How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations • Hacker News Board

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#181

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:26 AM UTC

jimmaswell wrote: post #80

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

Has anyone considered that, like many things, maybe childraising knowledge has improved over time, and maybe it is true that it's dangerous and a bad idea to let them roam around far away unsupervised? It always seemed reasonable to me, even when I was that age myself. An anecdote is that the only bone injury I had as a kid resulted from riding bikes with some other kids who had a "fun idea" of biking down this steep…

"My proposed alternative is good video games with open exploration"

I don't even know what to say to that. Seriously?

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#182

Post by kasey_junk » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:29 AM UTC

wallace_f wrote: post #170

kasey_junk wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I get where we are crossing wires now. Your "ourworldindata" citations show a decreasing crime rate through basically every period of data except the 1960s and 70s. The period between 1940-1950 show a lower period than now in that it is around 4 p100k then and around 6 p100k now. You are then comparing that to certain city numbers in the USA that are ~50 p100k now. That makes more sense as a thesis and I think I…

The murder rate has decreased since the 60s, 70s and 80s, but that does not invalidate my thesis. Also, interpreting the data is only wrong if the data does not support it. I did say that it was higher in some parts It is true though that during many years of comparable peace and without economic hardship the rate in the USA had gone down to below what it is today. For example, estimated at 1/100,000 in year 1800.

OK. Trying to restate your premise:

1) There are cities in the US that currently have intentional murder rates higher than aggregate medieval European ones.

2) There are points in history where the aggregate murder rate is better than the current one.

If I understand those 2 correctly, I'm no longer arguing that the data doesn't agree with that. That was a misunderstanding on my part about what you were suggesting.

Now what I'm saying is that it is largely not germaine to the article as:

A) in 1926 when the article makes its first sample point, the aggregate rate in the US at least, was worse than now and

B) specific city numbers in comparison to aggregate numbers are not revelatory as you have no idea what they were historically (at least from the citation).

The current aggregate number is clearly much lower than the current St. Louis number so if we assume a linear correlation in those numbers then the St. Louis number would be worse in 1926. If we aren't going to assume a linear correlation between the aggregate numbers and the city specific ones, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know why as none of the data sets imply that city murder rates have changed.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#183

Post by m3rc » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:29 AM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #174

pharrlax wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the biggest reasons it was refreshing as hell to move to the big city, as paradoxical as that sounds. Rural/suburban life is like living in a barren wasteland marked by occasional oases you have to travel between in a metal spaceship. Living in an area where commuting to work and activities by foot is completely normal feels like rediscovering a lost sense of communal society, and there's a relief and…

>Rural >barren wasteland If you're a glass half empty person. Many people see it as freedom to do close to whatever you want without anyone caring.

What, people who live in cities don't have freedom? And the user you replied to wasn't talking about space available like in a truly rural setting, they were talking about how it's impossible to live in a suburban or rural setting without centering your life around the car you drive.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#184

Post by toast42 » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:30 AM UTC

Kluny wrote: post #114

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

Media is part of it, but the other part is this, taken from the first comment on the linked article: "I can’t help but notice how many freeways and roads are between Sheffield and Rother Valley. We can’t blame parents alone for the loss of childhood freedom. Since 1919 We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle throughput and require car ownership and the result is an environment that is lethal for 8 y…

It will be interesting to see if self-driving cars lead to parents being more comfortable with their children exploring.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#185

Post by manmal » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:30 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #122

I was thinking about this the other day. Ironically this is the safest time in all of history to let kids do this. Crime is historically very low and our kids want to carry around magical devices that lets us know where they are at all times and contact them instantly. This should be a golden age, yet we've turned it into jail. What gives everyone? Edit: And by "what gives" I mean literally, I live in the US and have…

Crime is not the problem, traffic is. I grew up in a blind alley, and the whole town was really low in traffic. I started cruising around with my bike together with the neighbors at age 7, and we met a car every 10 minutes, tops. They slowed down to a stop, mostly, when they saw us.

Fast forward, we are living in a city of 30k citizens now, though on the outskirts; there is a major road about 200m away, and although we have a tight speed limit in our area (30kmh), I'm not sure we can allow roaming around before age 10. Cats are run over all the time here, people just don't look before going around corners. And then there's the occasional report (or rumor?) of people trying to spirit children away from their parents in the local mall.

That being said, maybe I felt a lot safer as a kid in the same circumstances.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#186

Post by dsfyu404ed » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

vermontdevil wrote: post #144

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

My problem is neighbors. They would call the cops instead of talking to me if they saw my daughter out there biking or playing. Can't they just chill and keep an eye out? I do for their kids and even let them play on my lot. Nope - they all hide behind the drawn in curtains and think there's pedophiles lurking in my backyard bush.

