Where do the children play?
unpublishablepapers.substack.com
unpublishablepapers.substack.com
When the kids were babies we had the standard debate of move to the countryside for fresh air and gambolling in the fields etc. But so glad we stayed in London, the kids have so much freedom with public transport they can organise their own meet ups and activities and go running around all over town without any parental assistance or intervention at all. Whereas elsewhere we'd need to drive them everywhere, they'd be stuck at home way more, they'd have no real agency in their lives - I grew up like that and hated it.
As a pedal cyclist, I feel that's a reasonably sensible limit as much faster than that you should be more experienced as a cyclist to control the bike and anticipate the conditions.
A class 1 e-bike is pedal-assist and stops assisting beyond 20mph (mine, for instance, tapers off starting probably around 15 mph).
A class 2 is the above, plus a throttle.
A class 3 is anything that assists over 20mph. The "basically motorcycle" set exists here.
Anything that doesn't fall in one of those classes is a motorcycle that is not street legal and can only be rudden of private property (unless you can convince your DMV to give you registration as a motor vehicle.)
This can vary somewhat from state to state, but most states have adopted or are moving to adopt these classes.
Unlike public transport, with an e-bike, the chances of getting a puncture or a malfunctioning battery increase with usage. Plus, there is also the very common bike theft and road accidents if you live in a country where bikes need to go on the road (like the UK)
An e-bike with a dead battery becomes a heavy bike.
Theft and accidents, okay, but the first sentence is just fearmongering.
That's a dependency. Now you need to remember to have that kit with you. This is like solving the short battery life in phones with a portable battery charger. You still have to remember to charge the charger beforehand and bring it with you. Small kits are easy to lose sight of that by the time you need them so you don't know where they are.
Tubeless tires are sadly not compatible with most bikes. I am not trying to be downer, this is just my experience (losing the kit and finding out that the bike I bought is not compatible with tubeless tires). I do agree though that bikes are definitely the way to go. But I wouldn't rely on them too much, especially on the electric components. Humans have a tendency to aim for convenience above all and being stranded in the middle of nowhere with dead phone and a bike with a dead battery in winter is not fun
You put it on the bike and don’t worry about it. This is less onerous than remembering your bus pass or cars keys.
Yet here we are, living in a world where most parents would NOT let their kids travel around unsupervised even though it has been going on for longer than the 19th century. People have also been making fires for far longer than that. Both of these are depicted as big risks. You might find it a real reach or not but the overall point is that we don't live in a 19th century world anymore and our worldview is for better or worse different.
Try ask parents who can't barely make ends meet to get a puncture repair kit for their kid. You know the kit will be a cheap 5 star rated one from Amazon/Temu and the second it gets needed it won't work as it is meant to. This is reality
I spend a lot of time traveling the world by bicycle (hence the HN username), and I have bought cheap Chinese puncture-repair kits around the developing world, whether in China itself, Central Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa. They have always served me fine.
Now, if you're riding Mountainbike or Gravel tires, your tradeoffs are different - they sacrifice puncture resilience in favor of less weight.
I lived my childhood in a place with about 4000 people in it. School, friends and everything else I needed was within walking, or at least biking distance. My parents didn't have to drive me everywhere. Obviously there weren't as many possible hobbies and events as in big cities, but mobility wasn't an issue.
Assuming a European city layout where a city center exists and the 200k inhabitants aren't all spread out into suburban sprawl. Suburbia quickly kills the idea of walking and biking distances
The old city center - museums, historical buildings, big library, cinema, theater etc - is a longer trek, but still doable in ~20 minutes cycling. Plus there's trains and buses.
TL;DR, suburban doesn't mean it should kill things being in reasonable distances. However, big caveat, it's all kind of built in a compact way; garden space is often limited (total ground is usually 2x the house itself, so 50m2 ground floor space + 50m2 garden), roads are narrow (but this is good because it's bike / pedestrian optimized, cars can't go fast), etc. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinex-location for a superficial description, or look at a map of Dutch suburbs or houses (https://www.funda.nl/) to see what it's like.
Also, a lot of the "rural" population in census data is actually living in outer suburbs and newer suburbs tend to be pretty unsafe for kids to walk/bike around
Then I moved to Mexico and they were on to something there: small towns have central plazas that are heavily used for social activities, young men and women can walk around meeting each other, and they build densely enough to where you can walk around the town.
So I envy anyone whose rural US upbringing is like your wife's. I didn't think we had that as an option anywhere in the US except for movies.
Then there's the real country, where there's very little public space - nowhere to ride a bike other than narrow country roads, you can walk but only in restrictive footpaths over fields - some of which are sabotaged by farmers (I file 2 or 3 complaints with the right-of-way office each year as footpaths get blocked, barbed wire put over stiles, etc). We have an open forest area, but it's a 2 mile walk.
There are 4 children in our village at the "local" primary school, across the 7 years. My youngest's nearest friend is 6 miles away - again via 60mph roads. That means having to be driven to places. There is a school bus (which for americans reading is relatively rare in the UK -- you get one upto age 11 if you live more than 2 miles from the nearest school, or 3 miles for 11-16), but that doesn't help for after school clubs.
A toddler isn't going to be independent with travel, so driving them places is fine. In a few years though, you want them to be able to travel and meet friends, go to the shop etc, independently. That's easy enough in a city or in a town, not in the country.
That said, just having that access doesn't mean they will use it. My 13 year old's main social interaction is via minecraft sessions where they have a group call and yell at each other, doesn't matter if someone lives nearby (which one of the group does), or 30 miles away (which another does).
(It's worth highlighting that UK suburbia is very different to US suburbia)
Four? How... What? How does any of this actually work (you clearly live there, so it obviously does?) That seems like you're living somewhere that's just like ... empty? How do any services/infrastructure/... How many old people live in this village?
Is this the demographic collapse people are going on about?
We didn't have nice paths, there was a (former) main road going through the middle of the village. As far as local infrastructure, there was the pub, a car mechanic, and every few years a corner shop would open up and last about 2-3 years before shutting down again.
If you needed groceries you went to the larger village (population ~1000) which was about a 40 minute walk along the main road (which only got dedicated pavements after I had moved out), or a 5 minute drive. For amenities that larger village had 2 bars, 2 churches, a takeaway, a supermarket, a primary school and a garden centre.
