Consumer electronics slowly killing the good ole days?

Hours spent frolicking in fields, down at the local YMCA, or simply tossing a baseball back and forth with pops: these are just a few of the things that modern day children are growing less inclined to do, at least according to a hoard of seemingly-distinguished British authors, professors, and counselors. A letter published in today's The Daily Telegraph is encouraging the British government to take action in preventing the "death of childhood" (as it was so aptly phrased), citing concerns that video games, television, and basically anything that attaches to an AC outlet and provides entertainment is destroying the fabled childhood experience that is presumably oh-so-superior to the lives kids are currently leading. The letter apparently showed a desire for kids to have "real play" (as opposed to fake play?), and also expressed worry that the media was warping the brains of youngsters and encouraging them to act like "mini-adults." Regardless of whether or not the "indoor generation" will miss out on the days when TV was a pipe dream and duck-duck-goose made for a thrilling Saturday, we can't envision the government actually declaring a little late-night fragging illegal -- but hey, what do we know? Maybe the kids aren't alright, after all.

[Via Slashdot]

[Osama A. @ Sep 13th 2006 6:50AM]

I feel strongly about the costs of what I call the "low-cost information age" on our future generations. I wrote about this some time ago.

Your post makes some good points. I think it somes somewhat from the first law of media, in that as access to information increases, the actual attention your kids pay to the 'right values' dimishes, and attention to noise increases.

It is sad, but I suppose 'modern' or 'well-off' families could bear the brunt of that ('growing up gotti' would be proof of this).

What concerns me is what will happen as OLPC, FonePlus and others make the information accessible to the low-income markets. Those people cannot bear the costs of the disillusioned children.

[Gil @ Sep 13th 2006 6:51AM]

Let me guess... "British scientists".

British "studies" have aquired a reputation of being the worst in the world so I wouldn't put too much faith into it.

[vrf @ Sep 13th 2006 6:59AM]

I agree, and yet I am still guilty.

[strider_mt2k @ Sep 13th 2006 7:14AM]

DUH
How else are you going to sell things to them?

These companies are encouraging any behavior that results in sales.

[my_name_is_tudor @ Sep 13th 2006 7:18AM]

The Telegraph is one of the most ball-suckingly sensationalist and conservative newspapers in England - of course technology is evil - its new! Kids are inhuman if they do anything other than roll around in the grass..

What absurd is how they suggest that children are too young to adapt, unlike adults who can understand change and move with it.

How many adults do you know who regularly use the internet, text messaging, an ipod, etc etc, compared to kids. Kids adapt to new technologies faster than any other age group, because the whole nature of being a kid is adaptation to surroundings.

Bloody crappy newspaper, giving British science a bad name

[my_name_is_tudor @ Sep 13th 2006 7:22AM]

Oh, and as an addition - I am of the belief that this current 'pandemic' of depression and learning difficulties and what not is not an actual pandemic - not a new thing.

The west is currentyl obsessed with over-complicated diagnosis, whereas in the past 'odd' behaviour was just written off (in children at least) as misbehaving/childishness/simple idiocy/whatever.

Children who are now chalked up as having 'autism' would have once-upon-a-time just been thought of as a bit slow.

Now, I'm not saying the way it is now is worse than then - just different. But it does lead to stupid arguments like this.

What does the Telegraph and its cronies honestly want us to do? Regress ourselves to the point of ludditism?

[PJK @ Sep 13th 2006 7:27AM]

I don't think their opinion is without merit, but I believe there are numerous other factors at play here other than the proliferation of consumer electronics. I know from the numerous studies as well as families in my own community that parents are spending less time guiding their families and more time allowing the t.v. and computers to keep them quiet.

The technology does not tell us how to use it. If you let kids do what they want of course they are going to sit on their asses getting fat, watching tv and playing video games. I think the technology is wonderful, and any legislation to curtail it would be horribly misguided. It is, was and always will be the Parents and not the governments jobs to choose the path for their children.

[geoff @ Sep 13th 2006 7:49AM]

Note that this comes from a group of experts all with relevant knowledge (unlike us all). The Telegraph is carrying it, rather than making it up.

