Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Children Lost the Right to Roam in Just 4 Generations

freerangekids.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 534 posts

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

#351

Post by icu »

As a parent of a young child in London there is no way I'm letting my son wander around our area without being within eyesight. There are just too many degenerate members of British society to take a chance with my son's life and welfare.

On the other hand, if we were to ever move to New Zealand where I lived most of my life, or to the town in Poland where my son's mother grew up, this would be an entirely different story.

Anywhere in New Zealand is quite honestly Disneyland compared to the UK (and I am thinking of the 'hard' parts in New Zealand like Māngere or Ōtāhuhu)... and Radomsko in Poland still has some nice forest areas and a lake that is walking distance from the town.

I think the author needs to take into account that there are just some places in the world where you must be on guard and be extra vigilant. This isn't limited to London, for example Cape Town in South Africa or Rio de Janeiro in Brazil spring to mind.

I am however very much aware of the impact my decision to keep my family in London will have on my son's childhood and frankly I would rather move outside of the M25, to say the outer edges of Surrey, where I would feel slightly more at ease but still ever vigilant. Until I can afford to do that, holidays to Poland will have to suffice.

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

#352

Post by PeterisP »

willvarfar wrote: post #258
someguydave wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Crikey, anyone seriously think its a genetic trait? Do you imagine the children taken into care at a young age turn into bad people just like their parents anyway? Surely everyone thinks that trustworthiness is about poverty, inequality and values?

Actually, what I recall from reading studies of adoption and criminality (it was a few years ago, though, so I don't remember the authors or exact titles to find them) the "the children taken into care at a young age turn into bad people just like their parents anyway" has a truth in it - if you analyze the heritability of antisocial behavior and criminality (and the heritability clearly exists) to see how much of it is e.g. "nature vs nurture" or genetics vs environment and socioeconomic status, then about half of it still remains in case of adoption to a 'low risk' environment.

One plausible explanation for some of that, which wasn't analyzed there, but has some basis in other research is that things like risk-taking behavior or being prone to addiction are quite genetic.

But in any case, for many(most? all?) "moral" characteristics saying that they're only about "poverty, inequality and values" is wishful thinking. Yes, they are in part about that, but they are also in part about genetics; the answer to "nature or nurture" pretty much always is both.

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

#353

Post by vidarh »

saurik wrote: post #153
Kluny wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's weird as hell to be the only person walking on an empty street.

I actually got stopped by the local police a year or two ago for going on a walk during a holiday, as they received reports of some strange guy walking alone.

My uncle, aunt and their two children moved to the US for a few years a long time ago, and had the same happen: First day in a new neighbourhood, what do you do but have a walk around to see what it's like? The police assumed their car must have broken down, and on hearing they'd intentionally set out to walk around the neighbourhood, they seemed to imply they didn't think it was safe and offered to drive them home.

It satisfied a few European stereotypes of America all in one go.

I'm pleased to have visited various parts of the US since, and confirmed it certainly doesn't happen everywhere, but I've also experienced first hand just how pedestrian hostile some areas are...

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

#354

Post by 49531 »

Anecdotally I was born in 1990, I spent the first 10 years of my life in Tacoma WA, USA where during summers I would leave in the morning and be gone all day, all of the neighborhood kids would do the same.

When I was 10 we moved to San Diego, CA USA, where I lived until adulthood. During the summers had the same freedom, I would roam free with the neighborhood kids all day long.

Now I'm married with children of my own (3 and 0) and think about the scariness of letting them roam free, but they're really young so I think that is normal.

However, I also have 2 stepsons who are 13 and 11. During the summers they roam free, we have a field behind our backyard which butts up against a forest and an industrial park, and sometimes they're gone for the entire day.

The only real difference is they have cell phones now, and can call us if there is an emergency.

