world. For the kids themselves it's a terrible loss too, IMO.

We have two children (6 & 11 y.o.), and I've always tried to encourage in them an interest in the natural world, with mixed results. I'm just wondering what approach those contibutors to this forum with children (young or grown) have taken to this, and how they got on.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I actually have found the opposite over the past 5 or 6 years. Green Flags for schools for Biodiversity and an amended curriculum has brought Nature into more primary schools. I have visited many schools over the years and now find more kids showing not just an interest but good knowledge of wildlife. Even in my youth there were not that many kids with an interest in the natural world. Look how many adults haven't a clue about even the names of common birds or trees. I've seen children correct parents on mis-identification many times.
We seem to think that children in the past were more connected to Nature but that is not generally true.

Jayzesake

Interesting post, Srameen.

Don't you think that the very fact that children generally spend far more time indoors nowadays, whether in a building or a car being driven between buildings, has in itself created a disconnect, with less opportunity for kids to get 'up close and personal' with nature? And ditto with the drastic declines in the sheer abundance of wildlife around us in the last few decades?

Is it possible that what you've witnessed is a more 'academic', rather than direct, form of knowledge? (Not that there's anything wrong with the academic type, so long as it can be applied in the field.)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Jayzesake wrote: »

Interesting post, Srameen.

Don't you think that the very fact that children generally spend far more time indoors nowadays, whether in a building or a car being driven between buildings, has in itself created a disconnect, with less opportunity for kids to get 'up close and personal' with nature? And ditto with the drastic declines in the sheer abundance of wildlife around us in the last few decades?

Is it possible that what you've witnessed is a more 'academic', rather than direct, form of knowledge? (Not that there's anything wrong with the academic type, so long as it can be applied in the field.)

No. Even when I was a kid, although we were outside most of the time, kids played football or cowboys and indians and never thought about or questioned the natural world around them. They grew to be adults who neither know or appreciated the natural world - sure look what they did with it! Of course a few of us questioned the world around us and learned about it but, to be honest, we were seen as weird by many. Let's be honest, being outside does not equate with being aware of, or caring about, the environment.
I find plenty of young people today have an interest. They are also active in protection projects locally. They certainly ask more questions than previous generations and seem to have a sense of what is proper and sustainable.
It's not academic knowledge alone - not that there's anything wrong with that; far from it - but a natural curiosity. Let's not look back with rose coloured glasses. Ask yourself what generations left us with the environment and natural world we now have. It certainly isn't the current batch of kids.

dodderangler

Well my daughter is five and since she was 3 I've been reading her animal books and telling her about all sorts of animals and description of them aswell and now at five she knows about all sorts if animals in Ireland and their whereabouts and what they look like and she comes hunting and fishing with me and would rather be with me outdoors than go to dancing.

dodderangler

Also Believe it or not it was my 5 year old who spotted him first and pointing out he was a grey squirrel and he should be in his drey because winter is coming. She also knew that he was not a welcomed species because they're bullies to the red squirrel because the red are a lot smaller and the greys are bullies

Teach em young and they'll make you very proud. I was taught young and learne a lot from hunting but more about respect for the animals aswell.

Jayzesake

dodderangler wrote: »

Also Believe it or not it was my 5 year old who spotted him first and pointing out he was a grey squirrel and he should be in his drey because winter is coming. She also knew that he was not a welcomed species because they're bullies to the red squirrel because the red are a lot smaller and the greys are bullies

Teach em young and they'll make you very proud. I was taught young and learne a lot from hunting but more about respect for the animals aswell.

Sounds like you're doing a good job there Dodder. You're right to be proud.

recedite

I have noticed that their knowledge is often "globalised" ie they might know there was a difference between a white rhino and a black rhino, but still not be able to distinguish a coal tit from a blue tit. So this indicates that their knowledge often does not come from direct experience as our forbear's was, but it is largely from the media. Earlier generations had less knowledge of global wildlife and global wildlife issues.

Capercaillie

recedite wrote: »

I have noticed that their knowledge is often "globalised" ie they might know there was a difference between a white rhino and a black rhino, but still not be able to distinguish a coal tit from a blue tit. So this indicates that their knowledge often does not come from direct experience as our forbear's was, but it is largely from the media. Earlier generations had less knowledge of global wildlife and global wildlife issues.

