5 ms·

When I was a kid, I spent 3 hours outside with the neighbors kids every weekday after finishing my homework. On weekends it was more like 8 at the park. I consi

When I was a kid, I spent 3 hours outside with the neighbors kids every weekday after finishing my homework. On weekends it was more like 8 at the park. I consider it a forming experience for me as a person. I was safe but also was able to explore and get exercise. Society’s urge to make everything indoor and sedentary is detrimental. It has negative health effects. It also removes any idea of community when you can’t go out and explore what is around you. That’s even before you think about freedom of movement.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
This specter of unlimited liability must make the idea of becoming a parent quite daunting. You need to secure not only housing, food, and energy, but also 24/7 supervision, in the form of daycare, after daycare activities, after school activities, or one parent being with the kids at all times. Which means you are especially screwed if there is a divorce, so you probably want backup grandparents and aunts/uncles, if they can afford to be available and near you.
- eftychis 4y ago
  I agree this is detrimental for current and future generations. Also stupid (my opinion).
- zaroth 4y ago
  So true and very well put. I often tell people that a child takes up an infinite amount of time and resources. But one counterpoint on divorce. If you can manage to do it well, split custody, and continue to co-parent effectively, then you get to be a devoted parent spending every waking moment and spare penny taking care of your kids… for half of the time. And then you get to spend the other half of your time as a single adult. It’s not a sales pitch, and I think in most cases it doesn’t work out so well, but getting divorced and equally sharing the children has been world-changing for me in terms of balance and getting time to focus on myself and fulfill my own dreams in terms of travel, hobbies, bucket list, etc. In our case there was never any extended family who would ever take the kids, which is another thing that’s becoming more common. So basically from Day 1 until off to college you are providing full-time child rearing, which can be quite the crucible.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    > I often tell people that a child takes up an infinite amount of time and resources. In so far as the resource(s) is marginally beneficial, why not? They have a much greater remaining expectancy and future value. That being said sometimes telling a child/teen "no" actually has a higher marginal value than saying "yes".
Lapsa 4y ago
forming experience, idea of community - those seem to be overlooked arguments [citation needed]
vidarh 4y ago
I don't know how old you are, but I did much the same quite often and want to add: For me at least, it was without a cellphone. I think even a lot of people old enough to have kids these days don't realise how many of us spent hours not just roaming around freely, but roaming around freely with no way for our parents to contact us or know where we were.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nullc 4y ago
  > I think even a lot of people old enough to have kids these days don't realise how many of us spent hours not just roaming around freely, but roaming around freely with no way for our parents to contact us or know where we were. How so? they would have grown up that way themselves? -- I don't think it was common for children to have cell phones until after 2000, no? Median age for first time mothers in the US is 30.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Note that I said "a lot", not a majority. Combination of the freedom to run around like those of us who grew up a decade or two earlier being given to them later with that freedom more likely to coincide with getting a phone or at least being near in time. E.g. someone getting a phone at 10 in 2003 would be 30 this year already had a substantial likelihood of having had less freedom to run around at 10 in 2003 than I had at 8 in 1983, or indeed at 6-7. (I'm by no means suggesting every 10 year old in 2003 were getting phones). It's very possible that the number is smaller than I'm imagining. It was merely a casual observation that we're now also increasingly starting to come across parents who grew up either being watched or being reachable, so the notion of kids being able to not just roam freely but roam freely without at least being able to call to say where they were is getting stranger to more and more people.
    - nullc 4y ago
      Fair enough. I wonder when the change happened, as someone born in 1979 in Ft. Lauderdale I had the same freedom (even requirement!) to go out on my own as a child that many posters have mentioned here.
cjrp 4y ago
> Society’s urge to make everything indoor and sedentary is detrimental Indoor, sedentary and with a price in general.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

This specter of unlimited liability must make the idea of becoming a parent quite daunting. You need to secure not only housing, food, and energy, but also 24/7 supervision, in the form of daycare, after daycare activities, after school activities, or one parent being with the kids at all times. Which means you are especially screwed if there is a divorce, so you probably want backup grandparents and aunts/uncles, if they can afford to be available and near you.

eftychis 4y ago
I agree this is detrimental for current and future generations. Also stupid (my opinion).
zaroth 4y ago
So true and very well put. I often tell people that a child takes up an infinite amount of time and resources. But one counterpoint on divorce. If you can manage to do it well, split custody, and continue to co-parent effectively, then you get to be a devoted parent spending every waking moment and spare penny taking care of your kids… for half of the time. And then you get to spend the other half of your time as a single adult. It’s not a sales pitch, and I think in most cases it doesn’t work out so well, but getting divorced and equally sharing the children has been world-changing for me in terms of balance and getting time to focus on myself and fulfill my own dreams in terms of travel, hobbies, bucket list, etc. In our case there was never any extended family who would ever take the kids, which is another thing that’s becoming more common. So basically from Day 1 until off to college you are providing full-time child rearing, which can be quite the crucible.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  > I often tell people that a child takes up an infinite amount of time and resources. In so far as the resource(s) is marginally beneficial, why not? They have a much greater remaining expectancy and future value. That being said sometimes telling a child/teen "no" actually has a higher marginal value than saying "yes".

Lapsa 4y ago

forming experience, idea of community - those seem to be overlooked arguments [citation needed]

vidarh 4y ago

I don't know how old you are, but I did much the same quite often and want to add: For me at least, it was without a cellphone. I think even a lot of people old enough to have kids these days don't realise how many of us spent hours not just roaming around freely, but roaming around freely with no way for our parents to contact us or know where we were.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nullc 4y ago
> I think even a lot of people old enough to have kids these days don't realise how many of us spent hours not just roaming around freely, but roaming around freely with no way for our parents to contact us or know where we were. How so? they would have grown up that way themselves? -- I don't think it was common for children to have cell phones until after 2000, no? Median age for first time mothers in the US is 30.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Note that I said "a lot", not a majority. Combination of the freedom to run around like those of us who grew up a decade or two earlier being given to them later with that freedom more likely to coincide with getting a phone or at least being near in time. E.g. someone getting a phone at 10 in 2003 would be 30 this year already had a substantial likelihood of having had less freedom to run around at 10 in 2003 than I had at 8 in 1983, or indeed at 6-7. (I'm by no means suggesting every 10 year old in 2003 were getting phones). It's very possible that the number is smaller than I'm imagining. It was merely a casual observation that we're now also increasingly starting to come across parents who grew up either being watched or being reachable, so the notion of kids being able to not just roam freely but roam freely without at least being able to call to say where they were is getting stranger to more and more people.
  - nullc 4y ago
    Fair enough. I wonder when the change happened, as someone born in 1979 in Ft. Lauderdale I had the same freedom (even requirement!) to go out on my own as a child that many posters have mentioned here.

cjrp 4y ago

> Society’s urge to make everything indoor and sedentary is detrimental Indoor, sedentary and with a price in general.