August Feature: Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv

[becke_davis]

Last Child in the Woods-Revised   

LAST CHILD IN THE WOODS touched a chord with a lot of people -- to the point that this book inspired legislation called the No Child Left Inside Act.

Louv's website ( http://richardlouv.com/ ) notes:

 The recipient of the 2008 Audubon Medal, Richard Louv identified a phenomenon we all knew existed but couldn't quite articulate: nature-deficit disorder. Since its initial publication, his book Last Child in the Woods has created a national conversation about the disconnection between children and nature, and his message has galvanized an international movement. Now, three years later, we have reached a tipping point, with the book inspiring Leave No Child Inside initiatives throughout the country.

Hailed as "an absolute must-read" by the Boston Globeand "too tantalizing to ignore" by Audubon magazine,Last Child in the Woods is the inspiring work that proves children need nature as much as nature needs children.

There are links to interviews with Louv on his website. You might also want to read my blog post at GARDEN VARIETY called "Sticks and Stones:"  http://tiny.cc/se5Hj

Wikipedia has some info about the No Child Left Behind Act, and I can provide a lot more links for anyone who is interested:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act. To see what your state is doing about this, you can check out "accountability" links here: 

http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

Here is more on this topic:

http://www.artsusa.org/networks/arts_education/arts_education_015.asp

And here is an overview of the book from Louv's website:

An Overview of Last Child in the Woods

In this influential work about the staggering divide between children and the outdoors, child advocacy expert Richard Louv directly links the lack of nature in the lives of today's wired generation—he calls it nature-deficit—to some of the most disturbing childhood trends, such as the rises in obesity, attention disorders, and depression.

Last Child in the Woods is the first book to bring together a new and growing body of research indicating that direct exposure to nature is essential for healthy childhood development and for the physical and emotional health of children and adults. More than just raising an alarm, Louv offers practical solutions and simple ways to heal the broken bond—and many are right in our own backyard.

This new edition reflects the enormous changes that have taken place since the book was originally published. It includes:

• 100 actions you can take to create change in your community, school, and family.
• 35 discussion points to inspire people of all ages to talk about the importance of nature in their lives.
• A new progress report by the author about the growing Leave No Child Inside movement.
• New and updated research confirming that direct exposure to nature is essential for the physical and emotional health of children and adults.

Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder has spurred a national dialogue among educators, health professionals, parents, developers and conservationists. This is a book that will change the way you think about your future and the future of your children. 

[Keri_Stevens]

I read this book shortly after planting my family on 3 acres in rural Kentucky. Then I lent it out (which was a big mistake).

I was overwhelmingly persuaded by much of Louv's book, and as a fitness educator, I see every day in children and young parents alike the proof of his arguments.

[becke_davis]

---

Keri_Stevens wrote:

I read this book shortly after planting my family on 3 acres in rural Kentucky. Then I lent it out (which was a big mistake).

I was overwhelmingly persuaded by much of Louv's book, and as a fitness educator, I see every day in children and young parents alike the proof of his arguments.

---

Keri - Great to see you here. Louv makes a powerful point, and for me, it's easy to see the truth of it. When I was a kid, no one thought twice when we disappeared to play in the woods for hours at a time. We played in groups, but rarely had adult supervision (my mom was always home with littler siblings). Today's kids are inside so much more than they're outside, it's going to change the way they see the world.

[MikeVandeman]

Last Child in the Woods ––

Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder,

by Richard Louv

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.

November 16, 2006

 

     In this eloquent and comprehensive work, Louv makes a convincing case for ensuring that children (and adults) maintain access to pristine natural areas, and even, when those are not available, any bit of nature that we can preserve, such as vacant lots. I agree with him 100%. Just as we never really outgrow our need for our parents (and grandparents, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.), humanity has never outgrown, and can never outgrow, our need for the companionship and mutual benefits of other species.

 

     But what strikes me most about this book is how Louv is able, in spite of 310 pages of text, to completely ignore the two most obvious problems with his thesis: (1) We want and need to have contact with other species, but neither we nor Louv bother to ask whether they want to have contact with us! In fact, most species of wildlife obviously do not like having humans around, and can thrive only if we leave them alone! Or they are able tolerate our presence, but only within certain limits. (2) We and Louv never ask what type of contact is appropriate! He includes fishing, hunting, building "forts", farming, ranching, and all other manner of recreation. Clearly, not all contact with nature leads to someone becoming an advocate and protector of wildlife. While one kid may see a beautiful area and decide to protect it, what's to stop another from seeing it and thinking of it as a great place to build a house or create a ski resort? Developers and industrialists must come from somewhere, and they no doubt played in the woods with the future environmentalists!

