12 ms·
Balancing Outdoor Risky Play and Injury Prevention in Childhood Development
- Animats 3y agoSite is down. Comparable statement from Scotland.[1] Kids need riskier play, so that the military can get more recruits. Only about 23% of American kids qualify for the US military.[2] With a war with either Russia or China coming up, we'll need more fresh meat for the grinder. [1] https://www.playscotland.org/resources/print/Risky-Play-Leaflet.pdf?plsctml_id=10760 https://www.playscotland.org/resources/print/Risky-Play-Leaf... [2] https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20230511/115823/HHRG-118-PW07-Wstate-AschB-20230511.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW07/20230511/115823/HHRG...
- n2d4 3y agoArchive is still up: https://web.archive.org/web/20240126065238/https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/outdoor-risky-play https://web.archive.org/web/20240126065238/https://cps.ca/en...
- d1sxeyes 3y agoIt is possible that this is some big conspiracy to increase the number of fit, military age folks in the short term, it seems unlikely. If there were ever to be any kind of “meat grinding” war, it would be escalated to aircraft, drones, and long range missiles pretty quickly I think, with a relatively small number of infantry losses through active combat. There are also a significant number of people who believe that risky play (or the lack of it) is resulting in mental health issues in today’s young adults, who are finding themselves inexperienced in dealing with feelings of fear, unfamiliar with perseverance and delayed gratification, and are also as you have noted, physically out of shape. Just because “teenagers being fitter” would benefit the military does not mean that’s the purpose of encouraging riskier play.
- reverius42 3y agoThe ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine already seems to be a meat grinder, despite the existence of drones and aircraft.
- meheleventyone 3y agoThe vast majority of the killing has always been via indirect fire. Drones and aircraft are just part of that.
- 15155 3y agoOur doctrine was built around aircraft, suppression of enemy air defenses, and then domination through missiles and total air superiority. We flew more combat sorties on Day 1 of Desert Storm than both of these nations have flown in two years of this conflict. Soviet (and by extension both of these nations) doctrine places emphasis on overwhelming manpower, artillery, and air defense. We have an order of magnitude more combat aircraft of all classes than both of these nations combined. We have more AH-64s that are allocated just to training than both of these nations have helicopters in active service combined. Ukraine is already giving Russia's AD systems a run for their money using our hand-me-downs from 30 or more years ago. Their aircraft have no stealth technology, ancient avionics, ancient targeting systems, last-generation anti-radiation missiles. Russian AD systems stand zero chance against modern SEAD doctrine: we can see this in effect every time Ukraine uses decoy-based saturation attacks combined with cruise missiles. They simply do not have enough capable batteries to sustain a meaningful air defense when faced with a financially-superior adversary. We have tens of thousands of AGM-88 HARMs in stock: Russia has less than 2000 estimated S-300/S-400 acquisition radars. Nuclear weapons are Russia's only real military trump card; Russia would cease to exist if confined to conventional munitions in a "peer" conflict. There exists exactly zero chance we end up in a Ukraine style meat grinder, we're deploying nuclear weapons long before that happens. Also: Ukraine isn't engaged in total war and has no ability to wage it. The United States would (and has in past conflicts) engage in strategic bombing campaigns on absolutely every single manufacturing facility, every supply chain, in every complicit nation. In a US-Russia or US-China conflict, Iran doesn't get to sell drones or any other munitions without receiving 40 tons of JDAMs on their manufacturing facilities.
- mdekkers 3y ago> If there were ever to be any kind of “meat grinding” war Haven't you heard? Ukraine needs 500.000 more units of meat for the grinder. Russia are likewise looking for some huge number.
- coryrc 3y agoAccording to Wikipedia, we have "some 3,700 M1A1, M1A2 SEPv2/v3 in storage". So we have literally thousands of main battle tanks we will never use we could just give them. It's a meat grinder because we're making it so.
