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

391–400 of 534 posts

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

#391

Post by balabaster »

NoGravitas wrote: post #371
vkou wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you, your suburban HOA is extremely caring about what you do. Heaven forbid you change the colour of your curtains.

Suburbs are really the worst of both worlds. City and rural both have their appeals. Suburbs have nothing .

The suburbs truly are a barren wasteland of nothing. Without your car, they're a soul sucking prison with all the rules of the city and none of the pay-offs.

I now live in rural Canada. I've spent much of my adult life living in dense cities after having grown up in rural England - London, Vancouver, Houston, Toronto. You can't compare the advantages of either environment - rural or city, but the suburbs truly are the worst of each. You get a lot of space you can't do anything of any value with because of all the rules defined for the comfort of your neighbours who you either have never met or are a pain in your ass; and you can't walk anywhere because there's nowhere to walk.

When you live surrounded by farmland, you can camp for free, hunt, be outdoors, roam on your bike, let your kids climb trees and hike and explore on their own, build treehouses and let them play Lord of the Flies to their heart's content. They can grow, find themselves and become self confident self assured leaders who don't need Mommy every time they graze a knee and have thick skin that doesn't cry to be soothed every time someone insults them, because "they've got this".

In the city you've still got all the stifling rules of suburbia, but you have a pay off: Everything is to hand, you can ditch your car and walk everywhere or take public transit, get on your bike, become part of a tight community of city dwellers. There's extensive culture right outside your door, night life, excitement and high energy... that never. Ever. Shuts. Off.

Eventually the city grinds you down though. It's exciting and freeing for a while, and if you grew up in the city, you might never notice it; but if you grew up in the countryside or the mountains eventually you'll notice it and begin to feel trapped, you'll begin to miss your roots and the simple life, you'll grow sick of trying to keep up with the relentless onslaught of the media, the billboards, the shop windows telling you that you're not enough, you need this to feel better, you need this to look better, you need this to be better and you'll begin to long for an escape from the ceaseless assault of your mind.

Rural life is a different kind of freedom... where you can see the stars.

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

#392

Post by distances »

pjc50 wrote: post #304
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 do you have the freedom to do that you can't do in a city, other than constraints of space and physical geography? Rurally you're still constrained by all that seemingly open land belonging to other people, plus the time constraints of getting to places. You have fresh air, views, and quiet (provided you're not in the middle of an agribusiness rural area). (Talking about "freedom" in the pure abstract is vague;…

I know this discussion is from the US point of view, but land belonging to other people is not a problem everywhere. Many countries (at least in Northern Europe) have "freedom to roam" [1] which in addition to actual roaming may include camping, picking berries and mushrooms, et cetera.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

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

#393

Post by Melchizedek »

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…

I can't help but notice that this is close to Rotherham. The second hit when you google for Rotherham is the Wikipedia article on the "Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal".

The report estimated that 1,400 children had been sexually abused in the town between 1997 and 2013, predominantly by gangs of British-Pakistani men.[7] Abuses described included abduction, rape, torture and sex trafficking of children.

Perhaps freeways aren't the only factor here.

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

#394

Post by icebraining »

JammyDodger wrote: post #233
kqr wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is 99% about making you aware that theproduct exists and fulfills the needs you already have, and at most 1% about making you want theproduct.

How is that true? What about all the various gadgets that exist that nobody wanted until they were advertised to them? If you don't know about something then how can it possibly be exactly what you want? You wouldn't want it if you didn't know it existed. Or how about brands like Coca-Cola, everyone knows they exist but they keep advertising, surely it's to make you want it!

If you don't know about something then how can it possibly be exactly what you want? You wouldn't want it if you didn't know it existed.

You may want something with accomplishes some goal without knowing exactly what. If a person thinks "I have to go out but I'm waiting for a call", they may not imagine the cellphone as an object, but they still want something that solves their problem.

That said, 73.6% of all statistics are made up. Many ads in fact are designed with both goals in mind.

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

#395

Post by d4rti »

mironathetin wrote: post #383
_benedict wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dangerous as a pedestrian though - especially if you aren't used to it!

yes, I wanted to add that remark as well, especially because the topic is about kids. But I didn't. And of course bicycles are far less dangerous than any car. So there is no reason to complain or criticise this great achievement.

The kids ride bikes too.

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

#396

Post by white-flame »

clarkmoody wrote: post #205
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…

> corporations seek to remove all of our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities Please. It's in a corporation's best interest to give the customer exactly what he wants . We still have "our abilities to take care of ourselves and our communities," but we also have the option of a corporation providing for our every whim.

Many corporations create "needs" that didn't exist before, and spend marketing effort convincing consumers that that need exists. This is telling the customer what they want, or at the very least deflecting existing wants into the corporation's exploitable direction.

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

#397

Post by _benedict »

mironathetin wrote: post #383
_benedict wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dangerous as a pedestrian though - especially if you aren't used to it!

yes, I wanted to add that remark as well, especially because the topic is about kids. But I didn't. And of course bicycles are far less dangerous than any car. So there is no reason to complain or criticise this great achievement.

Yes, it wasn't meant so much as a criticism as a caveat.

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

#398

Post by saiya-jin »

lamontcg wrote: post #239
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…

> it's mostly due to the rivers of high-speed traffic that cut up the city and that is the priority. you have to be able to drive as fast as the roadway allows to get where you're going without needing to think about the safety of others. if some kid runs out in front of your car, its not going to be a question of if you were driving to fast but one of "where the hell were the parents?" the assumption being that the…

typical commuter mindset. me and my needs are above everybody's else because... i have a car?

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

#399

Post by MK999 »

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…

Great point to consider geography and the urban environment. In the suburb I grew up in there were no sidewalks, and a few woodsy areas around my parents house were quickly developed and turned into more suburban dwellings, so there really wasn't anywhere to roam.

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

#400

Post by wtbob »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #199
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…

> 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…

I really don't think it's some sort of conspiracy: it's just that it's more efficient for someone to grow all your food, someone to make all your clothes, someone to purify all your water, someone to generate all your electricity &c. while you do what you do best than it is for you to learn how to do all of those things, acquire the raw materials and spend decades trying to make a computer from some copper, oil and sand.

I recall that Mao Zedong tried to get every farmer to smelt his own iron, which rather predictably led to a lot of poor-quality iron, and a food shortage.

I get the appeal of self-sufficiency, I really do (one of my dreams is to grow all of my own food), but I think it's a luxury for the rich and inescapable misery for the poor. Modern capitalism has made everyone richer.

Post reply on HN