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

361–370 of 534 posts

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

#361

Post by mhneu »

simonsarris wrote: post #7

I suspect this is not just an American or British or solely cultural thing but also a number-of-children thing. This seems like it would also be the natural response to having fewer children. If you have 3-10 kids, you can "afford" to let them off the leash so to speak, if only psychologically. Your kids going missing or getting hurt is an eventuality anyway, maybe. If you have 1 or 2 kids, you are investing a lot mo…

Yes.

K-selection vs. N-selection is what you're talking about in evolutionary biology. Few offspring, high resources invested vs many offspring, lower resources invested per child.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

(K/N selection doesn't perfectly describe modern kids, and it's not an ironclad model anyway, but evolutionary biologists have thought about this a decent amount.)

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

#362

Post by Theodores »

fryguy wrote: post #117
m_mueller wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget farms, this is even how the supermarket produce section works in Switzerland. You pick your stuff, you weigh it yourself, you choose the right tag (without anyone looking over your shoulder) and then you go to a (nowadays potentially automated) cashier. Heck, it's how the tax system works as well. Government has no way of knowing how much is actually on your bank account, well at least not officially (gov was…

You can still do this at hardware stores in the US. You put your nuts and bolts in the plastic bag and write down the price and quantity and then they add them up at the register. I was really shocked as a teenager when I realized they just "trusted" you to do it correctly.

Well...

Worked in a busy bike shop as a kid and sometimes you would have someone come through the door after a nut or bolt. I would go to the workshop and spend quite a bit of time finding the bolt, then I would only be able to charge 50p for it. By the time I had came back I could have used that time to serve a customer after some real purchases, e.g. a whole bicycle. There wouldn't even be any 'word of mouth' benefits, the bolt could be for a lawnmower or something and the customer could be far too wedded to their tin box vehicle for there to be the chance to upgrade them to a bicycle.

Anyway, it was not cost effective to do personal service bolt sales, at 50p a time, had I been smarter I would have had a big box of random bolts under the counter and made things 'self service'.

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

#363

Post by chimprich »

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.

Sounds like someone thinking of an excuse not to exercise :)

A quick Google suggests running a mile burns about 100 calories and an apple is about 50.

In a more general sense, you can't really compare the two. You can't say exercise is "dwarfed" by consumption because they're not on the same scale; unless you're talking about, say, perceived willpower of eating less versus exercising more.

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

#364

Post by eeZah7Ux »

vidarh wrote: post #353
saurik wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Happened to me as well. A culture filled with imaginary dangers lurking behind every corner could benefit from some soul searching.

Sadly, the less people walk around the more pedestrian hostile the city becomes.

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

#365

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

taurath wrote: post #346
TulliusCicero wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exceptional though. Most American suburbs aren't like that at all, and many of the ones that do have a walkable area, most of their housing is still in unwalkable areas.

Specificlly built to be unwalkable in fact, to keep out "undesirables".

Source?

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

#366

Post by ci5er »

vidoc wrote: post #329

Very interesting, irrational fears and obsession for safety affect so many things nowadays. Every-time I go snowboarding I'm stunned at how in just 20 years, we pretty much went from zero to something like 90%+ skiers wearing helmets.

That's funny. I didn't know that had happened. I can't think of any serious skiing accidents that have happened in/near my social circle, nor on the news, where a helmet would have been determinative to the outcome.

In what percentage of serious skiing accidents would a helmet help. Or is it merely one of those "precautionary principle" things: why take a chance?

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

#367

Post by cmdrfred »

bravura wrote: post #253
yen223 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities offer more choices, rural areas offer more freedom

Really? Have you tried wearing drag in a rural area?

I assure you that you won't be arrested for wearing drag in rural Pennsylvania, you will however be arrested in Philadelphia if you start a bonfire or ride a dirtbike in your backyard.

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

#368

Post by mironathetin »

nvarsj wrote: post #293
Kluny wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is very true in London, unfortunately. Cars destroy the city - both by polluting it, and making walking and biking dangerous. Boris Johnson's goal as mayor was to optimise traffic flow through London, which just encouraged more cars. Going to a city like Cambridge where the center is shut down to cars is quite eye opening - lots of kids and people walking and biking. In London it's just a sea of cars driving and…

"This is very true in London, unfortunately ..."

I admire the Dutch. They use the bicycle everywhere and in all weather conditions. The result? Their cities even sound so different. It is calm, very little car noise. Amazing.

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

#369

Post by qntty »

certifiedloud wrote: post #83
jemfinch wrote: post #63

There's nothing I want more than to let my kids roam like I did in the late 80s and early 90s. Sadly, I can't, because I'm quite literally afraid that someone will take my kids (completely ignoring that the real dangers of the foster home system vastly exceed any risk I would let my kids take).

Perhaps your worry is unfounded: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/...

someone = child services I assume

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

#370

Post by de_Selby »

ciaranm wrote: post #321
nvarsj wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true in London, unfortunately. Cars destroy the city - both by polluting it, and making walking and biking dangerous. Boris Johnson's goal as mayor was to optimise traffic flow through London, which just encouraged more cars. Going to a city like Cambridge where the center is shut down to cars is quite eye opening - lots of kids and people walking and biking. In London it's just a sea of cars driving and…

I make a point of banging on any vehicle that's nearly hit someone and not noticed/acknowledged it - regardless of whether it was me they nearly hit or not. People get mad (especially people driving vans/small trucks), but it's disgraceful that people are driving multi-tonne vehicles and are completely oblivious to their surroundings. I'm glad your daughter is ok.

As a cyclist it happens all the time, it goes something like this:

1) A car comes within centimeters of side swiping me and knocking me down. They don't even notice I'm there.

2) They stop at the next traffic light, I tap on the window to tell them to be more careful.

3) They get angry at me.

4) Other drivers see this interaction and soon you see articles in newspapers complaining about "militant cyclists"

Post reply on HN