- 15155 3y agoHow do MBTs materially change a conflict where every participant has (tens of) millions of landmines ready for deployment? What good do MBTs do in isolation against attack helicopters with 15km-range ATGMs?
- AstralStorm 3y agoIf even that. Think cheaper, like kamikaze (or not) explosive drones. (Substitute armor piercing as needed.) MBTs do not have sufficient AA or ECM capability ever. Either a specialty formation is required or something carrier sized to have a chance. Their existence is the old strategy of demolition and suppression of infantry. (At the last of which they do not quite succeed.)
- coryrc 3y agoWe have enough active military equipment to fight land wars with two superpowers simultaneously. We have enough of all equipment to give to Ukraine. Not lease or sell, just get them to win without losing so many people. Fuck, give them a carrier group. Rain tomahawks down on St Petersburg and Moscow. Destroy every oil terminal and arms factory.
- 15155 3y agoAt what point does Russia just deploy nuclear weapons?
- tazu 3y ago"Meat" is capital in wars, and the more you raise the more respectable you and your war, or special-military-operation, is.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago> If there were ever to be any kind of “meat grinding” war, it would be escalated to aircraft, drones, and long range missiles pretty quickly I think That's not an escalation, it's a cooling off.
- master-lincoln 3y agoHow so? Naively it seems to me that aircraft, drones, and long range missiles could do more harm to non military parts of a country compared to a foot army.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoIt's a cooling off in two senses: First, these kinds of remote attacks don't take territory and therefore have sharply limited impact on the conflict. The ceiling on what they can accomplish is very low. Second, they are cheaper and lower-risk for the attacking party, representing a lower level of commitment to the conflict. The potential for loss to the attacker is also very low. Moving from a high-investment, high-risk, high-reward strategy to a low-investment, low-risk, low-reward strategy is hard to describe as an "escalation". > Naively it seems to me that aircraft, drones, and long range missiles could do more harm to non military parts of a country compared to a foot army. You're not alone. I have read that many people in the West were genuinely confused as to how the Tutsi genocide could have been accomplished with machetes. But foot armies are more than capable of inflicting whatever level of destruction you have in mind.
- rich_sasha 3y agoI'd like to read the original analysis. My concern isn't about cannon fodder provision but about all round health. Kids growing up with exercise and a penchant for adventure are IMO better placed to succeed in life (long term health benefits, bravery etc.) but not so if they break their legs all the time falling off of things. It's not obvious to me how to balance these things. The links you provide, as far as I can skim, don't weigh in on the tradeoff.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI think their root problem is insufficient kids, period. Then a certain percentage breaking their legs is tolerable, on a society level.
- 082349872349872 3y agoI grew up in a different century ("no blood no foul"), so for me the english question "Are you OK?" should normally be answered with "yes" unless there are significant quantities of blood or bones are broken. (I guess a more explicit equivalent would be "are you in need of medical assistance?") Is this still the protocol among anglophone children, or has it changed during the intervening decades?
- happymellon 3y ago> Are you OK? Don't worry, all the damage is mental and won't manifest itself until I'm middle aged.
- rich_sasha 3y agoAdmittedly there is a resurgence of understanding the benefits of risk taking, but to demonstrate the status quo, a school outing to a museum requires a risk assessment to be made, weight the benefits of, well, a school trip, against risks of walking on streets etc.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
- photonthug 3y agoI thought you were exaggerating but skimming, it is chilling how that 2nd link just says the quiet part loud: > The powerful effect of incentive plans (independent of quotas) was documented in an older study of Army guidance counselors.22 A key responsibility of guidance counselors is to channel applicants into the Army’s priority occupations. During the period under study, guidance counselors were under an incentive plan that offered counselors additional points for selling a high-priority occupation. The study found that simply offering five more incentive plan points for selling a particular occupation was more than twice as effective as offering an enlistment bonus to a recruit. That is, it was more effective to give the seller (the guidance counselor) an incentive to “sell” the occupation than it was to give the buyer (the recruit) an incentive to “buy” the occupation. Nice to know that government funded studies show tricking people is more effective than convincing or bargaining with them in good faith
- austin-cheney 3y agoI fail to see where anybody is being tricked in your quote. Research has indicated that Americans are progressively becoming more risk adverse, obese, and more injury prone over time. If only 23% of Americans qualify for military service now that number will become much smaller in the future. The potential rarity of viable recruits could become a new unexpected driver of personal wealth as military service becomes a new form wealthy exceptionalism available only to those gifted few.
