Only a couple of the kids died; the rest had a GREAT time.

I grew up in a small town, in a neighborhood with lots of kids. We played army games, or hide and seek, or rode bikes around the block, mostly with very little supervision. Sometimes we got hurt. It seemed pretty normal to us.

Some parents today are wondering where that kind of play went, and in response to the trend of helicopter parenting and intense supervision, are trying to actively create a culture of more freedom and independence for their kids. Via NYT:

“Think about your own 10 best memories of childhood, and chances are most of them involve free play outdoors,” Mike is fond of saying. “How many of them took place with a grown-up around? I remember that when the grown-ups came over, we stopped playing and waited for them to go away. But moms nowadays never go away.”

Then he built what many kids would call the coolest yard ever (pictured above) to encourage more physical play and even risk-taking.

Is this a necessary corrective, or an unnecessary risk?

How much danger and freedom is the right amount for healthy kids?

Do you think you had too little, too much, or just the right amount of freedom and danger in your own childhood?

So as long as I go childless, I can commute via stretch Hummer, guilt-free.

My wife, further proving that we are 100% on the same page regarding certain issues, shared this NPR story about the environmental impact of childbearing. Apparently all the things you do to be greener pale in comparison to just not adding another human to the world:

Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows and light bulbs.

For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.

But when it comes time to “what do we do about it”, the topic gets even hotter (get it?):

Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child.

Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids. He knows that sounds crazy.

No big deal, right?

Is it ethically right to try to persuade people not to have kids?

Is it fair to use financial incentives to accomplish this?

Could this ever possibly work in the real world we live in?

[Chart heading this post from original Oregon State University report.]

Back to work, lazy emotions.

An interesting thought on the through-line that ties together all the great Pixar films of the last couple decades, from The Awl:

The basic Pixar story is that of an individual seeking to establish, refine, or preserve their function as an instrument within a system of labor. The only way Pixar is able to conceptualize a protagonist is to assign them a job (or a conspicuous lack of one) and arrange the mechanisms of plot to ensure that they fulfill that job. This is why Joy can only accept Sadness once she comes to understand what it is she does.

Pixar’s debut film organized a scenario involving sentient toys as a narrative about two men fighting for the same job. In not one but two sequels, it revisited those same characters in a narrative about how bad retirement is, and how awful it is to be made redundant. In Monsters, Inc., it developed a parallel universe populated by monsters and powered by childrens’ screams to tell a story about a workplace duo striving to be the most efficient employees. Up is ultimately a film about how unthinkable it is to retire; even elderly widowers must find a new vocation. In film after film, Pixar presents narratives chiefly concerned with characters trying to be the best at what they do, or otherwise prove their usefulness.

Does this change how you think of your favorite Pixar films?

Is there another, better unifying theme to the Pixar catalogue?

Is this a good, healthy thing for kids’ movies to be saying, or a strange and troubling thing to be teaching them?

Kids today think “basically, TV sucks”.

A bit of research from an AdAge article entitled “Televisions Are No Longer the Screen of Choice for Kids” suggests that interactivity is becoming a requirement for those brought up in the age of touchscreens.

According to a research report from Miner & Co. Studio, televisions are no longer the screen of choice for kids who have ready access to tablets and smartphones. More than half (57%) of parents surveyed said their children now prefer to watch video on a handheld device rather than on TV.

Mobile devices are so popular with kids that nearly half of the 800 parents quizzed by Miner & Co. reported that they confiscate their kids’ tablets when they act up and make them watch TV instead, thereby fostering a sort of Pavlovian response that equates TV with punishment. (That these parents simply don’t restrict their kids’ access to video altogether when they misbehave suggests that they’re raising a generation of spoiled content junkies, but that’s another story.)

Some kids are so obsessed with the small screen that they’ll even forego treats for another few minutes with their portable video device. When given the choice between spending quality time with the tablet or having dessert, 41% of the parents surveyed said their kids would pick the screen over the snack.

Is this unique to kids with low attention spans, and something they’ll grow out of, or a permanent generational shift?

What, if any, real benefits come from consuming video on a portable device vs a static television screen? Are there benefits to TV that are being lost?

What other side effects will come from kids growing up with touchscreen technology?