Fair deal, I say.

As a father of boys I worry that suicide is now the leading cause of death in young men. Get out there and get a life !

[PJK @ Sep 13th 2006 8:34AM]

Is suicide the leading cause of death because its on a rapid increase, or is it because most childhood and adolescent diseases have been eradicated.....

[netdroid9 @ Sep 13th 2006 8:43AM]

...There are articles you love. There are ones that you hate. There are ones that are right. There are ones that are wrong. And yes, there are even ones that should automatically cause the writer to have their balls cut off.

This is of the latter. That is all.

[noodle @ Sep 13th 2006 8:54AM]

I grew up with too much technology and now I'm a psycho

[Ben Kessler @ Sep 13th 2006 9:26AM]

Fair enough. Sometimes I wish that I could just turn off my plasma display and shut down the 360 and go for a bike ride. It's true - consumer electronics are primarily antisocial crack-like coping mechanisms. But they're lovely!

[DeShaun @ Sep 13th 2006 10:18AM]

So, let me get this straight. The sheer availability of technology is warping the minds of children? Get off of it. "Studies" are just observations that you get paid to make, so don't anyone go placing the observations of others over anyone else's.

I'm 24. Sure, there wasn't iPod, or internet, or cell phones, or a lot of things when I was much younger, but there were videos, and video games, and walkmans, and computers. My attention span is just fine, I have no problem with going outside. I just think it's ridiculous to assume that no kid will want to be physically active, and simply rot away and grow into manic adolescents. Give me a break.

Parenting has something to do with it, too. It's not "evil" technology. Don't want your kid to have something? Don't buy it for them. Take your kid to the damn park and stop blaming them for using too much internet and playing too many games and blah blah blah. Then once they hit an age where they have some freedom, they'll be interested in more than what's on television.

I just...don't see how this is a big deal.

[Edward @ Sep 13th 2006 10:21AM]

While I would usually be the first to criticise the Telegraph, I think many of you here actually missed the point.
The article was in response to a letter from a number of noteworthy english men and women, including children's authors and members of charities promoting
children's welfare.
They don't claim to me scientific experts, they
don't just blame technology, and they don't think we should regress to the dark ages, but they do have some very interesting points, which I think most would be hard pressed to argue with.
Namely, children today have shown to be lacking in emotional stability, social skills, concentration span and maturity when compared to children as little as
15 to 20 years ago.
It's blamed on a 'junk culture', which while aided and abetted by technology - especially television and computer games, is by no means the only source of the problem. Other culprits are advertising, fast food, and the culture which has led to children acting like 'mini adults'.
By all means, dont stop children from enjoying themselves by watching television, or playing on the computer. But these activities are not enough in themselves for a child's development.

[Antemeridian @ Sep 13th 2006 10:56AM]

This reminds me of an article I read somewhere a few months back (no idea where, and don't have the time to google it right now) that stated in some ways the opposite of this. Basically, its point was that instead of kids acting like mini-adults, young adults' brains were not maturing into a finalized state like generations before. Interestingly enough, technology and the current business environment was named as a potential cause, as people have to stay more flexible to be able to keep up with the times and remain successful.

[Warhorse @ Sep 13th 2006 11:14AM]

I understand the enormity of this debate... but I thought it was duck duck grey-duck...

[san @ Sep 13th 2006 11:38AM]

I was a child at a time, late 1970s, when we had television and rock music, eventually we even had home computers, video game consoles, video tape, and cable TV. But still we balanced between traditional childhood behavior and access to modern media. Kids today can sit parked in front of an Internet-connected computer for 12 or more hours if you let them; and not just the kids. There is something very different about that. I suppose this has something to do with how we incorporate new, valuable technology into our lives: at the genesis it's just a fascinating diversion, like any other; then comes the excess or abuse; then the moderation, the picking and choosing the best use at the appropriate times. I think perhaps to the detriment of a couple generations of kids, we are at the abuse stage now. Some people will always instinctively know what is right in the right amounts, but it takes the rest of us time to figure it out.

[CptMystic @ Sep 13th 2006 1:00PM]

Yes, yes, let's blame it all on consumer electronics...

What a load of crap.

How about parenting? Parents who pushed their children as ridiculously hard as some parents do nowadays (to study hard, or to compete at sports or dance or pageants or whatever) were considered freaks. Now they're commonplace. Even parents who don't hyper-push their children are spending less time with them, as noted above. You can't throw a baseball to your dad if he's not on the other end to catch it.

How about crime? When I was a kid (1970s, mostly) we used to ride our bikes (or walk) all over hell and back, unsupervised, without fear. Can a child do this today, in any reasonably industrialized area in the world? *Hell* no.

If you live in a sufficiently urban area, the number of safe and/or fun places to do this kind of "playing" is dwindling.

How early are kids these days starting to drink, smoke, take drugs, or have sex? All in all, a hell of a lot earlier than they did thirty years ago. Personally I tie this one back to parenting. Tied with the pressure to succeed, these behaviors make many kids grow up a lot faster than they would have.

But no...it couldn't be any of those things. It must be consumer electronics.

I *hope* no money was wasted on such one-sided, irresponsible "science."

[JDJames @ Sep 13th 2006 1:31PM]

If you look up Harvard magazine, which has hundreds of articles, more or less on this subject, over the past ten plus years(try lexis nexis first). Every one of them say pretty much the same thing as this article. I have a son, and I program computers to do physics, the article is not telling me anything new. I hear a lot of sound and fury from people who simply want to deny everything. I feel sorry for them. I do not deny it is nice to watch a movie or play a video game every so often, but to not understand how this affects the human mind, or even that it affects the human mind is a pity.

[loikll @ Sep 13th 2006 3:42PM]

Gee, kids have different opportunities and preferences than we did 30 years ago. That calls for brutal legislation!! But why stop at forcing them to live like kids did 50 years ago?

Why note force them to live like kids did 500 years ago? You know, working 14 hours in the fields plowing, slaughtering the occasional pig, hobbling around with rickets until the polio kills you -- or if their parents are dead, then just prosituting them out to perverts in the horse-sh*t filled streets of the city? Great idea!

[JDJames @ Sep 13th 2006 4:05PM]

Replies to a story like this seems to provide their own evidence.

I take loikll's knowledge of history and application of logic as a great example of the effect of media on immature minds.

I do think that legislation would be a horrible solution, unless it was confined to increasing public education (money for schools). Done well, it seems to be a solution to so many problems.

[Haggisns @ Sep 13th 2006 4:28PM]

Its so easy to say "its the parent's responsibility to guide there children". Has'nt anyone noticed there are a lot of bad parents out there. Millions have studies have shown parent's and the quality of life in the household have a huge effect on a child and how they will develop in life. Its common sense and no studies are required, its fairly obvious if your not a moron.

In 20 years when all these children living in a "junk" culture start having babies, then will really see how badly family values will have eroded.

[CptMystic @ Sep 14th 2006 7:36PM]

Haggisns:

You are enforcing the "bad parenting" point, not arguing against it. The fact that there are a lot of bad parents out there doesn't mean it's the fault of consumer electronics.

JDJames:

Again...saying we're not spending enough money on education (a point that I agree with you on) does not mean the problem is consumer electronics. As for what's in Harvard Magazine, I would hazard a guess that it's the typical interpretation of data whereby "statistical correlation = cause and effect relationship" - which is, of course, not always true.

I'm not saying that the proliferation of electronic distractions is not a factor here...of course it is. To say that it's the only factor, or to call for legislation regulating it because it's one of many factors, is irresponsible, shortsighted, and somewhat ignorant.

It's also a little self-serving. I note that "distinguished authors" were a part of this hoard of "researchers." It sounds a bit like they might be trying to recover lost mind and market share.

loikll may not have encyclopedic knowledge of history, but the sentiment is correct. At one point in history, similar sentiments were expressed about fiction: it's a distraction, it removes focus from "what's important in life," let's disallow it. Should we do that too? Who is the government to tell me or my children how we should spend our time, as long as we're not hurting anyone else?