26 ms·

> Why don’t children leave the house? Because of screens. We have a forest in our backyard with a 2 story fully enclosed treehouse (including electricity), sp

• locococo 3y ago
  I don't disagree but I think what we tend to forget is thst children mimic their parents. I've noticed that my kids will go outside more when I walk the dog more. They either join me or go outside on their own. The same applied when I work in the yard.
  • jahewson 3y ago
    That’s a good point. In turn I’d ask why the parents don’t leave the house? Because of screens…?
  • autoexec 3y ago
    My parents didn't spend much time out of the house, but they'd kick us out occasionally. We'd bike around, go to parks, or visit friends. Are parents even allowed to say "Go play outside until the street lights turn on" anymore?
  • rpxio 3y ago
    I was going to reply with this exact sentiment, so I’m glad you brought it up. There’s also talk in this thread about how we’ve designed the outside to be kid-unfriendly. Let’s think for a second about how we design our home spaces inside to have screens all around. I’d wager that if you could walk into any house in suburbia, 90%+ will have a massive flat screen hanging in the main living space. Not only that, but all the chairs are aimed to face it! It’s the focal point and THE activity to be done in that space. Some houses will have screens in nearly every room. A screen in every pocket and maybe some portable screens too! With so much priority put on these screens and when parents, grandparents, friends, etc all spend a majority of their waking life on them, what is a kid going to mimic and learn is acceptable? We definitely still struggle with screen time for our kids. They’re getting much better about turning it off without tantrums, but we only have one TV in our bedroom (rarely turned on), an iPad, and our phones. We try to watch TV or movies together rather than having a screen on in the background or relying on a screen to entertain our kids while we go off and do something else. All that said, our oldest (4 y/o) reads chapter books like there’s no tomorrow because she sees my wife and I read physical books. We also frequent the library often where she can have some independence to wander and find what interests her to bring home. Parent friends always make remarks about how smart she is and how they wish their kid would read more, but they can’t get them to stop wanting to watch TV or the tablet… but we’ve been to several friends’ houses and they always have a TV on nonstop and they themselves don’t read any books.
• travoc 3y ago
  I have to agree. My children have a 2 acre backyard with woods and a treehouse. They play outside with the neighborhood kids almost every day. When bad weather keeps them inside, they make up new games to play throughout the house. Why? Because we limit the time they spend on screens.
  • omginternets 3y ago
    This is how I was raised. I’ll forever be thankful.
  • duderific 3y ago
    > My children have a 2 acre backyard with woods and a treehouse. Very, very few people have this. Sounds like you have your own "third place" that the neighborhood kids can leverage, and which provides a compelling alternative to screens.
    • danbolt 3y ago
      I noticed this sort of thing as a child when my family moved to a slightly more dense suburb. We’d do more things on our own with our peers once there were spaces that accommodated this within walking distance (parks, shops, libraries, etc.). In the earlier, more spacious location, there were nice spaces for grownups to decompress after a workday, but we had to be driven around if we wanted to play with our friends. Television (and learning how to pirate Game Boy ROMs) was novel and interesting when a peer group wasn’t available.
  • idle_zealot 3y ago
    This is how I was raised. Running around and forced to come up with games to entertain myself all day. As soon as I moved out for college I finally got to spend as much of my time on the computer as I wanted. It was great, and I still enjoy programming and video games way more than hiking or sports. I basically consider all that time outside as a waste; I could have been having more fun and learning more but my parents decided that I should enjoy the outdoors. That's not to say that I resisted and moped rather than engaging (most of the time), I tried to make the best of it. But I was constantly aware that I could be doing something I'd enjoy much more. I wouldn't say I resent my parents for raising me like that; they were doing what they thought best. I just think they were wrong.
• Kye 3y ago
  I remember getting annoyed listening to my parents opine about why I stayed inside a lot without ever asking me, knowing I would be chastised if I dared to speak for myself. I enjoy a nice stroll in nature as an adult, but I would have been bored out of my mind as a kid. Sports never appealed, and treehouses are even more boring than sitting in a room with no internet. What I liked doing was mall walking, or walking through busy cities. But my parents would rarely take me to do that. So I was "lazy."