 

     It is obvious, and not a particularly new idea, that we must experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But it is equally true, though ("conveniently") never mentioned, that we need to stay out of nature, if the wildlife that live there are to survive. I discuss this issue thoroughly in the essay, "Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!", at http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.

 

     It should also be obvious (but apparently isn't) that how we interact with nature determines how we think about it and how we learn to treat it. Remember, children don't learn so much what we tell them, but they learn very well what they see us do. Fishing, building "forts", mountain biking, and even berry-picking teach us that nature exists for us to exploit. Luckily, my fort-building career was cut short by a bee-sting! As I was about to cut down a tree to lay a third layer of logs on my little log cabin in the woods, I took one swing at the trunk with my axe, and immediately got a painful sting (there must have been a bee-hive in the tree) and ran away as fast as I could.

 

     On page 144 Louv quotes Rasheed Salahuddin: "Nature has been taken over by thugs who care absolutely nothing about it. We need to take nature back." Then he titles his next chapter "Where Will Future Stewards of Nature Come From?" Where indeed? While fishing may bring one into contact with natural beauty, that message can be eclipsed by the more salient one that the fish exist to pleasure and feed humans (even if we release them after we catch them). (My fishing career was also short-lived, perhaps because I spent most of the time either waiting for fish that never came, or untangling fishing line.) Mountain bikers claim that they are "nature-lovers" and are "just hikers on wheels". But if you watch one of their helmet-camera videos, it is easy to see that 99.44% of their attention must be devoted to controlling their bike, or they will crash. Children initiated into mountain biking may learn to identify a plant or two, but by far the strongest message they will receive is that the rough treatment of nature is acceptable. It's not!

 

     On page 184 Louv recommends that kids carry cell phones. First of all, cell phones transmit on essentially the same frequency as a microwave oven, and are therefore hazardous to one's health –- especially for children, whose skulls are still relatively thin. Second, there is nothing that will spoil one's experience of nature faster than something that reminds one of the city and the "civilized" world. The last thing one wants while enjoying nature is to be reminded of the world outside. Nothing will ruin a hike or a picnic faster than hearing a radio or the ring of a cell phone, or seeing a headset, cell phone, or mountain bike. I've been enjoying nature for over 60 years, and can't remember a single time when I felt a need for any of these items.

 

     It's clear that we humans need to reduce our impacts on wildlife, if they, and hence we, are to survive. But it is repugnant and arguably inhumane to restrict human access to nature. Therefore, we need to practice minimal-impact recreation (i.e., hiking only), and leave our technology (if we need it at all!) at home. In other words, we need to decrease the quantity of contact with nature, and increase the quality.

 

References:

 

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House, 1981.

 

Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1987.

 

Flannery, Tim, The Eternal Frontier -- An Ecological History of North America and Its Peoples. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

 

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books, 1991.

 

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, 1995.

 

Louv, Richard, Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005.

 

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California, 1994.

 Reed, Sarah E. and Adina M. Merenlender, "Quiet, Nonconsumptive Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness". Conservation Letters, 2008, 1–9. 

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.

 

Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3, http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/sc8, and http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/goodall.

 

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

 

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic Society, 1994.

 

Wilson, Edward O., The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

[becke_davis]

Mike - Thanks so much for sharing your article, and for joining us at the Garden Book Club.  As you can see, this board is less a traditional "book club" and more a discussion/chat group. I wanted to feature this book instead of our more usual plant-related fare because I think this issue is so important.

People talk about how things have changed, but we have do to something to change that. Some parents say they keep their kids indoors because it's safer for them that way, but it's also been shown that the kids who spend the least time outside are more prone to attention deficit disorders, obesity and a host of other problems.

If we want our children to care about the future well-being of this planet, they first need to get to know it, and not just through a television screen. 

Message Edited by becke_davis on 08-04-2009 01:08 PM

[TiggerBear]

These earlier posts bring to mind what the national park system was designed for.