That is worrying. They may care about a Tiger in India, but not a twite in Ireland!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Capercaillie wrote: »

That is worrying. They may care about a Tiger in India, but not a twite in Ireland!

I don't think this is the case. Yes, children today know about the plight of the Tiger or Amazonian rainforest but they are aware of native species too. I've taken walks with 7 to 12 year olds who show a surprising knowledge of native trees, mammals and birds. I've heard them correct their parents when the adult has wrongly named a species. They appreciate the importance of bio-diversity more than you might imagine.
As I said before, our generation is not stuffed with adults who know a Hazel from an Ash or a Great Tit from a Coal Tit. Only back in April I heard a child explain that birds don't live in nests all year round and the adult admitting that they thought they did.
How many of these children will hold this information, or care one way or the other, into adulthood remains to be seen but it can't be any worse than the current batch of adults.

Jayzesake

Kaysen Tiny Schoolboy wrote: »

I don't think this is the case. Yes, children today know about the plight of the Tiger or Amazonian rainforest but they are aware of native species too. I've taken walks with 7 to 12 year olds who show a surprising knowledge of native trees, mammals and birds. I've heard them correct their parents when the adult has wrongly named a species. They appreciate the importance of bio-diversity more than you might imagine.
As I said before, our generation is not stuffed with adults who know a Hazel from an Ash or a Great Tit from a Coal Tit. Only back in April I heard a child explain that birds don't live in nests all year round and the adult admitting that they thought they did.
How many of these children will hold this information, or care one way or the other, into adulthood remains to be seen but it can't be any worse than the current batch of adults.

Out of curiousity Kaysen Tiny Schoolboy, how representative do you feel the kids that you are coming across are? Are they from a wide variety of backgrounds - rural/urban, rich/poor, Irish/immigrant etc.?

A couple of weeks ago a friend lent me a copy of 'Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder' (2008) by Richard Louv, which apparently has been a best seller in the U.K. and the U.S. I haven't got around to reading it yet, but am curious as to the writer's take on this subject, which I imagine will be that there is a major problem there.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Jayzesake wrote: »

Out of curiousity Srameen, how representative do you feel the kids that you are coming across are? Are they from a wide variety of backgrounds - rural/urban, rich/poor, Irish/immigrant etc.?

A couple of weeks ago a friend lent me a copy of 'Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder' (2008) by Richard Louv, which apparently has been a best seller in the U.K. and the U.S. I haven't got around to reading it yet, but am curious as to the writer's take on this subject, which I imagine will be that there is a major problem there.

These kids would be a mix of Urban and Rural. I'm sorry but Rich/Poor isn't a way I assess children. Mostly, but not exclusively, "Irish".

Again, I stress the point. The current batch of adults are no paragons when it comes to the environment. Richard Louv made a name for himself on his perception of a divide between children and the natural world. I image this book will be no different.

Capercaillie

Jayzesake wrote: »

Out of curiousity Srameen, how representative do you feel the kids that you are coming across are? Are they from a wide variety of backgrounds - rural/urban, rich/poor, Irish/immigrant etc.?

A couple of weeks ago a friend lent me a copy of 'Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder' (2008) by Richard Louv, which apparently has been a best seller in the U.K. and the U.S. I haven't got around to reading it yet, but am curious as to the writer's take on this subject, which I imagine will be that there is a major problem there.

I wonder have any surveys been done?.

Jayzesake

Jayzesake wrote: »

Out of curiousity Kaysen Tiny Schoolboy, how representative do you feel the kids that you are coming across are? Are they from a wide variety of backgrounds - rural/urban, rich/poor, Irish/immigrant etc.?

Kaysen Tiny Schoolboy wrote: »

I'm sorry but Rich/Poor isn't a way I assess children.

I brought up the subject of the kids' economic backgrounds as it may well have a direct bearing on their relationship with nature. If one child, for example, is growing up in a council flat on the 10th floor of a tower block in Ballymun, then his or her chances of coming into contact with, and developing a relationship with, the natural world may be diminished, as compared to another whose parents own a large house with extensive gardens in Howth overlooking the sea. And that may not only be because of the actual places where they live, but access to the right type of reading material, the type of adult conversations overheard, quality of education, etc., etc.

On the other hand, perhaps economic background is largely irrelevant: I'm only speculating.