  • yieldcrv 3y ago
    my parents thought I was a combination of introverted and not social I just could not be motivated to travel 40 minutes to an event, and Xbox Live was an equivalent surrogate Move on campus in the middle of things and I’m out almost every day. Keep everything in walking distance and I’m very social in person. We’ll see if suburbs ever appeal to me, more likely would have to be a reimagined version of the concept.
  • oh_sigh 3y ago
    Yes, just going on a walk can be boring for a child, but you don't need to just walk through the woods. You can go exploring, dig for treasure, climb trees, play hide and seek, build a fort, etc.
    • Kye 3y ago
      What hiking trail allows this? Going off-trail, digging, climbing, and building will all get you booted. These are natural environments where the trail is already a significant compromise to justify the preservation.
      • NegativeLatency 3y ago
        I had some experiences like this thanks to boy scouts, but it was on private land owned by another family for timber, or at a summer camp hardly an everyday thing though. Depending on what you're doing/season/location national forests allow gathering wood and stuff for building fires.
• dudul 3y ago
  Do you use screens in front of them? Have you researched a school that doesn't use screens? They exist, my kids go to one. What's the problem exactly with taking their devices? They cry and complain, so? People resist change, but they eventually get used to it.
  • duderific 3y ago
    It's not quite that simple. Literally all their schoolmates are watching shows, playing video games etc. So they become ostracized as a result of not having the same context as the other kids. We're trying like hell to slow the onslaught with my son, but the kids make fun of him because "you don't even play Roblox" or whatever. The public schools are all in on screens, at least where we are. They literally issued my kindergartener a Chromebook and expect us to do 30 minutes a night on the apps they recommend. It's really disheartening.
    • slothtrop 3y ago
      > they become ostracized I think this is a strong overstatement. It's one thing to be completely out of the loop for any and all media, and another to watch perdiodically. Sports are still huge, so obviously there's a significant demo of kids who aren't solely watching tv and gaming all the time. > the kids make fun of him Some. That can happen whether your kid is glued to screens or not.
    • dudul 3y ago
      I sympathize. As I said my kids school doesn't use screens and has a strict no media/screen policy at home. And yet, some families don't comply and a few kids will bring these convos to the play yard. Even if it's a minority it's still very disruptive. Maybe you can find local groups of like minded families for your kids to find friends.
    • fomine3 3y ago
      "screen" is too wide category for what people do. Reading textbook on "screen" is almost same as the real book. Watching educational YouTube could be great. Watching YouTube Shorts isn't so good.
• swatcoder 3y ago
  Kids 30 years ago wanted to endlessly watch TV, play video games, listen to tapes, and read books. 30 years before that, it was radio, TV, vinyl, and books. 30 years before that: radio, vinyl, and books. Kids are curious and stimulation-receptive and motivated, and so they're going to chase easy sources of those things. Parents, meanwhile, can either work to balance the easy sources with other sources that might enrich them in novel ways (like going outside or being bored), accepting that their kids may not buy into the idea, or they can defer to their child's sense and avoid tantrums and defiance. It seems like kids turn into adults either way, but the choice is ultimately one being made by the parent, not by the availability of screens per se. The easy stimulation is omnipresent. That ship sailed about 100 years ago. As a parent caring for kids (and a person caring for yourself!) you ultimately have to figure out what you want to do about it.
  • germinalphrase 3y ago
    It's only in recent decades that media has begun to adapt itself to increase captivity of individual consumers. That feels like a qualitative difference between your time horizons.
    • wvenable 3y ago
      My two children 12 years apart in age and they have had a dramatically different childhoods. Unless you are a parent right now, you probably have no idea how quickly childhood has changed in the last decade.
      • lazyasciiart 3y ago
        Or a teacher, or childcare worker, or pediatrician or nanny or school bus driver or any of the bazillion different ways that many adults actually get quite a clear idea of how childhood changes over time. Possibly more clear than parents, since they see kids going through the same stage over time.
        • wvenable 3y ago
• givemeethekeys 3y ago
  How often do you go to the tree-house and forest?
  • irrational 3y ago
    The forest? Daily. The treehouse? Not as often. I do go out there and work sometimes. It has a really comfortable window seat with windows looking out to a pond and the forest.
    • givemeethekeys 3y ago
      Often I see parents that complain about their kid's addiction to devices also suffer from addictions to media, often worse than the kids. The apple rarely falls far from the tree. I imagine that if you're taking advantage of the outdoors regularly, your kids will follow sooner or later.