- photonthug 3y agoHuh? My read is, this basically says there's no reason to give a recruit bonuses for priority (like say, undesirable and dangerous front line) work. It's more effective incentivizing the recruiter (like maybe he could just forget to mention other work is even available). There is no way this incentive structure leads to honesty for recruiter or upward mobility for the recruit
- eru 3y ago> My read is, this basically says there's no reason to give a recruit bonuses for priority (like say, undesirable and dangerous front line) work. Huh? Don't they say that those bonuses work really well? So that's a lot of reason to use them, ain't it?
- bravura 3y agoThat's a really cynical take. Early experience in learning how to fall correctly is important for safety as you get older. Dan John, in Intervention, talks about how a lot of movement patterning is developed during youth, and thus encourages a broad range of activities. This includes learning to tumble.
- dappermanneke 3y agonow many hackernews residents are parents the conspiracy theorising about the government trying to get to theirs and theirs kids precious bodily fluids is even more neurotic
- magicalhippo 3y agoNot just safety. There's research showing that improved physical skills like balancing, coordination and so on at an early age correlates with improved performance in school.
- viraptor 3y agoI'm not sure why the riskier play would address any of the issues actually linked there: https://prod-media.asvabprogram.com/CEP_PDF_Contents/Qualified_Military_Available.pdf https://prod-media.asvabprogram.com/CEP_PDF_Contents/Qualifi... If they want systemic solutions, then sorting out healthcare, mental health care, not charging weed users, and maybe replacing the corn subsidies could have a bigger impact... What happens on the playground has way more steps separating it from enlistment criteria then any of those. It would be like counting on 5th order effects working just right.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoDamn, usually I'm pro risky play but if this is the long game to neuter the war machine, it can't be all bad.
- agapon 3y ago> the war machine Your country's war machine, right?
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoAny, all, yeah. I believe my country is most often the aggressor in the wars it has participated in. Without a big enough stick, aggression for material gain is a worse gamble. I'm not saying no military is needed, but it has become the proverbial hammer.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- baq 3y agoWe require more minerals …but replace minerals with children
- Tade0 3y agoEmphasis on which faction produces this soundbite when there are indeed insufficient minerals.
- astrolx 3y agoCan't access the website, but sounds like the German approach [1]. In the past years, I can see that some new playgrounds being built in my area in France also incorporate more risks, which is nice. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35220345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35220345
- 15457345234 3y agoHal Colebatch wrote a really great short story called 'The Colonel's Tiger' which is worth a read...
- nicolas_t 3y agoWhich area in France? we went back to France during the holidays to visit my parents near Perpignan and I was really disappointed at how bad the playgrounds were. Compared to playgrounds when I was a child in the 80s, they were much safer, there was no sand, only that black bouncing floor (which might be toxic) and above all there was very little to do. Same when we visited our friends in Toulouse. It was much worse than the playgounds we have in Hong Kong that at least have decent slides, climbing bars, etc... One thing that I've noticed is missing from both countries though are swings. We have them in Hong Kong but instead of just being a flat piece of wood on which you can stand, sit and do other things, it's more of a safety seat like you'd see in a baby chair.
- squigz 3y ago> (which might be toxic) Do you have any reason to believe this?
- Simon_ORourke 3y agoIn a more tech-driven/advanced military, who's to say we won't need more drone operators looking at a screen than front-line riflemen (and women)?