If you needed anything more than groceries, you needed to go to one of the nearby towns which were ~20-30 minutes by car and (according to google maps) ~2 hours walk.
And people moan that some kids get taxis to school, because the government has decided that it's not worth operating a school closer than 5 miles, but when you need to shift 2 people you don't put on a minibus.
There's only two primary schools within 10 miles which have fewer than 50 pupils on the (7 year) roll though, it's not an overly rural area. I suspect townies would have palpitations when they find out about state boarding schools, because if you live on Tresco you can't commute to the high school every day
I disagree that the kids need or want to roam without grownups all the time. Grownups are not the problem. Kids are fun for the parents, the company of parents and their peers is kinda amazing.
Systems and institutions are the problem. When kids are stuck in the daycare or school, in a very limited space, grownups are stuck at the office and grandparents are in a different state for tax purposes - that is the problem.
I don't know if this is true, but Patagonia claimed at some point that they used to maintain daycares and allow kids to roam the campus...
> But so glad we stayed in London
So I figure they are UK based and not in North America.
Because yeah, I agree with you that in that sense cities are better than the often car-centric countryside for teenagers; but for young kids (elementary school and below, which is what the article covers) it's a very different equation.
I guess it's possible they're small but not <12yo
In some countries and even US states this is already an age you can marry.
They were never on the tube with me, but plenty of children would be arriving at about 8:15, as I was departing to get to work for 9:00. Private school children are more likely to have a longer journey to school, therefore less likely to have a direct bus, and presumably more likely to have parents who will pay for the tube/train. (Only buses are free for children.)
After school they're getting themselves home as well, often in groups causing the traditional nuisance in newsagents and supermarkets (thank god the energy drinks are now not sold to kids!), and going to parks and whatever.
I think they have to be a little older to confidently get their way into Zone 1 on their own if they should need to, but I regularly see youngsters I'd guess are 11-12 years old going into town on their own, clearly to meet friends.
Despite what the media (and for crying out loud, the US President), says, London is actually a remarkably safe city. Murder/homicides are at a low they haven't been at for decades (possibly centuries), and while sexual assaults are rising, that is seen as mostly attributable to more reporting (victims coming forward more). In the case of assault on a child, that's more likely to occur in a family setting than it is in a public place during daylight hours.
I'm not sure what the media or president is saying, but looking at the data I would not call it "remarkably safe". It sounds like the London violent crime rate is 28 per 1000 while New York and Los Angeles are about 700 per 100,000. I wouldn't let my kids ride public transport all over those cities until they were at least teens (the laws might not allow it anyways).
I went to boarding school in the 80’s and 90’s. There were houses, there was the school, the masters, the usual abuses - but there were also the gangs. They’d all have a name along the lines of “The Orcs” or “The Goonies”, and a clubhouse built of scrap and brush somewhere in the woodland attached to the school, usually accessible only by crawling through tunnels of brambles and a hidden trapdoor, and knowing where the tripwires and murderous sash weights were concealed. Most would have a few dozen boys in them, spread over the five years of the school. Younger boys would be skivvies, diggers, and by the time you were 12 you’d be a war chief, and organising and leading raids against other camps. Old pool cover was a particularly sought after commodity during raids - not only did it keep the rain out, but it kept the place warm in the winters.
Outside of term I’d go and saunter around abandoned factories and rail yards near our home.
Anyway. I think they cut the woodland down decades ago to replace it with more playing fields.
That thing, however - that little, tribal community of kids - is very much live and kicking, but non the west, very much no longer in the physical world.
My kid is being raised in a forest - and I’m acutely aware that sooner rather than later she is going to need a gang.
I live in a massive city now (1.5m pop.) and I'd be nervous to let my kids walk around alone because there's quite a lot of crime.
I feel a town is probably the sweet spot.
Funny that you're talking about having to drive them everywhere though, because the main worry I have as a parent is the impact of car traffic on child safety.
I grew up in a Dutch village of 1500 people, and my parents let me wander about from when I was five, six years old or so. If I still lived there I would feel completely comfortable with giving my child the same freedom (once she's old enough - she's only a toddler now).
The main reason for that is that there is only one road that goes through village. Everything else is a street (see the wiki page on "stroads" for a clarification about the distinction [0]). And anyone driving through the village knows there might be kids playing there.
Contrast that with where I currently live: in apartment block in a city that is right next to a crossing of two stroads. We actually have very nice parks and playgrounds within walking distance. But to get here we have to cross at least one road or stroad. The thought of letting a six year old do that by herself scares me.
On a rational level I'm aware that this is probably my sheltered upbringing and that she will understand the dangers of car traffic better than I did at the age of six because she's growing up in a city, but I can't help but worry that she'll underestimate it until she's a bit older - a voice in my goes "it doesn't matter how often she does do it right, she only has to absentmindedly cross the road and get herself run over once."
(We're in the US, and I draw the line at letting him cross ordinary 25mph residential streets but not the "25mph" artery road on which many of the drivers go 40mph. It's only one lane in each direction but there are no lights or crossings and the effective speed is quite high.)
She can understand it all she wants, it won’t make a difference to a driver who is texting in a huge suv/pickup truck with a hood twice your daughter’s height.
It is objectively more dangerous to be a pedestrian/bicyclist/even a person in a smaller car than in previous decades.
And if it’s dark or raining outside, forget about it. Crossing a 50ft wide road with a 40mph speed limit (which means people are actually distracted driving at 50mph) as a kid is daunting.
A 50ft wide road is just 5 lanes, 2 in each direction, and 1 turning lane. Very common in the US, even in small communities.
I grew up in a residential area in a city of several million people.
The teachers had let the kids out for recess. But even that amount of playful distraction didn't diminish my boredom that day.
So I went home.
In the middle of the school day.
Without the teacher finding out...
I had to cross a stroad to get home - two lanes each way. I can't recall if I crossed at the street light or at a crosswalk a few blocks away. But I made my way home unscathed. My mom was surprised when I showed up at home a few hours early.
The next few days at school, I could feel the teacher's eyes boring into my back as I played during recess. Definitely felt like I was being watched for awhile. :)
I grew up with something different - "go out and play", coming back for dinner.
Even back then, that era of Roblox felt distinct from the platform it is today. Roblox used to have their own bespoke forum page, and each forum "topic" had its own culture and regular users. Hence, it resulted in a lot of tribal behavior and personal identification with said topic label (some players would even make "bunkers" as places, where regular hangouts would happen.)
As a result, familiar faces (usernames) arose, and that's where I met my first and only consistent friend group lasting from middle school to university. Though I haven't talked to them much since.
I did get my programming interest and grew skills from such a creative platform, but I think I'm still reeling from my stunted social growth as well. As I hear about the current generation of schools, I wonder how much worse off I'd be if I had to grow up during the 2020s.
This is central Tokyo.
Kids still spend a lot of time on Roblox because everyone tends to be deathly afraid of letting them ring each other’s doorbells.
Suginami in particular seems to be very kid focused in terms of infrastructure development efforts. 6 years ago the was a wild sprouting of daycare facilities everywhere around, and these days new parks pop up everywhere. They were going to close the nearby jidoukan, and the new major seems to have reversed all of that. Japan is absolutely making an effort to reverse population decline xD
There's nothing illegal about this and nobody got in trouble but it still sucks.
CPS have nearly unlimited ability to fuck with your family, whereas police generally can't fuck with you without probable cause a crime has occurred. There is no such process or due process with child protection services as breaking apart families and tossing kids into the abusive foster system is considered 'civil.' CPS doesn't require a criminal law be broken to take action and can declare weaknesses in your parenting for things as simple as dirty dishes in the sink or your refrigerator empty because you're at the end of your grocery cycle.
In the middle of nowhere, rural desert. Random Karen drove by at the wrong place and time, saw my kid, stops and questioned. Unbelievable. Literally the second you give a child independence a Karen will appear like clockwork, it's insane.
The end result is kids who grow up with less independence, less trust in the world around them, and fewer peers out on the streets to learn from. In a way, our desire for security creates the insecurity we’re trying to avoid — and the cycle keeps feeding itself.
We're in a societal place where we have set the bar high in terms of an expected level of education and quality of life for our kids. kids are expensive and we've grown the population massively. There is also a social stigma associated with having lots of kids in Western countries.
I worry about my kids. But im always fascinated when they stretch the boundaries and show me how resilient they are. So I let them push limits but explain the pros and cons hoping they build their own feedback loops with some sense of perspective.
It's a delicate balance as a parent. I'm consistently fascinated how others parent. It's amazing how changes in parental style can be generational and show how long the changes will take to change.
Don't confuse that for them not loving their children or not being devastated by the deaths when they happened. We don't know how often kids were given away, but there isn't strong evidence it happened often.
But perhaps not so everywhere in the world... We are in the middle of Europe and specifically moved to a smaller town outside the big city when our kids were born. We live in a kid-rich neighborhood with only quiet side-streets/walkways and amble play opportunities in a 300 m radius around the house. Our kids roamed the neighborhood playgrounds already at a young age with large groups of their friends. And when primary school started (age 6-7), we were told, that it is recommended for the kids to walk without adults to school after the first two months of settling in. Also, being in boyscouts is an amazing experience for the kids. Our little one participated in a first camp at age 6 for a whole week. I am pretty confident they have/had their "forests" to roam. The older one now games a lot on the computer with a group of friends. The younger one is almost permanently in video calls with friends when not outside the house. Reading about private digital spaces with peer groups makes a lot of sense now...
I admit that our situation is pretty ideal. And it cannot be generalized, not even for our country or even our region. But we did actively seek an environment, where our kids could grow up this way and were incredible lucky to find one.
> I want to suggest an alternative: digital space is the only place left where children can grow up without us
I still think it's the addiction of digital media. I have tried to get my kids to play outside, to visit their friends, etc. They refuse, because they're addicted to the screen. In fact, friends with stricter limits on screen use are more likely to come here looking for my son to play. Outside, or, if they can, on a screen here.
I'm fairly sure the kids from the article can also be made addicted to digital media if you start them young. Let's not, and let's give our kids stricter limits.
1. There are no other kids outside. We live in a neighbourhood with many young families, at all age ranges (littles to teen). We rarely see kids outside, and if we do, it's mainly kids walking with their parents somewhere (eg to the local grocery store)
This is a walkable neighbourhood 5km from city centre of a city of 500,000. The same applies to other neighbourhoods even closer to the city, those known as "family friendly". I do runs through these neighbourhoods and they are ghost towns.
When my kid has friends over, they can run to the park up the street (600m) and play together. I'm not worried, as they are together. Sometimes other kids will show up and join them. I think it's a sign that kids are inside, not sure what to do: they crave play with others their age.
2. Large, speeding vehicles.
We live in an area where we can walk to a few smaller grocers and restaurants, which is fantastic. My kids only need to cross a local retail strip to get to most of these. The crossing is two car lengths, and I feel pretty good about this. There are bike lanes which act as a buffer to the sidewalk as well and vehicles can't travel fast.
Now if my kid wants to go to their friends house? They have to cross two arterials. These are four lane roads with fast moving traffic, uncontrolled signals, lots of road rage, fast cuts on corners, etc.
My kids are gaining confidence and the skills in navigating these tough roads, but I struggle with the transition to full independence for this particular area. That one mistake can end it all.
My kids are 9 and 5, for reference. The five year old is still attached to me, but the oldest is beginning to crave more independence.
Well why did you choose to live there if you wanted to raise independent kids. Baffles the mind.
The neighbourhood I speak of is objectively quite walkable (per my other points). It's just the shape of the city I live in: It contains a number of these arterials which glue the city (for vehicles) together. Less so for humans.
If children do not learn independence, they will not be prepared and will carry a lot of anxiety when they need to be independent.
At least in the US, my guess for the cause of this is goes something like:
1. Housing is expensive.
2. People move to where housing is cheap (ie plenty of land, easy to build). In the last few decades that's more often than not been in the south.
3. Big population changes in those areas demand more schools.
4. Big school is built on the edge of town, because that's where the land is and one school has better economies of scale than multiple neighborhood schools
5. No one lives close to the school anymore, so everyone has to drive.
Throw in the sprawl that often accompanies new development in areas with wide open land and its easy to see how we end up here.