• uoaei 3y ago
  Kids learn habits from their parents. Never forget that you are their first role model. How often do you leave the house and how often are you using screens when you are home?
• wvenable 3y ago
  There's a feedback loop happening as well. Kids don't play outside so there are no kids playing outside. Screens are much more compelling than playing outside. Kids are still using their imaginations but they're playing in a much more powerful sandbox. And, at the same time, outside is actually getting less compelling. It's not healthy -- probably both in a physical and mental sense -- but the solution is far from just taking away screens. Society is structured around this now.
  • duderific 3y ago
    > There's a feedback loop happening as well. Kids don't play outside so there are no kids playing outside. So much this. When I was a kid (late 70's), I could count on going outside and finding other kids to play with. Or if I didn't find anyone, I'd ride my bike around until someone came outside. Or, I could even simply knock on my friend's door and say "Can Robert come out and play?" and this was completely acceptable. I'd love to send my kid outside to play, but he'd just be wandering around by himself. Knocking on a friend's door (though he knows a same-age kid two doors away) would be considered out of bounds nowadays. Any kid get-togethers must be carefully arranged ahead of time with at least one adult monitoring the "playdate."
    • the-alchemist 3y ago
      > Knocking on a friend's door (though he knows a same-age kid two doors away) would be considered out of bounds nowadays. Yeah, the social dynamics of this kind of thing baffles me. I'm sure it's very neighborhood-dependent, but neighbors don't "check" up on each other either. I think this is more U.S.-wide: it's not socially acceptable to knock on someone's door or ring their doorbell even if they're waiting for me. You're supposed to text that you're waiting outside. Doorbells are only for deliveries and unknown strangers (like selling something, politics, religious missionaries). If it's not socially acceptable to knock on a friend's door when they're waiting for you to get there, then it's definitely not gonna be socially acceptable to just knock, see if they're home, say hi, and that's it.
      • 3y ago
• bradchris 3y ago
  But would you let them? Alone, I mean. No pre-set plan, no parental supervision, just a “I’m going to go meet my friends on this summer day, I’ll be back before dinner.” For purposes of illustration, assume these kids are aged 9-14, or thereabouts. Too young to drive, too old to be doted over every minute of the day. If you would (and I hope you would!), would their friends’ parents? Would they be able to go casually knock on their friends’ doors (or even neighbors’ doors), be it biking or walking, and socialize, like kids do? My guess is probably not. And that’s not the kids’ doing— that’s OUR doing. If parents really wanted their kids to go outside and explore, that would be the norm. But for far too many kids it’s not, because parents don’t want it to be: they’re worried about their kid getting hit by a car, kidnapped, getting in trouble, learning a lesson, the list goes on and on. The built environment reflects that kids are not expected to be outside, as if we’ve kid-proofed it. And so even if you want your kid to play outside, no one else is, and of course no kid wants to play alone! Ironically, you would probably see more kids out and about, safe to be kids, in gasp New York City than in “safe” suburbia, from my own anecdotal experience.
  • NegativeLatency 3y ago
    There's currently a strike in Portland, and I've appreciated seeing kids out and about being little adults, taking the bus, etc, makes me really glad to live in city even with all the cars and noise.
    • yalestar 3y ago
      I've noticed that too during this teachers' strike in Portland! It was really one of the most unexpectedly heartening things I've seen in a while.
  • wizerdrobe 3y ago
    I’m trying to put this politely - I promise! There’s a world out there far and beyond whatever bubble you’re in. My daughter (6) can go out back on the playground or practice archery or whatever. My next-door neighbor (next-door in the original, pre-app sense) has a dirt bike track for his handful of kids (5+ and up) I’ve got all kinds of neighbors with kids doing all the old things we did pre-Black Mirror in the pocket. Don’t get me wrong, I FIGHT like a… expletive, with my kids about screen time to a degree that my folks and older siblings laugh about given I’m a self-taught teenage hacker. But kids and communities with “go do shit” old-er school norms exist outside of the big cities.
• Workaccount2 3y ago
  I don't see the issue, almost all the high paying jobs nowadays are just staring at screens all day anyway. I'm being facetious, but maybe not really...
  • lotsofpulp 3y ago
    I think this is changing as we speak, maybe even has over the past 10 years. I expect physical labor, and in person labor prices to increase faster than desk labor wages. If you buy construction/plumbing/electrical/etc labor, surely you have seen prices skyrocketing.