- rcbdev 3y agoThose we'll probably need again in WWIV to fight with sticks and rocks - after our modern infrastructure has been pulverized.
- spacebanana7 3y agoModern large scale conflicts are still very labour intensive. Israel has a tech-driven/advanced military but is still using hundreds of thousands of troops in Gaza. Ukraine / Russia use even more against each other. The Royal Navy is currently unable to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea because of staffing issues, despite the UK's $70 billion defence budget. [1] I'd recommend watching Perun's YouTube channel if you're interested in specific labour requirements of militaries [2] [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/12/aircraft-carriers-not-ready-red-sea-navy-recruitment-crisis/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/12/aircraft-carrier... [2] https://www.youtube.com/@PerunAU https://www.youtube.com/@PerunAU
- Simon_ORourke 3y ago> Israel has a tech-driven/advanced military but is still using hundreds of thousands of troops in Gaza. But they're fighting mostly unarmed civilians, and the odd guy with an RPG, rather than any nation state military.
- mlrtime 3y agoIt's ok to say rifleman without the women qualifier. This is a safe space.
- wffurr 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20240126065238/https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/outdoor-risky-play https://web.archive.org/web/20240126065238/https://cps.ca/en...
- wffurr 3y agoArticle was short on details, like ages and age-appropriate activities. When can I let my child roam his city neighborhood? That would be extremely helpful.
- atoav 3y agoIf you are from the US, good luck. Here in Europe you often see kids alone in the city, either to go to school or to solve some sort of educational riddle they need to solve by finding the right place in small groups of three kids or something I went to school alone since I was 7. As far as I know in much of the US people would probably sue you if your kid went alone.
- SoftTalker 3y agoIt all depends. Some towns (or parts of towns) are walkable and some are really not. In my town there are certainly young kids (i.e. elementary school age) who walk or bike to school on their own. Sometimes there are parents walking with them, but I think they do it because they enjoy a walk with their child rather than any real concern for safety. There are crossing guards at walkways where kids will need to cross busier roads. In other areas, schools are just too far away to walk, or there are other difficulties such as major roadways with a lot of traffic. Then kids ride a bus or parents take them.
- wffurr 3y agoCambridge, MA, USA public schools will allow children to leave unsupervised starting in third grade, which is 8 turning 9. Seems like a reasonable baseline.
- adrianN 3y agoYou as a parent probably know best when you can trust your child enough. Children are very different from each other, especially during the first ten years.
- jazzyjackson 3y agoThat's really a matter of whether the adults in your vicinity will call child services when they spot unsupervised kids.
- Thri4895o 3y ago[flagged]
- eutectic 3y agoI think you need to recalibrate your perceptions; the world (including the US) is about as safe as it's ever been. And I don't think hypocritical is the right choice of word anyway.
- mlsu 3y agoTHE biggest danger to children is cars. Not pit bulls or crazy people. Gigantic cars that are so big that the driver cannot see out of them in front of their own bumper. Everything else is not really worth the effort in comparison.
- Thri4895o 3y agoCars are not allowed in parks or cafes. And people do not remove safety gear (like breaks) from cars!
- nicepplonly 3y agoI live in New York City where it's not unusual to see cars going places they're not allowed, including parks. The problem is not the ruleset, it's the fact that automobile operators don't comply with the rules and nobody enforces them. Every day I see an automobile on a sidewalk or driving through the blocked off sections of the park I live next to in order to bypass traffic. Cars are weapons and should be severely limited on public roads, especially in terms of speed (all cars should have speed governors).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wouldbecouldbe 3y agoCorrelated but not exactly the same is being out & playing without adult supervision. Kids being out and running into emotional challenging situations allows them to learn and deals with emotions & anxiety are very important for later life.
- nicolas_t 3y agoI've been thinking a lot about this. What age would you let your child go out on errands by themselves? When I was 7, in France, I'd walk a kilometer by myself to go on errands like going to the baker. I have a friend living in Tokyo who let his daughter go on errands around 5 years old (but Japan in particular is very accepting of this). We live in Hong Kong, here, I think the age is more around 8 or 9 years old.
- plutoh28 3y agoHaha in America, I was only allowed to go on errands when I got a car (16).
- wil421 3y agoI rode my bike to school in Middle School because it was so close a bus didn’t come. When I started High School it was a 2-3 miles away but I continued doing it until I had a car. My friends and I would ride our bikes or walk everywhere we wanted during the day from 11/12 on. We would ride to a pharmacy weekly and get a snack or a small item for my mom.
- polishdude20 3y agoI thi k for me it was around the same time I was allowed to walk to school alone. Which was when I was maybe 11?
- dominicr 3y agoOne of the many reasons we moved our young children from the UK to Scandinavia was to improve their childhood by reducing hazards & risks whilst also being in an environment that was more acceptable of those risks. (The paper distinguishes risks vs hazards as something the child can perceive & control vs something they can't, like a car or unsafe equipment). My children had whittling knives from age 5, built their own fires when we went on walks, could explore into the small woodlands on their own soon after and walked home from school at age 7. None of this would have been socially acceptable in a UK city but was pretty much standard in Oslo. Our children still feel safe and also feel confident doing things themselves. Our level of stress about our children seems to be lower than my friends elsewhere, who have a risk avoidance mindset, living in a society that highlights any potential risk as to be totally avoided and bad parenting if a child is exposed to any risk. Occasionally you hear stories from the US about parents being arrested for letting their children walk down the street alone or play in the local park by themselves and that seems crazy to most of the rest of the world.
- meheleventyone 3y agoI didn't have kids until I moved to Iceland but it's pretty idyllic for them here as well. We live in downtown Reykjavik and its perfectly safe for them to walk to and from school alone and do stuff around town together. I'm not sure how that differs to the UK now but my childhood was filled with building tree houses in farmers fields and that sort of thing and I can't really see them growing up differently even if we had to move back.
- bambax 3y ago> Opportunities to engage in outdoor free play—and risky play in particular—have declined significantly in recent years, in part because safety measures have sought to prevent all play-related injuries rather than focusing on serious and fatal injuries. Of course. "injuries" don't matter, only serious and fatal ones do. A scratch is nothing and is healed in a couple of days. Even breaking a leg should not be considered serious. It's annoying, esp. for the parents, but it's in no way life-threatening. Although I'm sure it has happened, it seems unlikely that any kind of play in a playground could result in serious injury or death. Let the kids play outside. And don't force them to put a coat in cold weather if they don't want to! Let them decide!
- master-lincoln 3y agoBut we are living in a capitalistic society and injured kids probably mean reduced work force....
- coffeemug 3y agoIn a capitalistic society do injured kids mean reduced work force or more money for Big Medicine?
- master-lincoln 3y agoThe kind of injury I imagine to happen on playgrounds does normally just need time to heal. Maybe a cast and some pain killers. Doesn't seem to generate a lot of profit for big medicine.
- aaomidi 3y agoI mean yeah, a parent might have to take time off work. If they even can…
- akira2501 3y ago> it seems unlikely that any kind of play in a playground could result in serious injury or death. I think more important than the setting is ensuring they know how to play safely. Third most common cause of death is accidental self inflicted injuries. A lot of those are falls.
- CyberEldrich 3y ago[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 3y agoInflamatory comment from a completely new account. Not surprised. It's frustrating that anyone can conjure up an absolute fantasy and other members of the community have to waste their time on this. Shame you weren't flagged for this baseless comment.
- CyberEldrich 3y ago[dead]
- carabiner 3y agoI submitted a story about a slide for kids: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38442577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38442577. And the only comment was about how it would lead to lawsuits. This is a slide, something kids have used for 100+ years.