4 ms·
Is there a single article on that site that's not an extreme exaggeration of non-issues, including this one? Obviously I am exaggerating now, but, seems to be t
by ztjio 9y ago
Is there a single article on that site that's not an extreme exaggeration of non-issues, including this one? Obviously I am exaggerating now, but, seems to be the spirit.
People learn about what matters to them. Random animals not native to your life do not matter to you. It's really no big deal, we love to learn and our brains massively reward us for doing so especially when we actually believe it will matter. That is why it takes little effort to bring someone up to speed on flora and fauna that matters, when it really does.
Leave the rest of the concern to the biologists.
- nerdponx 9y agoThis strikes me as short-sighted and I think you're missing the point. The concern is that children don't care about nature in the first place. You have to consider both causal directions: children don't know anything about nature because they don't care, or children don't care about nature because they don't know. This process is self-reinforcing.
- aaron695 9y agoThe article gives no evedence that children are worse now than before. And to me it seems like absolute rubbish. The younger generation seem to care more about the environment than previous generations if anything. The author seems to just not like the fact children like Pokemon and they don't.