The preservation of true natural wilderness for every citzen. A true and free to inexpensive treasure. I recomend you check out the park closest to you. 

[MikeVandeman]

Did you read my article? What Louv is saying isn't the least bit new. Humans have ALWAYS exploited nature and looked to it to solve our problems. The larger problem is that we do it TOO MUCH, and mostly without regard to the welfare of the wildlife who live there.

[becke_davis]

---

MikeVandeman wrote:
Did you read my article? What Louv is saying isn't the least bit new. Humans have ALWAYS exploited nature and looked to it to solve our problems. The larger problem is that we do it TOO MUCH, and mostly without regard to the welfare of the wildlife who live there.

---

What Louv is saying isn't new, but it was said in a way that made a lot of people stand up and take notice. One of the problems arising from a lack of connection with the outdoors is a lack of understanding about things like the welfare of wildlife. Keeping kids indoors won't change that.

 The only way to make future generations understand and care about the environment -- the soil, the aquifers, the plants, the animals, the symbiotic relationships between all of these -- is to expose them to all of these. Kids who have never experienced what the great outdoors has to offer won't have any interest in preserving it.

[becke_davis]

For your info (an article I wrote on this topic):

 http://www.chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/summer2009/outdoors.html

[MikeVandeman]

“June is a great month to take kids out fishing” : obviously, he doesn't "get it". These kinds of activities merely perpetuate the view that nature exists only for humans to exploit. It seems that you either didn't read my article, or didn't understand it. Humans have ALWAYS spent time in nature. It didn't stop them from damaging it in numerous ways. Until we can learn how to coexist with wildlife (ALL wildlife), there is no point in simply entering wildlife habitat for selfish purposes -- to pleasure humans. Nothing in Louv's book addresses these issues. It would appear that he has never studied conservation biology.

[becke_davis]

I don't see the problem with people taking kids fishing if they are cooking the fish. True, we've always interacted with the environment, and not always in the wisest ways. But is that a reason to keep kids indoors, glued to the TV? I don't see how that does anyone any good.

People will never learn to appreciate and protect the environment unless they are able to form a connection with it. So I will have to politely disagree. 

[becke_davis]

---

MikeVandeman wrote:
“June is a great month to take kids out fishing” : obviously, he doesn't "get it". These kinds of activities merely perpetuate the view that nature exists only for humans to exploit. It seems that you either didn't read my article, or didn't understand it. Humans have ALWAYS spent time in nature. It didn't stop them from damaging it in numerous ways. Until we can learn how to coexist with wildlife (ALL wildlife), there is no point in simply entering wildlife habitat for selfish purposes -- to pleasure humans. Nothing in Louv's book addresses these issues. It would appear that he has never studied conservation biology.

---

I think one of the points Louv is making is that fewer and fewer people will have an interest in conservation at all if they don't appreciate the value of the natural world. If that starts as a selfish interest, it may well change as people learn more about the interactions with humans and the world they live in. Ignoring it won't make it go away, and future generations won't care enough to study conservation biology if they never come in contact with the biological world, up close and personal.

 Of course, I'm only stating my opinion. 

[TiggerBear]

---

MikeVandeman wrote:
“June is a great month to take kids out fishing” : obviously, he doesn't "get it". These kinds of activities merely perpetuate the view that nature exists only for humans to exploit. It seems that you either didn't read my article, or didn't understand it. Humans have ALWAYS spent time in nature. It didn't stop them from damaging it in numerous ways. Until we can learn how to coexist with wildlife (ALL wildlife), there is no point in simply entering wildlife habitat for selfish purposes -- to pleasure humans. Nothing in Louv's book addresses these issues. It would appear that he has never studied conservation biology.

---

I'm sorry but I see nothing wrong with Hunting, Fishing, or Gathering. So long as you eat it, use it, and it's not endangered.

Some of the best most working conservation has been done by hunters wanting to keep their favorate prey healthly and in high numbered. Heckmost hunting is curling species on the level of eating them self to death. Too many deer, moose, turkeys, and elk in areas will clean out an area so badly that all the other animals die of hunger.

Your adverage fisherman is not going to find a fish that's in danger. Believe me catfish, oscars (in florida), carp, sunbellies, ect.. are no where near being fished out. 

And as many of us have said. If you never see one, caring it very hard, if not impossible.

[KathyS]

---

MikeVandeman wrote:
“June is a great month to take kids out fishing” : obviously, he doesn't "get it". These kinds of activities merely perpetuate the view that nature exists only for humans to exploit. It seems that you either didn't read my article, or didn't understand it. Humans have ALWAYS spent time in nature. It didn't stop them from damaging it in numerous ways. Until we can learn how to coexist with wildlife (ALL wildlife), there is no point in simply entering wildlife habitat for selfish purposes -- to pleasure humans. Nothing in Louv's book addresses these issues. It would appear that he has never studied conservation biology.

---

Mike,

I read your article, as well as Becke's article, and all of the comments made to this subject.  I have not read this book by Louv. 

I am an independent participant on these boards, and everything I say will come from me, personally.  I'm not standing on any platform, or soap box, just giving my opinion to this subject.

I see the point you are all trying to make.  I don't think that there has to be a disagreement on this topic, but Mike, I see you as seeing this topic of how to treat our natural environments as a half empty glass of water, instead of a half full one. 

A naysayer of facts presented does not prove a point, it only shows that you wanted more from this book than you found, and you want more from society than is being given to this world.

As all of us can see how our planet has been treated over the years, destroying a lot of it by encroaching human presence on the wild and natural beauty.  There is no denying human involvement.  But, I think this book [at least sounds to me], as if it's taking a step in the right direction.  It appears to be getting the attention of a lot of people, in how our environment is being treated, and how we all need to be aware of it as we use our natural resources.

I also see the value in nature, as Becke's article says, all of our furture children who sit behind a screen, never see the light of day, except going to and from school.  Their world, though expanding in sciences, may become ignorant as to how to apply it to the world around them.

Parents work, parents have caregivers;  parents never see their kids until dark.  How much during that time do these kids spend in outside activities?  If it's on a weekend fishing with their parents, then great.  If it's on the weekend biking, then great.  If it's on the weekend walking in the park, and having a picnic, then great....there are so many parks and recreation areas that can be visited without damaging the environment, but we all need to find these resources and make others aware of what the outdoors can bring into our lives, and to these next generations. 

As Becke has clearly and well stated said, unless you witness these things around us, you will never learn from them.  Unless we understand the damage we are doing to our children, as well as nature, we will not have a future.....The health benefits for all, is what is at stake.  And it's not a matter of "not getting it", it's a matter of this author not saying it in the words you, personally, would have him say it.

You write the book, Mike, and you tell it the way you want us to hear it....see how far it gets, with negative attitudes thrown into the mix....without positive suggestions, and enforcement avenues; you will have said nothing to convince anyone of what your points may be.  I wish you well.

Kathy S.

[MikeVandeman]

Apparently, no matter how many times you read my article, you continue to miss the point. I guess people aren't ready to hear "inconvenient" truths. I never said that children should stay inside and watch TV. I think that they should be taught to love wildlife.Being taught to kill them does not accomplish that! It merely perpetuates a selfish, human-centered attitude.

Obviously, taking kids to see nature doesn't necessarily turn them into environmentalists nor lovers of wildlife. There is more to it than that. And taking them there to perform inappropriate activities doesn't help, either. I think that most people believe Louv simply because he tells them what they want to hear: taking kids to see nature will solve all of our problems. It just isn't true. That's what we have ALWAYS done, and it hasn't prevented the current extinction crisis! Much more is needed, started with learning conservation biology, including the harm that the presence of people causes!

[becke_davis]

We get what you're saying, Mike, but what are you suggesting as an alternative?

[KathyS]

---

becke_davis wrote:
We get what you're saying, Mike, but what are you suggesting as an alternative?

---

The one thing I've learned in my life, is how precious our environment is.  From the time I was a little girl, I traveled around with my parents to the National Parks, and viewed what wonderful things we have, and how they need to be preserved.

My parents were also volunteers for the park services, here in Calif.  They took their trailer, and camped at these national treasures.  I remember, my husband and our two kids and I, went out to the desert to visits them for the day, and my dad took us around on all of the trails, and told us about the flowers and things that lived there.  He pointed to the ground, and said, "watch were you step."  I had to get on my hands and knees to see the tiniest flowers I'd ever seen.  After that I've gone into the desert to take a ton of pictures of all of these flowers and plants.  I've tip-toed around every living thing.  I've shown my kids what it means to live in this world by taking them on outings, and to appreciate what God has given us, and how it needs to be preserved for future generations.

The closest I can come to lions and tigers, and the animals that live in areas we don't have access to, is taking my kids, and grandkids, to the Wild Animal Park....and to the San Diego Zoo.  Whether people think these animals should be held in captivity, or not, is another matter, but it is a way to learn about the major problems of what we are doing to create an extinction of these animals.  In all cases, they follow their breeding habits, what they need to survive in the wild, and further the production when we, as humans, are destroying them.

I know that China is over fishing our sea, and even sea creatures are becoming extinct.  It's their livelyhood.....  But 99 percent of these fish they catch, are sold to the US, for pennies.  I don't know the way to change this problem...should we all stop eating fish?  But, again, we need to be aware of these problems...and telling our children, by exposing them to the world around them is the only way.  There are laws that should prevent these things, but it's enforcing them, that's the problem.

We could all sit in a room, and make paper mache trees, flowers, and wildlife, and teach our kids about each thing, but there is no interaction with these static-man made replicas.  We need to roll in the grass, feel the dew on our feet, touch the viens in a leaf and feel the life giving blood it transports through the wonders of osmosis and photosynthesis.  We need to pet the animals, feel them against us.  Learn how to love them.  We need to look at the stars, look at the planets, and know we are not alone in this universe.  Our planets all revolve around each other, and we need to know that. 

Study, by children, is going on right now.  We have never been a more aware generation, as we are now.  Books, of all kinds are being published to help us learn these things.  Lectures, study courses....you name it....even public broadcasting is teaching us lessons in all of these areas.  One night, when my granddaughter (8) spent the night, we watched NOVA, Discovery...and other programs that showed her things outside of her small world.  She asked questions.  I asked her questions.  We talked about these things she didn't understand.

So, in saying all of this, I don't disagree that education is uppermost in learning about where we live.  I promote it, in any way I can.  If it takes a Louv, or a Gore, or whomever, to make people aware, I'll support these positive perspectives.

Kathy 

Message Edited by KathyS on 08-23-2009 10:49 AM

[TiggerBear]

Every year WWF put out a list of fish you should not buy. Should buy little of, as well with fish you could change to.

Such as Atlantic salmon NO, Pacific salmon - OK no more than a week.

There are lists that help you avoid buying fish that is over catched.

However since the FDA has listed that fish from China contains chemical additives that are considered cancer causes around 20% to 60% of what they ship. They have advised NOT buying fish from China for the past 3 years straight. It's all on the no-no list.  

[Jane_S_Smith]

In this back-to-school season, I hope everyone is supporting school-yard gardens, an old idea that is coming back into popularity.

Here's a passage from Luther Burbank I quote in THE GARDEN OF INVENTION (along with lots of his other thoughts on what he called "the human plant").

"Every child should have mud pies, grasshoppers, water-bugs, tadpoles, frogs, mud-turtles, elderberies, wild strawberries, acorns, chestnus, trees to climb, brooks to wade in, water-lilies, woodchucks, bats, bees, buterflies, various animals to pet, hayfields, pine-cones, rocks to roll, sand, snakes, huckleberries and hornets; and any child who has been derprived of these has been deprived of the best part of his education."

 Burbank wanted to take children out of the classroom and into the woods.  Are gardens a start?

[Jane_S_Smith]

In this back-to-school season, I hope everyone is supporting school-yard gardens, an old idea that is coming back into popularity.

Here's a passage from Luther Burbank I quote in THE GARDEN OF INVENTION (along with lots of his other thoughts on what he called "the human plant").

"Every child should have mud pies, grasshoppers, water-bugs, tadpoles, frogs, mud-turtles, elderberies, wild strawberries, acorns, chestnus, trees to climb, brooks to wade in, water-lilies, woodchucks, bats, bees, buterflies, various animals to pet, hayfields, pine-cones, rocks to roll, sand, snakes, huckleberries and hornets; and any child who has been derprived of these has been deprived of the best part of his education."

 Burbank wanted to take children out of the classroom and into the woods.  Are gardens a start?

[becke_davis]

Jane - Thanks so much for contributing to this discussion. These threads are always accessible if anyone searches the author or title.