Seconded. People see crap they don't like and escalate to some 3rd party without at least making a token effort solve it first get a special place in hell.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#187

Post by pvg » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

kasey_junk wrote: post #128

pvg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point of the article is that, societally, we are perhaps too focused on children's safety to the point of depriving them of some perfectly harmless freedom. The argument is not, as you seem to interpret it, strictly geometric. In the 20s, the world was far less safe for children yet far more independence and agency was required of many of them. I'm sure not every shoeshine or newspaper boy was engaging in…

I guess I just don't understand the point of the article. To me it seems an indictment of current parenting modes, based on the amount of geometric freedom allowed a very small subset of the population in comparison to the amount of geometric freedom allowed another, different very small subset of the population. I guess what I'm saying is, its a pretty ridiculous article that doesn't line up with reality now or then…

It's anecdotal but it doesn't seem that ridiculous, at least, not in the face of your criticism which seems to be 'think of the disadvantaged kids'. Disadvantaged kids may have had even greater constraints and lived in a more dangerous world but that's a point in favour of the article - they had to get around and so did anyway.

I'm going straight to hell for using this as an example in a pointless forum argument but since we got here (and I'm rationalizing it to myself that it's somehow your fault, sorry) - Emmett Till's mother put him on a train in Chicago and sent him, by himself, to visit relatives in Mississippi. At age 14 he was expected not only to travel solo cross-country but to safely navigate an actually dangerous, pointedly racist world. The demands on disadvantaged kids were even greater but the fact that they couldn't ride their bikes to the municipal pool doesn't mean they just sat at home under the watchful eye of their governess.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#188

Post by oddstorms » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

m_mueller wrote: post #22

FrancoDiaz wrote: post #10

I have a 4 year old, in my mid 40s, and think about this a lot for some reason. In the 70s during the summer, when I was around 7, we would wake up, eat breakfast, go out and about wherever we wanted, come back for lunch, out again, come back for dinner, and then out again past dark to play flashlight tag. I think I would be charged with child endangerment these days if my kid (3 years in the future) was doing stuff…

As a Swiss with a small child, this is the main reason why I couldn't move to the US or UK. Your 70ies examples are still common enough in Switzerland. 6 year olds are sent to Kindergarden on their own (after a bit of training with their parents). Put the visibility triangle on and off you go. Parents are discouraged by the school authorities to bring by car. Today looking back at this I can see the value. Maybe it h…

They're still common here in the US too. Nothing has changed except typical irrational emotional kneejerk reactionary people who want us to believe that this well intentioned nanny state is taking away our rights. It's a mixture of typical conservative stupidity and obnoxious condescension.

Even though productivity is at an all time high, for example, these traitors still want us to believe that people used to work so much harder and dressed so much nicer. These are huge deals to these worthless dumbfucks, who will also tell you that just about everything is worse than it used to be. They're too stupid to think for themselves so they go for these comfort zone lies without even checking.

Why is this? Society is a lot more civilized than it used to be. People have a lot more freedom to be who they are and the conservative traitors cannot handle it. These lies about people being more slovenly or helicopter parenting and all this other stuff is primarily an invention of the conservative/treasonous/poisoned mind. Don't believe the bullshit, people will tell you endless "back in my day" trash.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#189

Post by irrational » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:37 AM UTC

Fuzzwah wrote: post #126

irrational wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. Typically there will be a sign that lets you know how much the produce is per imperial pound. There are analog scales there that you can use to weigh your produce to give you an idea of how much it will be, but the real digital scales are at checkout. At self-checkout you put the produce onto a scale and then click on the picture of the produce your are purchasing so the computer can correlate the weight…

... and the staff member hovering around the self check out area.

Not around where I live. They hang out about 15 feet away.

Re: How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

#190

Post by m_mueller » Thu, Feb 02, 2017, 4:42 AM UTC

someguydave wrote: post #141

m_mueller wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem? IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task. The question is of course how to transition there. I can't say to have any recipes, but I'm reasonably sure that taking away civic rights is counterproductive. Maybe try to get one electable political party that makes it their thing to protect and even expand citizen's rights and allow for more se…

>IMO if a society treats people like responsible adults they'll rise up to the task. That's one hypothesis. Another is that trustworthiness is a genetic trait.

I'm sure it has genetic components, but the question for me is rather whether those components differ between peoples. I'd assume that evolutionary pressure selected quite heavily for people who can be trusted to cooperate.