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

Kids need freedom, too

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 391 posts

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#211

Post by loonster »

burlesona wrote: post #169
CalRobert wrote: post #154

It's great to allow your kids to take risks, and we do this with our own as much as we can (they're 1 and 3, so "within reason" is still doing some heavy lifting. I pick ticks off of them now and then and patch up their share of bruises). But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop, etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that…

I agree wholeheartedly. My life dream is to build a car-free city in the US so I can live there. When I was young and even more naive I hoped I could do this before having kids, so they could grow up with that freedom. Now I’m hoping maybe I can do this by the time I have grandchildren. We’ll see. It would require a lot of capital in the form of patient equity to pull off.

It exists. Mackinac Island, Michigan.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#212

Post by Sleepytime »

yupper32 wrote: post #122
asciimov wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good compromise for mom. Let kids run free, and give mom the reassurance they can call someone if they need help. I don't like giving cell phones to kids younger than 12 or 13 because childhood should be free of a lot of the technology we use today.

> I don't like giving cell phones to kids younger than 12 or 13 because childhood should be free of a lot of the technology we use today. The future is technology. You're holding them back, socially and technology skills wise, if you wait until they're 13 to give them a cell phone. I was fixing computers and was generally the house technology expert well before I was 13. To get to that point required unrestricted acc…

The computer that you used required skills to use and maintain, and stayed at home. It is vastly different than a dumb (yes) internet appliance kept in a pocket all day long subjecting children to dark patterns and dopamine hits for hours a day.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#213

Post by oblio »

colinmhayes wrote: post #189
Symbiote wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know North America well enough, but the linked video says such walkable neighbourhoods have very high prices. That's great if you can afford it, but it's also good to campaign for it to be available for those who can't.

But if you built a similar city it would likely have high prices too. Why not try to get more housing built in the places that are already nice instead?

I'm not sure I understand this, why would walkable places be expensive? Walkable places are generally high density which means that buildings are bigger and homes are smaller so prices should be lower.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#214

Post by throwaway0a5e »

CalRobert wrote: post #154

It's great to allow your kids to take risks, and we do this with our own as much as we can (they're 1 and 3, so "within reason" is still doing some heavy lifting. I pick ticks off of them now and then and patch up their share of bruises). But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop, etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that…

>Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough to live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same side of the street, your home is effectively your prison in the US and Canada.

There are huge swaths of the country that are not the "built up in the 50s and 60s but now populated and trafficked enough to be dangerous" suburban hellscape that you are implying.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#215

Post by mc32 »

xxpor wrote: post #180
mulmen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Cycling needs good stewardship. The biggest problem with cycling adoption is “cyclists”. My hyperlocal blog has a guy that makes me want to throw my bicycle in the bay just so I’m not associated with him. And I love riding my bike. Cycling needs a “you meet the nicest people on a Honda” moment. E-bikes are a great opportunity for Americans to rediscover motorcycles but unfortunately cities are willing to all…

It was crazy to me in NL that motor scooters (Vespas) could use the bike paths.

It's the same in Parts of Asia: bikes and scooters can go in the dedicated non-car lane. Sometimes you'll see a hand or bike pulled cart as well. Still safer than comingling with cars.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#216

Post by hallarempt »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #106
hallarempt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a four-year old forty-five years ago. I was walking to my pre-school and back, a couple of blocks and a pretty big and busy street across daily. The cars weren't a problem. Getting mobbed by primary school kids on my way back and getting beaten up was a problem. A bigger problem was when I told my parents the reason I was getting home later and later was because of the detours I was taking to avoid getting beat…

> The past wasn't a better place, it just was a place where you didn't talk about being abused, no matter what. I guess that is true, but an interesting question is: Did the past prepare kids better to become responsible and capable adults?

No, it just made us into damaged people more likely to damage other people.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#217

Post by ska »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #214
CalRobert wrote: post #154

It's great to allow your kids to take risks, and we do this with our own as much as we can (they're 1 and 3, so "within reason" is still doing some heavy lifting. I pick ticks off of them now and then and patch up their share of bruises). But fundamentally, what I want most is to be somewhere my kids can ride bikes or walk alone to school, to friends, to the shop, etc. from the age of 7 or so. As best I can tell that…

>Children can't drive, which means unless you're lucky enough to live very close to your friends, and ideally on the same side of the street, your home is effectively your prison in the US and Canada. There are huge swaths of the country that are not the "built up in the 50s and 60s but now populated and trafficked enough to be dangerous" suburban hellscape that you are implying.

This is true. On the other hand, there are huge swaths that are.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#218

Post by akomtu »

asciimov wrote: post #19
kbelder wrote: post #2

I'm having this issue a bit with my wife. I want my 9-yr old daughter to go to the playground a couple blocks away on her own; my wife is reluctant. My argument is that it's statistically very safe, especially in our neighborhood, and that we and her older brothers all did similar things. Her argument is that a girl needs to be more cautious than a boy, and that although she knows it's unlikely anything bad would hap…

> We're planning to compromise by letting her do it, but only after we get her her first phone. Might I suggest looking into one of those cell phone watches for kids. They allow you to lock down who they can send and receive calls/messages from and have gps and geofencing so you can keep an eye on them. It basically allows you to give them the advantages of a phone, without having to give them a phone.

I'm puzzled by this attitude. It's as if a kid is a monkey of some sort that can randomly call someone. If a kid is smart enough to use a phone, he or she can understand your concerns.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#219

Post by initplus »

jlos wrote: post #6

I think the problem "de-risking" childhood is only an instance of the bigger problem of what Roger Scruton calls "Risk De-aggregation". Risk Deaggregation is taking a single point of risk (and its associated metric), and optimizing to reduce that risk as if it exists in isolation from other risks. I.e. Risk occurs in aggregate, not as individual threats. Risk deaggregation happens everywhere from Climate Change polic…

It's a problem everywhere, from bad KPI's to public policy. We have a bias towards metrics that are easy to measure.

It's much easier to measure large effects on a single metric, than small effects distributed over a wide range of metrics. Concentrated effects that affect one individual/org/group are favored over distributed effects that affect everyone. There are so many examples of policies where this thought process has been applied.

Re: Kids need freedom, too

#220

Post by minikites »

ryandrake wrote: post #93
minikites wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I ran into a problem, I could knock on any random neighbor's door, and 1. wouldn't get kidnapped or murdered Crime is much lower now than the past.

That's why I said "perception". People believe kids are going to get kidnapped or murdered, even though the crime statistics don't bear this out, therefore they don't think knocking on a random door is OK anymore.

So why does the truth not change people's perceptions?
Post reply on HN