• unflxw 3y ago
  > We have a forest in our backyard with a 2 story fully enclosed treehouse (including electricity), sports fields within a 5 minute walk, tons of hiking trails, etc. Humans are social beings. We are motivated to do things through our peers doing things. What you describe is probably really nice for people who enjoy exercise and spending time in nature. But for social beings, what you are describing is absolute isolation from society. I would posit that a big part of what glues the kids to the screen is that the screen is a window to the real world. When they look into the screen, they have an endless stream of other people, expressing opinions, doing things, existing in society. When they look outside, there's no society, there's no people. It's just trees.
  • Tade0 3y ago
    This. The internet has become sort of a "third place", but since it has no precedent, none of us knew how to leverage it as such, so we have people glued to screens. I have hope for the generation after gen Z though - my toddler knows exactly when I'm looking at my phone instead of giving her attention and in such instances proposes that I put it away. It's very much like my generation annoyed at their parents who watch TV all day instead of interacting.
    • unflxw 3y ago
      Agreed. I'd say the source of the problem is the lack of real third places. I like to call this "the abolition of society", but I'm a bit dramatic. While the internet is certainly addictive, I'd assume that most people who, like me, waste their lives online, do so primarily because no real alternative is available.
• gedy 3y ago
  Moms aren't around, more are working and not looking out for each other's kids, even when they are roaming the neighborhood.
  • watwut 3y ago
    When kids roamed alone, they did not roamed where moms were. And moms were in the kitchen or with youngest baby. And also, back then kids in areas where women worked due to not being middle class, still roamed alone.
• mdgrech23 3y ago
  was in europe over the summer I did see a lot of teens doing dumb shit that teens do by the subway and in the streets. maybe they'd go out more if there was stuff to do. let's be real suburbia kind of sucks.
• pj_mukh 3y ago
  “ We have a forest in our backyard with a 2 story fully enclosed treehouse (including electricity), sports fields within a 5 minute walk, tons of hiking trails, etc. But it is a real struggle to get them to leave the house because” But..do you have their friends in that space? I’m not naive I realize a lot of kids actually just want to TikTok, but “go hiking” isn’t a valid alternative. Kids want friends and unstructured time with them not beholden to their parents ability to drive them somewhere.
• ssnistfajen 3y ago
  Hobbies and interests are not uniform across age groups. Just because the children are interested in different things than you think they should be interested in, doesn't mean they are the ones who are wrong. Forced timeout almost never works. It merely reinforces their craving for what has been taken away from them.
• jxramos 3y ago
  this YouTube short does a good job contrasting the two https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ih12x3hmw2M?app=desktop https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ih12x3hmw2M?app=desktop
• Civitello 3y ago
  do they have peers that would join them if they went?
• WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  >> Why don’t children leave the house? > Because of screens. Your kids. Not mine, who predated screens. There was nowhere to go. They could walk to the neighborhood entrance. They could walk back. They could do that again. Past that the choices were walking along a thruway easement or risk trespassing charges by being anywhere else. Not just my kids. I spent >20 years in leadership in scouting and youth programs, 1990s onward. I worked with a LOT of kids. When they weren't in home/school/extremely-supervised-structured-and-typically-not-free-activities, those kids stayed mostly home because there was nowhere for them to go. Most. Kids. Have. Nowhere. To Go. The entire human history of kids having peer-only time to learn negotiation, compromise, ambition, boundaries, loyalty, conflict resolution, basically learning how to think has been replaced with ceaseless adult supervision or being shut away. Parenting time has increased 10-fold and that heavy-handed excess is supposed to somehow replicate their most critical learning time - the exact space where children become people. It doesn't. It can't. Five seconds of considering it makes that plain. We've illegalized childhood and substituted the most counterproductive thing we could find. Screens really aren't the cause of a catastrophe that began taking shape generations ago.
• mr3martinis 3y ago
  Can they walk to meet with their friends and get something to eat or drink? Compared to nature and fields, a stimulating place to hang with friends around lots of other people gives a sense of independence and is a stronger draw for most.
• sn9 3y ago
  The school issue is the single hardest thing. Like I was always planning on putting my kids in public school. I got a great education in them. But now I'm wondering if I'll be forced to hunt down a school that avoids screens as much as possible. I've heard good things about Waldorf schools but the vaccination rates at those schools freak me out even more. (Not to mention I've seen some terrible examples of educational software that is so buggy and unusable that it's actively hindering learning, making students feel stupid when they would've been fine with traditional methods.)
