Poirot, I think you worry too much and don't actually see what Kids are watching these days, you don't see what's available ..

There is a lot of TV that is inspiring and uplifting for kids - it's not all Disney teen boys and girls.

Lighten up, that's how the world is .. you appear to be stuck in a world of the past where the only allowable stimulation is basket weaving or throwing a ball.

The world you want, simply doesn't exist .. not in a modern society, perhaps in more primitive or controlled ones they do. Not here in the big cities though, where we seem to turn out lots of creative and clever young people - sure the odd one here and there goes bad, but they do that in your nirvana society as well.

Kids today tell me stuff all the time that I am amazed at.

Kids are clever and resiliant, stop worrying so much over them.

When you say creative, what are we talking about here, you want something physically done, like craft (?) not all kids want to do that.

They want stimulation, that is not available from the progressive whiney, unionised and almost brain dead teachers we have in our public school systems is it? (that will irritate some people, but it needs to be said - it's not all about control and trying to "guide" kids with progressive values, they reject it)

Excellent article, Barbara.

I have been working on the issue of the sexualisation of children (a particularly nasty manifestation of the commercialisation of childhood) for a number of years now, and it is very clear to me that it is not just a social but also ultimately an environmental issue.

Scientific predictions for where the world will be in the next 50 years are horrific, for anyone sober enough to consider them. We either need to work out how to do economic growth very differently, or we need to work out a new form of economics. Economic needs being met for more than a fortunate few ultimately depends on a functioning society, which in turn depends on a functioning environment - and the latter is, by overwhelming scientific consensus, under great stress and indeed in some places starting to collapse. (Houllebecq et al are somewhat fatally out of touch with reality here.)

The world our children will most likely face will be in many ways very different from our world today... and not, overall, in good ways. And does focusing their attention on the latest celebrity or consumer gadget help in preparing them to face this future world in productive ways? It does not - it is not only bad for the next generation in disabling them from being able to face the future (and as such is a gross betrayal of society's responsibility to the next generation), but it also increases the problems both environmentally (pushing continued overconsumption) and socially (for example, I doubt very much that your average environmental refugee will look much like a celebrity).

I give up. I'm talking to a bunch of light weights and that's being generous.

You guys must get a sore neck watching stuff fly over your heads.

You're not the first to think,
that everything has been thought before.
I spoke to an echo and he said,
I'm not satisfied I want something more.

Those who feel themselves despised do well to look despising.
The smile on Bernard Marx's face was contemptuous.

In fact, I'm off for some soma.

A gramme is better than a damn.

Brainwashing of children by the environmental movement is the big worry.
The environmentalists falsely assume that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is real, and consequently CO2 emissions must be capped. The simple truth is that the greenhouse effect only exists in a greenhouse because convective cooling is eliminated, whereas convection is the major process of heat transfer in the earth's atmosphere.
There is no scientific evidence that proves the supposed relationship between CO2 concentration and air temperature in the earth's atmosphere. Such a relationship only exists in the minds of those who have reached political consensus regarding acceptance of environmentalist ideology. Scientific experiments prove the lack of effect that CO2 content has on air temperature.
Without the atmospheric greenhouse effect, there is no anthropogenic global warming and, consequently, no need to cap CO2 emissions. Hopefully, this finding will help calm the edgy Clive Hamilton's nerves

“Greening” our children?

Dear Barbara, two things to point out and both relate to your “false premise”.

Firstly, these “our children” over whom you infer some sort of collective ownership are in fact other peoples children and not yours. You have no right to even suggest you have a role that places you between parents and their children.

Secondly, their adoption and inculcation of your perspectives on greening and consumption are absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you or your personal persuasions. You have no right to “need” other people’s children to be bought up with your values.

I am appalled at the number of articles appearing on this forum that promote social engineering and indoctrination of other people’s children. The true sickness in our society is exemplified by those whose ideology and social values fail to gain traction with adult minds and so resort to pursuing vulnerable children.

Is there something significant missing in your life that compels you to interfere in the lives of others?