I live in Brookline, MA (in the North, next to Boston) and it's very much a walk-to-school town. The structural reason for that is our schools are in the neighborhoods, have been around for a long time, and there's nowhere "on the edge of town" to build a new one. Our town has financial pressures like everyone else and I few government's are able to resist the temptation of cost savings---we just don't have the option to build that way. Thank goodness.
The main reason I wouldn't let our gradeschooler walk/ride .5 miles to school is a lack of consistent sidewalks and drivers who are constantly distracted and/or road raged.
Totally right. I called out the south explicitly, but the same stuff is true in suburbs. We lived in Nashua for 5y and it was just as you describe.
I'd submit though that the lack of sidewalks and dangerous drivers aren't really a cause, rather a symptom of the same cause: towns laid out in such a way where things are too far to walk and so everyone must drive to everything.
I have countless childhood memories growing up there. All I had to do was step outside and some fun adventure was going to happen among the kids in the area. As online gaming started to become more popular, the area got much quieter. Not sure what it's like now that there's an abundance of online distraction. I do see the social value in online spaces like VR chat though.
Walk to the park at the corner, have your child shout a few times, they’ll all pop their heads out of the door at the sound of others playing, desperate to do anything other than sit inside with their parents.
Second, if the park isn't within shouting distance of the necessary number of kids, half of the ones within shouting distance are at parent-scheduled activities, and half of the remainder aren't allowed to brave street crossings because of the six-foot-tall hoods and inattentive drivers of passing ChildMurker1050s, no amount of park yelling will be sufficient.
Every other house had older adults in it.
In 1940 you could imagine there would have been many more kids in the local village.
Reading the comments gives me hope that there are still places safe enough and parents brave enough to let their kids run free. I hope to be this parent. And if I’m not, I at least hope I remember how important a digital friend can be for a kid who feels alone.
If you look past the cringey, r/im14andthisisdeep edge, Its essentially saying the same thing. A desire for peer communities not available in the physical world.
Let’s talk about special school system here in Bavaria (Germany). Kids from specific area go to same school for the first 4 grades. Afterwards they are divided between little geniuses going into „Gymnsasium“, average ones going to „Realschule“ and good-for-nothings going to „Mittelschule“. For the first years kids move between schools and later between classes according their preferred specialization. No way to make friendships when kids come and go. Obviously there is nobody to play with left. Only reliable phone and games there. And nice videos there. Education system actively pushes kids into phones since real connections can’t happen.
I see lots of negativity here. Folks, do you really believe, that throwing a child into new environment every other year is the way to craft friendships in the real world?
Strange coincidence: shortly after they were hacked https://www.borncity.com/blog/2025/11/12/miniatur-wunderland...
i barely made it through, and i would not have made it without that because neither my parents nor me had any ambitions, so switching schools would not have worked for me.
when i was younger we moved around a lot. different problem but same result, i didn't make any friends in school because we kept witching schools. by the time we stayed in one location it was already to late.
You think that's more fair to the ambitious kids when 2/3 of the class think it's cool to NOT learn anything and playing pecking order games all day?
a better school lets you choose a more or less academic focus if that is what the kids want.
the best system btw is montesori where kids really can learn at their own pace. it is designed in such a way that even within a class different kids work on different projects. they even mix ages so that younger ambitious kids can work with older ones.
> the best system btw is montesori
I disagree on that. See a recent HN discussion on Montessori: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45674002
tl;dr: it works for some kids, just like the current German system works for some (other) kids.
tl;dr: montessori really does work for almost all kids, not just for some. the cases in the discussion where montessori didn't work don't provide any evidence that they actually received real montessori education as the name "montessori" is not protected.
That is a bit dramatic. This topic has been talked about over and over. There is no perfect system. Treat everyone the same and high potential kids suffer. Split them up by ability and you get "unfairness" criticisms.
merging school types is not about treating everyone the same, but it is about acknowledging that kids develop and you can't evaluate the ability of a child based on their performance at age 9.
as i said, i would not have made it in a tiered system because i would have been stuck in the lowest tier. my parents were to busy to argue with each other to even care and my performance suffered because of them.
those are circumstances a tiered system can't handle. a merged system that can deal with children at all levels however can, and that made the difference for me. that has nothing to do with treating all kids the same. on the contrary, it has everything to do with treating kids individually and not stuffing them in boxes like a tiered system does.
as for a perfect system, montessori gets pretty close. three years of age are grouped together in one class. that alone require that the kids in that class are not all treated the same. it allows all kids to learn at their own pace, so younger, faster kids can easily catch up to older kids and work with them or be given extra activities without disturbing other kids in the same class learning something else
Which is to say that tracking of any kind is going to end up with this, whether they are separate physical schools or separate curricula within one school.
separate physical schools however may mean that i may never see some of these friends ever again. different school routes (even if we live in the same neighborhood). no chance to meet in breaks, etc. that's a whole different world.
I would totally land in Realschule because I had an educational slump in fourth grade.
Over here they tried a similar system - middle school spanning classes 7-9 inclusively, named "Gymnsasium" as well, but it included everyone[0] and I recall having a similar sentiment, thinking: "why shove people around like that? So that we don't form lasting friendships and thus make better worker drones?"
Ironically I'm still in touch weekly with the three guys who were my only friends at the time, even though we live in different cities now.
[0] The split between college material and the rest only happened around high school.
You can criticize the way how kids are separated into different levels by 5th grade, but this has nothing to do with being able to find friends.
Furthermore, your argument doesn't make much sense, because the school system is like this way before smartphones even existed and kids were able to find friends back then. It's not like the school system forces them into escapism. Just that smartphones are simply addictive.
I am not scientist of society dynamics, but I don’t see any positive aspects of Bavarian school system. Producing lots of factory workers from “Real-“ and “Mittelschule”? Last factories are disappearing. Early separation of kids and continuous shuffling bewteen classes brings no positive effects for kids. Can a 10 year old boy have any idea what he wants to do in 15 years?.. Can a 10 year old boy know his strengths and weaknesses? I really doubt it. Sometimes I think Bavarian school system was CIA psyop after WW2 to cripple German society development. No close friends, no bonds in the society.
The trapping of children was just the prelude. Adults are also trapped at home, especially when they don't have any money to spend. Even if they do have money, there are no places they can go where they are expected to interact with strangers. The number of adult virgins has gotten absurdly high.
We have a tool that we could use to fight that: adult education. We have state colleges that we could be trying to attract adults to, rather than acting like people are done learning at 22. Chicago had/had a network of "Field Houses" that are community centers associated with parks where you could teach a class, or have a local group meeting, etc.
Instead, people are isolated and atomized into perfect little consumers who can't share things and can't organize politically except through an online petition encouraged by a "social network."
I think offline spaces should be just fine.
The statistics presented have very different implications whether the kid is 12 or 8, I think.
That said, as a Dutch parent we tend to let our children grow up relatively unsupervised. At least many foreign parents are a bit startled at first.
This article helps me understand them better.
(Australian suburbs ~2004)
You are free to travel to some business that has taken care of all the legal requirements for you. Some freedom. You aren't even free to connect some fiber to "your" house you only have the freedom to choose which product to buy and maybe if you are one of the lucky few which product to sell (not fiber though that's a state funded monopoly)
- Walked in a different aisle at a store. My daughter started going to the store alone from she was about 7.
- Talked with neighbours without parent. Uhm. That's just weird. I'm assume she was around 4? That's when we moved here..
- Made plans with friends, yeah, from she was around 5/6 or thereabouts.
- Walked/biked w/o parent: From 6/7, to/from school, and to friends.
- Built a structure outside: She's been part of building various structures in scouts.
- Sharp knife: Since she was about 6 or 7.
And now I realize I need to wag my hands a bit back and forth with all the 6-7 stuff.
Anyhow; one of the best things we did was ensuring she joined the scouts. Creates incredibly independent kids. I've seen threads on reddit where people are wondering if it's OK to leave the 9 year old at home alone for 30 minutes, and I'm wondering what kind of lunacy that is. My daughter has been capable of walking / biking home from school since she was 6 or 7, and proceed to make her own afternoon snack before we arrive home from work. She's been baking since she was 8. Making toasts, omelets and whatnot since the same age. Scouts taught her how to use a gas burner outside when she was about 8 or 9.
I mean; come on.
The biggest change since then is two things.
One is that there’s way more to do inside now, mostly games and shows.
The second is that baseless kidnapping panics convinced society that children can never be unattended. The main vector was daytime TV and now true crime podcasts. The reality is that kidnapping is statistically extremely rare and more than 95% of all child sexual or other abuse is perpetrated by someone the child knows. Most kidnappings are also by someone the child knows.
The typical car back then was a 5 door sedan, think ford crown, Chevrolet lumina, etc. These days almost everyone is driving pretty much a light truck.
And while speeds are a bit lower now, the median driver attitude and aggression level seems to be a lot worse. I'm not sure whether that's because of phone distractions, or they're stressed out by exploitative employers, or have cooked their brains online, or some demographic change in who does the most driving, but when I'm on foot, being driven AT is not an uncommon experience at all.
Same in the 1970s/1980s. I grew up in a suburb-type neighborhood. Needed a car to go to work or to do any shopping or go basically anywhere. Rode a bus to school. The idea that car-centric development is a relatively new phenomenon is just wrong. It's been happening since the 1950s. We still played outside. We had TV but like 6 channels and nothing very interesting for a kid most of the time. Now we have ubiquitous computers and phones, and the sociopathic tech companies, which have really been just terrible for everyone except their investors.
But we often forget that cars kill kids at an astonishing rate -even though kids stopped playing outside-. In that light, the bloodbath that is American suburbia becomes much more clear. When pedestrian deaths go up even as miles walked (in aggregate) goes down, the situation is even more dire than it seems.
My kids play outside. But we moved to the Netherlands so they could. And even here, large SUVs and even -bafflingly- giant American Dodge Rams are becoming distressingly common.
A grumpy lady shouted at them "kids you shouldnt be running!"
I turned to whom I was eating with and our discussion could be summarised as "kids should be running. The problem isn't they're running, the problem isn't even directly where they're running. Where they're running is a symptom of them having no where else to run"
The kids aren't running because they're unable to go outside. They're running because no one's been enforcing that they act within the standards of basic decency.
Kids should be screaming and singing sometimes, but you wouldn't tell someone in the library not to hush them.
I guess this is a cultural thing, i.e. what is expected of kids. Among my age-group in Eastern Europe (25-30 y/o), we joke around that our parents didn't let us stay in home, which has a lot of truth to it. Once we were out in the city, they didn't even have a idea where we went, and we didn't have mobile phones either. We used to run around everywhere without exception - malls, forests - you name it. That is still expected of kids nowadays, but the kids themselves are far more drawn to the digital world nowadays
Very much different than today where people mostly mind their own business and judge in silence.
I'm good with the former, it's inline with "It takes a village".
Nobody yelled at us then or even thought that we were doing something wrong. If you would yell at a kid in a shopping mall for running around like crazy - people would look at your weirdly. It was expected of kids to behave this way in my culture, and still is to this day. This may not be the case elsewhere, hence why I think that there is a heavy cultural aspect.
How is it semantic? They go outside and now they are running in a giant parking lot. They go a bit further and now you're a bad parent for not keeping an eye on your kid. Tell them to sit down and play on a tablet and you're also a bad parent.
There's no winning here.
>you wouldn't tell someone in the library not to hush them.
I don't consider a mall the equivalent of a libary in this situation.
> Tell them to sit down and play on a tablet and you're also a bad parent.
Yes. If this is the alternative to playing in parking lots that comes to your mind first, I really wonder what kind of experiences you had.
> There's no winning here.
Ever heard of parks?
I wonder why more kids aren't at the park.
> Ever heard of parks?
I remember being bored as hell when my parents used to take me to the city park. Many other kids thought the same, too. I couldn't wait to run around with my friends wherever else in the city afterwards. I'm thankful for my "bad parents" for letting me roam around anywhere I wanted, as was the norm back then for kids where I grew up in Europe
Yeah, my city did a great down tearing down amenities for the kids and yelling at kids to stay off the grass. I love my city.
Do kids need more places to run free, yes.
Should they be running in mall food courts, no.
Just because this trend of kids having less free play outside doesn't excuse parents of these kids from taking any space they want. Any reasonable person can see there are still boundaries, are we just disagreeing on what those are? Kids still can't/shouldn't run at swimming pools, it's been that way for decades (just an example).
because you see the effects but fail to trace the cause. I'm beyond tired of people attacking the symptoms but ignoring the cause.
A nearby huge city had a mall. City being 30k people. Yet left in that mall, with 10 friends, I'd run there too.. until chastised. No real difference 50 years ago, in a rural area with a mall than now.
Groups of kids running tend to bump into things, fall into people, excited kids aren't known for taking care. It's been typical for at least going back to the 50s to stop that.
It's also why kids are typically told to stop running around a house.. and to go outside.
So strongly disagree that it is a symptom of no where else to run. Of course, I find it sad if kids have no place to go run.
Local parks can help with this in urban areas.
"It takes a village" is a well known saying, I've always interpreted that that it's not just the parents that raise kids.
Of course he's going to live a sheltered life!
It's easy to tell parents to let their kids roam free, but that advice is to copy the behaviour of parents that had ten kids.
I said "had", because on average, two of them will survive to adulthood and procreation. That's natural. That's the way things were for our species for megayears.
Does that make it sad that it's not like that any more?
Maybe. Maybe not.
If you want to change it, recognise that first, society and our very civilization would need to change back to the era of every family having half a dozen or more kids. Then, then you'd have to figure out what to do about the excess population: unsustainable exponential growth or mass child deaths. You choose!
We still roamed pretty free as kids in the 90s. That's long after the decline of childhood mortality and large families - I don't know more than a handful of families from that era who had more than 2 kids.
I chalk that up to the inertia of social behaviour. My parents grew up in a generation where they all had many brothers and sisters, and their parents were one of eight. They learned parenting from their parents, and I learned parenting from mine.
We adjust with each generation, but not completely.
Kids can play with other kids that are not in the family too...
You have likely not lived in a society where every family has many kids, so extended families have dozens of grandkids/cousins. It gets to the point that in times of plenty there's an "excess" and societies go to war in some sense just to see if they can carve out a bit of territory at the "mere" cost of some tens of percent of their youth. I mean.. why not? If you have half a dozen that "made it" and enough land for only two to inherit, flip the coin on the rest of them and maybe they'll find glory and conquer some new patch of land. Or not. What other option is there?
That's how people used to think and behave for millenia.
Modern life is very, very different to even just a couple of hundred years ago, let alone for most of human existence pre-history!
I read a statistic that before modern times something like 15%-60% of men died due to violence! For comparison, if you're an adult male in Ukraine, you've had about a 0.5% chance of death from violence, 30x to 120x safer in the middle of a war than during peacetime in pre-state tribal life.
Let's try improving public transportation, making more walkable communities, and encouraging independent exploration first. If those don't work, then sure. We can try the Shinzo Abe initiative to make big families.
Japan has had this issue for longer than the US, but it is not impacted the same way in terms of kids socializing.
>deeply shared cultural norms that have been reinforced over centuries
Yes and Americans had this too, once upon a time. We did a good job tearing that down in the last 60 years to push consumerism instead.
It took 60 years to get there, we aren't going to fix it overnight. And that's also part of the problem. No one wants to put the time in for the effort.
Where are you getting that stat? For the majority of human history the childhood mortality rate has hovered around 50% not 80%.
Back in the second century BC if you had 10 children you expected half of them to reach adulthood.
In addition I can't find specific stats but I would wager that the vast majority like 90% of those deaths happened at infancy. So it doesn't really factor in how they would be raised.
And as others have noted. We were free to run around as much as we wanted in the 90s and the average family had like 2ish children.
Basic population dynamics. For a population to remain steady, a breeding pair can only have on average two surviving children that procreate themselves.
If you want to get into the weeds, there's obviously some "fudge factors" that bring this a little bit up above two.
1. Not every kid that survives to adulthood will go on to procreate themselves, so the remainder need slightly more than two to make up the slack.
2. During periods of population growth, the average survivorship has to be higher.
3. The percentage surviving depends on how many were born per family to begin with. I didn't state a percentage, I said two. Okay, fine 2.4 or whatever, but not a fraction, that "depends" on too many variables.
> For the majority of human history the childhood mortality rate has hovered around 50% not 80%.
RECORDED history, which is a short blip in our evolutionary history as a species. I said megayears, a.k.a.: millions of years, for most of which we have scant evidence. Extrapolating from our wild animal cousins and just observing how these "uncontacted" tribes live, it's pretty obvious that for 99% of the time we could be called human, we had five+ kids per couple, and ten+ wasn't uncommon... of which two-point-something survived.
That's just the way it is, for essentially all species. It has to be, otherwise populations would explode in numbers until it's standing room only for the entire surface planet.
PS: Next time you watch some BBC documentary about some species giving birth to hundreds of offspring, well... now you know. They didn't make it. Certainly, statistically, most of them must not have, because if they could and did, then that species would have their population numbers grow astronomically fast!
PPS: You hand-waved away a 50% loss rate as if it's a detail. That in no way undermines my argument that if you have an only child, or even two or three, that losing half of them is not considered acceptable parenting in this day and age. There is absolutely no way anyone I know would trade half of their children so that they can have a wild, carefree, and unsupervised childhood like "nature intended"!
Human population has been increasing for at least thousands of years. Our best estimates put the human population 30000 years ago to about 8 million people, at about 1 ad the population is estimated at about 200 million people, in the 17 hundreds the population is estimated at about 600 million.
That is not a stable population, that's a growing population. You also have to take into account pandemics, widespread violence, etc. The black plague killed 1/3 of the population of Europe, you can be pretty sure that the reproduction rate was above 2 both before and after the pandemic. Millions of people died when Europeans colonized the Americas again the population growth rate would have to be much larger after the event for the population to bounce back.
Additionally adult mortality before procreation does not factor in child rearing behavior. Because why would it?
And lastly all that is pretty much irrelevant especially the habits of prehistoric people, because the change in how Americans raise their children happened in the last 20 years. Not in the 1900s when child mortality went way down.
The thing that changed between the 80s and now was not the acceptability of losing children, what changed was how Americans in particular assess risk, the Satanic Panic of the 80s, the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007, the revelation of how widespread childhood sexual abuse is (before the 90s it was estimated at about 1% of the population turns out it's over 16%), all of these factors made the American public incredibly afraid about their children safety.
It's not that people in the 70s and 60s were okay with harm coming to their children it's that they didn't believe harm would come to their children when they were with other children alone running around. Which by the way was mostly a correct assessment.
In Japan the fertility rate is 1.2 per woman and yet 6 and 7 year olds got to school on their own. Because the culture there believes that is a safe practice, mostly because it is.
Go watch Old Enough, obviously it's a television show exaggerated and not how life really works in Japan, the production team and the parents are essentially watching over the children, but it clearly demonstrates that the culture there expects children to roam the cities safely.
Oh and by the way on average preindustrial families had 5 to 7 children not 10 so 50% survival rate is 2.5 to 3.5. Which taking into account occasional widespread population collapses fits much better with the observed long term growth.
What an observation. I agree with this.
And I find the anti-modernity sentiment embedded in the fascination with hunter-gatherer cultures obnoxious.
Is the author aware that child mortality in hunter-gather cultures is like 50%?
Not that its correlated with childhood independence, we used to have plenty of independence when I grew up in the 90s and the mortality rate was about the same as it is now. But the point is kids need independence, not woods nor machetes. You can be independent in the park, in the streets, the undeveloped lots, the empty parking lots, your friends basement, and their yard when their parents are away.
I know we've come a long way We're changing day to day But tell me, where do the children play?
Well, you roll on roads over fresh green grass For your lorry loads pumping petrol gas And you make them long, and you make them tough But they just go on and on, and it seems that you can't get off
Oh, I know we've come a long way We're changing day to day But tell me, where do the children play?
Giving children the kinds of freedoms discussed in this article would lead to some harm coming to them. Accidents, violence, kidnap, etc.
Therefore, society won't give them those freedoms.
This tendency has been exagerated by mass media in the modern era. Every single case, every piece of anecdata, makes massive headlines and instills the fear into parents everywhere.
It's impossible for society to reverse course because that would mean acknowledging, implicitly or explicitly, that some level of harm for some children is justified by the developmental benefits to all children of increased freedom.
The moment Sandy Hook happened and US society just shrugged at it, we relinquished our ability to use this dynamic for anything serious.
We can't pretend to care about kids while treating their murders as an inevitability of life and not something to reform over.
The fact that you think heaven and earth have to be moved over a single school shooting (as terrible as it was) is a symptom. School is the safest place where children are. They're more likely to be murdered and abused at home.
I'm 50, but when I was a kid I took the bus by myself: when I was 12, on the South Side of Chicago, which had an order of magnitude more violence than your kids will ever be exposed to. I ran around with my friends within a block or two, we were big into BMX bikes. Kids got hurt periodically, but sometimes kids will get hurt; sometimes kids will die. A few hundred years ago, most kids would die. Now we (not we, but mostly a certain demographic whose aesthetic is imposed on everyone else) find it unacceptable to hear about kids dying on television, nowhere near us.
It was bad when 50% of kids died, but I've had the belief that whatever the number it now is too few. We need the number of kids who die through "death by misadventure" to go up. Raising kids in a box leaves them dumb and unsocialized. Kids need independence, and to be allowed the ability to make some bad decisions with real consequences. They need to be able to fall off the monkey bars.
no, the symptom is that kids have to normalize lockdown drills and how to barricade a door to protect from shooters. I had earthquake and fire drills as a kid, but it wasn't culturalized to accept that school shootings are a thing.
Now we can map out mass shootings by year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
Now we can expect 4-5 school shottings a year, documented by year. Trying to make this equivalent to "well kids get hurt" completely misses the point. But I'm not surprised at this point.
Not really most of the violence against children originates from adults within and near the family.
The American public has allowed some rare stories that made it to the news and the Satanic panic of the 80s to form their world view.
A survey in 2021 found that 15% of Americans that's 31 million people believed the government was run by Satan-worshiping pedophiles.
To sum up children do face risks of violence and sexual abuse but it's mostly from trusted people in their environment, the risk of some random person kidnapping a child of the street is rather low.
Now given that society has decided to keep children locked away, letting your kid run around is not really a viable option it's a collective action problem.
Outside activities included playing soccer, biking around, exploring places, building stuff.
It is such a huge contrast to my peers / people my age are raising their kids now. Some of the parents are basically hovering over their kids from 7 in the morning to 9 in the evening. It's non-stop.
This reminded me of one of my all-time favorites, the Animatrix. There is a story in this anthology, Beyond, that centers around this exact concept. I still get goosebumps just from reading its Wikipedia entry.
The other reason is, prosperity means more affordability to avoid risk and seek comfort. There is no need to take risk, develop, fight for survival or grow up with friction.
Usually something like "I hope I'm not late for my job" or "The weather is shit today". Other people aren't that scary.
The UK has got to the point where a lot of people think parents cannot be trusted with their kids (in an IRL discussion multiple people supported the Online Safety Act on the grounds most parents will let their kids watch porn) let along strangers.
I'd explain it this way: City living means that we don't know the other person, and they don't know us. The affects both driver behavior - 99% of people are more careful driving around pedestrians and other drivers who they know - and our perception of driver risks. "Chris who's always lived at 3rd and Cherry" is not some random stranger, to easily stereotype as a threat. Even if we know that Chris is not a good driver. Because humans are biased to judge members of "their" social group by very different standards than non-members.
If you read a lot of commentary on urban vs rural living, this is usually the top criticism of living in a small town. I've lived in both, and I much prefer knowing my neighbors.
On the one hand, my youngest was just getting into gaming with friends when the first lockdown started. I will be forever grateful that he did as his social life hardly seemed to suffer and he just carried on playing online, shouting and yelling with them just as much as if he was outside at a playground.
My teenage daughters had a much harder time of it though, as neither were into gaming and lost a lot of treasured contact with friends. Both suffered poor exam results as a result and have struggled to stay in touch with friends since.
The other aspect is those babies and toddlers who grew up in lockdown with no peer interaction at all. AIUI, they are still having a terrible time adjusting to school and normal social interaction.
Here, a friend and I created ourselves a "bubble". My family and his family hanged out with each other. My kid was playing with his kid. We went on long forest walks, with the kids, and they could roam and play.
We didn't have contacts with lots of others, and if we did, we stayed away from each other for ~4 days or so, until we shared the same social bubble again.
Worked wonderfully well.
My daughter was 18 months and went back to preschool at age three. She's also doing fine.
In fact I don't know any of their peer group who I would consider to be "having a terrible time adjusting to school and normal social interaction" which could be directly tied to Covid. There were some kids who had already been identified as having developmental challenges, and that hasn't changed.
I have contact with kids from 3 different places, 2 with high independent mobility and 1 with low independent mobility, and as much I like to agree that kids needs to be free, there's an important parental argument that needs to be talked about that is risk vs reward function if the kids get hurt.
In places with high mobility (at least 2 of them in the chart) there's some state support in terms of children's sick leave if something happens, plus work protections if you need to be absent for more than 6 weeks, and the education system has mechanisms to not let this kid be left behind (for example, if a kid breaks his/her legs).
In those places with low independence, I talk with some parents, and all of them are scared of the possibility of something permanent happens or something that can demand continuous support during working time; in those cases I can see why they play safe.
In the other hand, another second-order effect is that in those places with low independency, one thing that I noticed is that the motor coordination takes way more time to develop, and it cascades down for instance during sports activities (of the lack of), physical development and so on.
Sounds very situational.
But while I believe the general trends outlined here, it's important to remember that "the world" != "the West" != "the US", and even within a single country, the situation can be vastly different from one place to another, one socio-economic stratum to another, or even one family to another.
I also think kids escaping to digital places is not a very recent phenomenon, and has been happening for at least a generation. It's just that the platforms have changed. Back in my days, that place was Facebook, and we had entire digital lives there that our parents knew little about. And it's no coincidence that we started migrating elsewhere at the time when the adults started joining as well (though the general enshitification of the platform certainly didn't help either).
Relevant to the discussion about online spaces and autonomy in childhood, I'd jump into this discussion about teen suicide rates: https://petergray.substack.com/p/d3-why-did-teen-suicides-es...
We have robbed our children of autonomy and freedom and then wonder why anxiety and depression are rampant.
* extreme protein malnourishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwashiorkor
* intestinal parasites
Given that the kids don't exhibit extreme wasting on their facial features and limbs, I would say it's probably the latter. Still really sad though, the poor kids!
I live in San Francisco, about a block from when a speeding driver killed a little girl by driving around the outside of a car that was waiting for a family to cross the road. The family had the light, yes. The killer will attend a driver’s safety course and do some community service.
In general, in this city there are people who call themselves “natives” who promote the idea that children should live highly constrained lives. Others, who call themselves “progressive activists” have fought for the rights of pedophiles to be released early. Unsurprisingly, often such pedophile immediately assault people days within release.
Because of the asymmetry in outcome, those with children slowly cede ground to those without by simply leaving. This feedback loop accelerates until little enclaves start forming. Inside SF this is the Mission Bay / Mission Rock area where today I saw a gaggle of unaccompanied 10-12 year olds. This isn’t a common sight elsewhere in the city where the “natives” and “progressive activists” have sway.
For our part, we have a plan to buy some undeveloped land where we can reliably camp. The current constraints are that maintenance of this in fire-prone California isn’t straightforward. There are minimum standards for defensible space and so on that regulate newer purchases that often require a great deal of time and effort to meet. I’ll find a way, however.
This is really not representative for other Western countries. Where I'm from, I would say that 75% of 6 year olds walk/bike to school alone, and 100% of older kids do.
> In physical space, Western children are almost comically sheltered.
I think the author should stick with "kids in the USA" when he means that.
But the Netherlands, Nordics and Germany are still very much on the other side of the spectrum in these studies.
See for instance the books "The Happiest Kids in the World", "Achtung Baby" and "There is No Such Thing as Bad Weather" about raising children in the Netherlands, Berlin and Sweden respectively.
Those places are very much not like the USA yet. Though as the article points out, they are definitely going in that direction.
That being said, obviously mobile phones etc are huge and (in my opinion) problematic among kids here, too.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Svenska/comments/vj2630/no_such_thi...
In the Netherlands, some things are trending in that direction (e.g. car sizes/hood heights), but I wouldn't call it a general trend; infrastructure, for one, is still massively improving. Where it was bicycle-friendly twenty years ago, it's way more so today, and bound to be even more so tomorrow.
The Netherlands is in danger of resting on its laurels and getting complacent. Some places (Hilversum comes to mind) are still quite mediocre.
Sometimes the kids walk alone, sometimes they pickup friends en route, or they have to take a bus/tram.
Where I live (central Europe), the density of public elementary schools in cities is high, so kids walk there alone. The density of secondary schools is lower, so most kids use bicycles or trams / buses.
Interestingly, there are a few private elementary schools (usually english speaking) for children of expats, where cars queue up in the morning, while parents drop off their children. I've never seen this at public schools. I believe this is because there are only a handful of those schools, so they are further apart – and maybe also because the parents (growing up in the US or UK) are already conditioned that this is a normal thing to do.
To be fair, I saw the same in Canada as well, so I understand USA isn’t alone.
When I was growing up in the 80's in the US, I walked to school alone; but there was institutional support for that. There were adults paid to help kids cross major roads, and there were older children ("safetys") who wore an orange sash, trained and assigned to help younger kids walk to school.
I don't see that same infrastructure here in England. I'd be happy to let my 5-year-old walk to a local school if it were present.
EDIT: To be clear, I said "I don't see...", not "There are no...". It's possible I just haven't noticed, or that it's a quirk of my locality. And, my son doesn't go to a local school, so it's a bit moot; he can cycle to his school when he's older.
I'd say even then, five is a little low by UK standards. I think I started walking solo to school when I was about 7 or so. By 11 I was walking a mile to a train station and catching the train 15 miles to another town (nearest Catholic secondary/high school). 5 years old is not far off 7 or 11, but it's a big chasm - be ready for it to go by in a flash! :)
This still exists in the Netherlands: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeersbrigadier
I'm in the US and my almost-6-year-old and I bike to school together. We're exceptional in this regard - I don't see anyone else doing this and other parents are constantly commenting (positively!). It helps that he and his newborn brother are six years apart. Other families of our SES generally pump them out 2 years apart and move the brood around in a wagon for ease of supervising the oldest, while we had the luxury of forcing him to walk places without worrying about any other children's schedules.
I'm almost more worried about him managing his possessions at the endpoint than the ride itself. Locking the bike up, actually bringing his backpack in, etc.
Although I suppose I'm also a little worried about cars not seeing him at stop signs since (unlike me) he's below the hoods of a lot of cars.