• 1auralynn 3y ago
  Speaking as someone who was a teenager in the suburbs in the 90s, it totally predated screens. Walking 40 min on a road with no sidewalks got you to a 7-11. We used to go play in the woods until they knocked them down to build a "golfing community" (ie golf course interspersed with McMansions)
• Forge36 3y ago
  I grew up with lots of space outdoors. Not a lot of people. Screens were my way to be social. It's one thing to be poorly designed, it's another to be socially isolated with no one to talk to.
• woodruffw 3y ago
  Screens are a proximate cause, not the underlying problem: as others have pointed out, children are just as social as we are. If being behind a screen is how they obtain those social experiences, then the corrective action isn’t to remove them but to augment them in a way they ultimately find more appealing. The article’s observation about suburban design is spot-on insofar as suburbs have both trended towards architectural and cultural insularity.
• jimhefferon 3y ago
  Screens are an issue, for sure. But kids stopped going out before computer and phone screens became common.
  • irrational 3y ago
    When was that? I grew up in the 1980s and we would be outside messing around from dawn to dusk, even though we had a Nintendo 64, Nickelodeon, MTV (back when they actually had music videos), a vcr, etc.
    • Jensson 3y ago
      > I grew up in the 1980s > we had a Nintendo 64 Those two doesn't agree with each other. If you grew up in 1980s you were an adult or close to when Nintendo 64 were out.
      • novok 3y ago
        probably born in the 80s, child of the 90s
  • hydrok9 3y ago
    Don't think so. I was born in 89 and we used to play outside till our parents called us in
  • jimhefferon 3y ago
    Our kids were born in the 80s. That happened to them. No one around to play with
• xyst 3y ago
  yea it’s a 5 minute walk for your child. But friends probably live 40 minutes away if they walk. What’s the point of a treehouse if they just play by themselves? Also, no child is going to walk on a trail by themselves for fun. Same with a sports field. lol. Get realistic dude. Suburbia sucks. I grew up in it. My childhood was spent playing video games, going to school, socialize/learn, maybe after school sports, go back home, study. Weekends were a bit rough. Usually just stuck with parents. Had a park within 15 minute WALK. But friends lived in diff suburb so it was at least a 40 minute walk (maybe 15 min by bike). Occasionally parents drive me to friends house, but again mostly just to play games (this is an era where play over internet was not feasible or widely available). Also the suburbs were a bit dangerous to walk or bike in. Cars zooming up and down streets with reckless abandon. Worse during commuting. I imagine it’s worse today with the massive compensators that exist on the road now. I was essentially a prisoner up until I was able to get my learners permit and start driving.
  • irrational 3y ago
    They have lots of friends in our neighborhood. But those kids don’t want to go outside either. If they do venture forth (like when we kick them out and tell them don’t come back till dinner) to a friends house, it is just to get on a device with them. And our neighborhood is very safe. I’d be fine if I didn’t see them from dawn to dusk.
• linsomniac 3y ago
  It's very hard to parent around this alone though. As you say, if you take away devices, the kids don't switch to using the treehouse/sports/hiking... Online is where their friends are, not the treehouse.
• qball 3y ago
  >Why don’t children leave the house? Because it's illegal in most of North America (especially when you consider where people actually live) for them to leave the house. That is the beginning and end of it. If this answer isn't blindingly obvious to you, you are part of the problem. Either you don't notice it because you're more focused on being angry about "suburbia" than you are the objective well-being/freedom of your own children, or you actively encourage it because you think it's a net good (either because you're paranoid, because you're a victim of misinformation, or because you're a concern troll). Things are safer than ever before yet most children have fewer rights and ways to develop available to them than at any point in recorded history. Sure, there might not be any place for them to go to exercise that freedom, but if you legalize it they'll eventually start coming back. As for now, keep cheering on the arrests of children playing on their own front lawns. The reason suburbia exists in the first place is because that's the place your kids are maximally safe from this while still allowing you to be sufficiently gainfully employed, and making that way of life slightly more aesthetically acceptable to childless apartment-dwellers will do nothing to fix this. Karen delenda est.
  • Affric 3y ago
    But this isn’t a factor outside North America and Suburbia is still failing children.
  • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    > >Why don’t children leave the house? > Because it's illegal in most of North America (especially when you consider where people actually live) for them to leave the house. It is not illegal in most of North America, if you consider the USA (not sure about Canada/Mexico), only three states have laws that make it actually illegal. Consider: > Washington doesn't have a state law that dictates whether children can or can't be left at home that's dependent on age, according to Seattle-based law firm Elise Buie Family Law. In nearby Oregon, though, the law states the child must be at least 10 years old to be home alone. Or California, which has alot of people: > In the state of California, there is no legal age stipulated on when a child can be left home alone or allowed to walk outside alone. There is a law, however, that children 6 years old and younger cannot be left alone in a car. So for the west continental coast we have Oregon until 10...and in California if a car isn't involved no constraint. Oregon is just one of three states with actual laws on the books: > Three states legally require kids to be of a certain minimum age to be left on their own for some time: Illinois (14 years old) Oregon (10 years old) Maryland (8 years old) I'm not sure Maryland is being unreasonable here, but Illinois and Oregon probably are.
• hibikir 3y ago
  My teenager has screens, and he is a total nerd. When we are in our sea of US suburbia, where there is absolutely nothing to do, and no neighbor kids that share much with him, he just chooses screens at all times. But come summer, I take him to a small Spanish port town. It has beaches where teens can surf and spearfish. There's always an available pickup game of soccer or basketball, even at midnight. Bars and restaurants one can walk to, and complete independence, barring budgetary constraints. The area that in the US has a dozen teenagers, over there has about 300 or so. Suddenly it's not all screens, because there are competing alternatives. Want to go play DnD poolside with the nerdiest of the lot? No need to ask anyone. Suburbs don't force kids into being alone in front of screens, any more than they force adults to be lonely and asocial. But they so do change the level of effort required to do anything else.
• jgoodhcg 3y ago
  > because of screens It’s connection they are looking for. Nobody wants to play in big backyard treehouse alone. At least the screens let them talk to other people or at least pretend to. Having a house in a suburb where kids can’t walk to anybody they have connections with isolates and pushes them to the screens.
• SirMaster 3y ago
  Well it's because of the Internet then not just "screens" right? I grew up with Nintendos and such, even the handheld gameboys, so I always had screens available to me. But my friends and I went outside and met up and rode our bikes all around town all the time.
• skullone 3y ago
  Same! We have an acre of trees, a hill, boulders, 2 sheds, trampoline, bikes, digging tools. Nope. Screens.
• CalRobert 3y ago
  For what it's worth when we had a few acres in the country our kids didn't really want to leave. Now that we live where they can bike with friends they want to go do that. But I am not happy with how many screens are in the school.
• watwut 3y ago
  > Because of screens. Not entirely true. When kids used to go outside, they went alone outside since the age of 6 or even 5. That is impossible now. In order for kids to go outside, an adult must be there with them. That is adult bored on playground, cant cook, cant clean, cant socialize with friends, cant have fun. So adults wont go. And then by the time kids are allowed to go outside, they dont know what to do there, other kids are not there and they are too old.
• euroderf 3y ago
  My mom had a quick fix for this. If we were spending too much time in front of the TV on a nice day, she'd simply come in the room and shut off the TV and tell us to go outside. Now! Problem solved. Can't this (admittedly blunt) technique translate to contemporary situations ?
• bigbacaloa 3y ago
  [dead]
• carlmr 3y ago
  >One of the problems is, this is taught in the schools. Pretty much every class is using screens constantly. I hear people complaining about the lack of iPads due to low school funding. I'm thinking this might be a good thing. IMHO tablets are the worst case scenario, they're made for pure consumption. Keyboard input on screen is bad, productive software is limited - these are machines made for pure consumption of media. We all consume enough media nowadays. If you teach programming on proper laptops/desktops, or how to use spreadsheets, and writing text on computers, I get that this is useful knowledge. I just can't think of anything you need to teach with a tablet in school. And I think we should also not allow phones in school, it's just too damn entertaining. Adults barely are able to unglue themselves from their phones, we need to create a distraction free zone conducive for learning.
• k99x55 3y ago
  Screens are part of the problem but the biggest cause is lack of space to be a child, and the biggest culprit is our car-centric urban planning which transformed our streets into car storage space / racing track. Our streets have become hostile to anything but cars. Not Just Bikes video on suburbia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw