"To All The Kids Who Survivied the '30s-'70s"

Anyone seen the chain e-mail called:

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930s, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!

If not...or for a refresher...click here.

Then read on...

Quite a compelling story, no?  As I pondered the substance, I began surfing the net to see what people were saying about the essay.  By far, the vast majority of responses cheered the anti-government/regulation and "kids should spend more time outside" themes.  A collective "right-on" could be heard, no doubt more loudly from the more heavily industrialized nations (uhhhh....well.....pretty much just the US).  Yet there were those that perhaps came at the article from a different angle, leading to the following response:

Oh yes, what a wonderful email. I can't wait to have a child of my own to smother in lead based paint. Only, being born in 1981, I am just a young'n and still very new to the world. But there is one thing I would like to say. On behalf of my entire generation, the pampered, the spoiled, and the "overregulated": Thank you. Thank you to all the risk-takers, the problem solvers, and to all the inventors. Thank you for directly handing down to us your great legacy. Thank you because we have now inherited a greater pile of problems, so urgent and so profound, the likes of which your great generation has never seen. If only we could keep you here to fix them.

...and this one:

I've seen this before and will print a copy of it now. It's a great piece and so true. But, one thing, aren't we also the generations who have now created all the rules our children live by and the gadgets they can't live without?

I'm perplexed by the essay, mostly by virtue of my inability to accept it for what might have been its primary intention.  Overshadowing the somewhat well-justified contempt for government intervention and the effect of modern technology and social trends in raising today's children are the obvious shortcomings in the analysis.  There was a price to pay for risk; children died at alarming rates in vehicle crashes (especially being thrown out of the back of open bed pick-up trucks), from head injuries stemming from bicycle, scooter and other equally higher risk activity, and from crib deaths.  Add to this the well-documented evidence on fetal development issues stemming from over-drinking and over-smoking, accidental poisoning from pill bottles and lead paint, then one might say that the regulation was a good thing (Cite Ralph Nader as the driving force behind many such regulations).

Worse yet, though, is that although the author suggests a positive result of the generation of risk-takers, we can't overlook the current problems we face in our World, as noted by the authors of the above responses.  Socially, and on a Global level, we're much worse-off now than we were then, even with the alleged explosive development of innovative stuff, including new technology (the very thing the author blames for kids not being outside and playing more).  The World is in an environmental and social crises of unparalleled proportions.  We have anger and wars everywhere, uncontrolled and irresponsible commercial, residential and industrial development (seen pics of Dubai lately?  How about the 700 new coal-fired plants that will be built in China this year?) and we have youg adults walking into Universities and firing at will.  Are these things not in the hands of the subjects of the author's prose?

We might find some relief in the fact that today's kids are learning about these issue at a very young age and social/environmental responsibility and stewardship will be part of their fabric as they take the helm of companies, NGOs and government throughout the World.  The tools these kids will need to solve the problem is not a return to de-regulation, but something much more closer to home!

I full-heartedly agree with the essay's suggestion that kids have lost (if they ever had) the true meaning of play time.  Kids don't play enough alone, don't get challenged to act for themselves as they should (how many times do you let your kid fail or at least wait until they ask for help before intervening in everyday tasks like opening a straw from a juice box or in their confrontations with siblings or friends?), don't "skin their knee" enough (Read The Blessing of a Skinned Knee by Wendy Mogel, Penguin Compass 2001), spend way too much time in front of the TV or computer, listen to the iPod too much and otherwise fail to learn how to take responsibility for themselves.  I agree that kids should explore more, take risks, climb trees, walk on ledges, ride bikes really fast, and (as one of my daughters LOVES to do), jump into the deep end and figure out how to swim later.

Yet I'm also for balancing my support for these activities.  Why not wear a helmet?  Why not learn good judgment about the size and trajectory of a BMX bike ramp?  Why not understand safety when taking risks?  I used to play hockey without a helmet.  It was never widely accepted that doing so came with great risk.  Now it is, and now I do.

The sum is that government regulation is nothing but a front for our own lack of accountability.  If we make wise choices for ourselves, we in turn instill wise decision making on our children.  We don't need regulation to tell us that some of these things are quite dangerous.  We need only give our children the tools they will need to assess risk themselves.  We cannot prepare our children for every possible risk or decision; yet we can prepare them for thinking on their own, exercising good judgment, making conscientious decisions for their own well being (this it not to say that we stand idle if they choose to test what happens when they throw the hair dryer into the tub; though I'm of the opinion that if they get a chance to explore in a healthy way with an array of places and items, their interest in the dryer will wane).  We can teach them to be independent, social, beings who eat well, and it can be done with or without a regulation requiring helmets, lead-free paints or warning stickers on every item imaginable (I love warning stickers on high-speed table saws -- darn good thing I read THAT one!).

The balance can be summed up with a quote from a friend: "I have to protect my child from the things that I did when I was young;" to which I respond: "Why?  What's so wrong with how you turned out?"  Balance is the key and it starts at home, not with blaming the government for over-intervention.

And remember...

"Play is the highest form of research."

Albert Einstein

What do YOU think?

Comments

[al jones]

Well said!

[amee]

yes, i agree, this is well said- you present both sides of the argument well.

i am a product of the 60's, 70's and 80's and i loved my childhood- i loved the freedom- i also did a lot of stupid things and am, truthfully, just lucky to be alive.

it makes me sad that my children will never have the amount of freedom that i had tho what makes me more sad is that the freedom that they have lost is not due to rules such as wearing a helmut or not playing outside alone after dark. the freedom they have lost is on a global level- the world looks down on the U.S. today- there are plenty of people that would simply like to blow us up and we have fostered this hatred.

we, as a nation, have been on our high horse for so long thinking our shit don't stink- and now guess what? it does stink- we don't have any idea how to clean it up.

i guess that's we expect our children to do.