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

#355

Post by Filligree »

umberway wrote: post #322
Asooka wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the aspects that are most exciting for me about self-driving cars: no road rage, no hurrying, complete respect for road rules. You wouldn't have to do the "game of chicken" on the crosswalk where you start crossing, but in such a way that you can always bail out if the oncoming traffic doesn't stop. You wouldn't have to fear for your life when simply riding your bike on a wide street. You wouldn't be o…

Yes, more than that: if robot cars could be made incapable of hitting pedestrians, then children might start to roam again. It would be a marvellous unintended consequence...

No, from talking with some of these engineers, I'm pretty sure it's completely intended.

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

#356

Post by galfarragem »

intrasight wrote: post #56

I think it happened in one generation. My generation roamed quite extensively starting at about 7 years old. My daughter's generation did not. We drove her to her friends houses (or their parents to ours). Sometimes they would play outside. And I'm not saying there was no roaming, but it started much later and was not as geographically broad.

And the worse part: by driving them to their friends' houses, it's implied that you need to like/approve their parents. During my childhood I could befriend kids whose parents would never be friends of my parents. The actual status quo intensifies segregation.

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

#357

Post by Faaak »

jimmaswell wrote: post #231
slacka wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really feel that proposing video games over being outside does a huge disservice to us as people. This. Growing up, I was only allowed 1 hr of video games or TV per day. And on nice days, I was ordered to play outside. I grew up with a love of outdoors, sports, and have always been in good shape. My cousins were encouraged to stay in and play video games and never allowed out alone. We are similar age and genetic…

Exercise is overwhelmingly dwarfed by calorie consumption, in terms of weight. Not eating an apple is about equivalent to running an entire mile. Most likely your cousins just had a worse diet. Exercise as a weight loss solution is essentially a lie sold by con artists - you can't outrun a bad diet, as they say.

Maybe if you spend all your time outside, you've got less temptation/time to snack and thus consume less calories ?

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

#358

Post by molsongolden »

witty_username wrote: post #343
hsitz wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish it were merely a way to avoid taking personal responsibility. There's much more to it than that. Read "The Psychology of Influence" along with some of the stuff by, e.g, Kahneman and/or Tversky on behavioral economics and the various cognitive biases humans have that lead them to make poor decisions. I assure you that corporations have read all of this and are taking advantage of it to part you from your money…

What is wrong with corporate greed? I want the best returns out of the corporations I invest in. > Question how we're conditioned to think of lower corporate profits as a bad thing. Perhaps it is my neoliberal worldview, but I think most people are like "corporate profits can go down" for . People think that corporations are owned only by billionares. Lower corporate profits are a bad thing for shareholders. Why don'…

Take it further. Why are you a shareholder? Why are so many people shareholders? Investing for retirement is pushed heavily and incentivized by the government but is it for our own good or is it to provide liquidity in the financial game? If you are pushed to invest then you have skin in the game and are a shareholder who wants to increase corporate profits. This puts you almost directly at odds with all non-shareholders who are negatively affected by increasing profits.

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

#359

Post by ArkyBeagle »

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…

But the driver for building roads is frequently that roads enable an upgrade in zoning for land that fronts on those roads.

More modern roadways are quite distant and independent of even the usual retail/restaurant establishments. You have to take an exit. These roads tend to be toll. I don't know how anyone who hasn't used them would be able to see what I mean, but around Houston, the new 99 and I45 stand as examples of the two approaches.

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

#360

Post by [deleted] »

jpatokal wrote: post #215
erikpukinskis wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have purposely designed our cities to maximize vehicle throughput and require car ownership This is just one specific example of the broader phenomenon, which is corporations seek to remove all of our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities, so that they may resell those things to us as products. Requiring cars to move around is just the surface. We go to coffee shops and restaurants to see our f…

There is no evil corporation stopping you from dropping out of the rat race and moving to a farm to live life off the grid. What's stopping you from doing this and living the life you appear to desire? There is also no evil corporation ordering people to give up subsistence farming and move to cities. Why do people, all around the world, still do it?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN