Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airehead Imaginos, I am not sure how much of what you have written was a result of the quote of mine that you start with, but let me slightly, and only slightly, expand my point of view:
|
Not very much really, your comment just sparked a chain of thought that I thought was better off in a new thread. I understand your view that enthusiasm is dangerous, but I have to disagree that it is out of place in this aspect; I'll rephrase my arguement-more and more, people are being encouraged to reject the natural world out of fear and ignorance, people like Steve Irwin allow people to see that if someone could handle the deadliest snakes then maybe
they could pick up that spider rather than hide in the bathroom from it. I may be wrong, but from personal experience (ie talking to friends and colleagues) this seems to have some truth to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airehead Of one thing I am sure - Education via TV is superficial*. Watching telly encourages nothing so much as watching more telly no matter what the subject. All TV screen personnel are interested primarily in being seen and they will do anything to achieve it. This applies equally to wild life presenters as to homosexual extraverts. And when a TV program advises turning off the telly andgetting active, this is a right royal form of hypocrisy.
*Just consider how much more quickly you can learn about British wild life on this forum than on the telly. |
I have to disagree on two points: Firstly, education; Personally I have learnt a hell of a lot from television-not just Natural History television but also other documentary forms are incredibly educational. One tends to forget that often the person on screen (when there is one, and frequently in NH films there is just a voiceover) has had little or nothing to do with the production, which has been written by knowledgable people with good information. Secondly, enthusiasm; I grew up on David Attenborough documentaries, the Really Wild Show and Gerald Durrel & Willard Price books and I'm sure that made me the person I am today. I was also fortunate enough to have some countryside virtually on the doorstep-a situation closed to most children who live in cities whose only contact with the natural world at a young age (unless they have proactive parents or teachers) will be through television.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Carlj I think the problem at heart is that the children of the 21st century are not the same as we were at that age. I don't consider myself old, but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. My teen years were spent at Trentham Gardens/Park, or in a book, or with friends out on bikes. Our attention spans are different too. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?. |
Technology will always drive a wedge between humanity and nature, however all is not bad, television programs, websites like these and much of our knowledge of the world around us would be impossible without it. However we don't yet know what is going to happen to the 'playstation generation' once they reach adulthood. It seems that every generation fears for those that follow and always see the wrongs. At 30 years old I am part of 'Generation X' and took a full part in the grunge 'everything sucks' culture at the time. Today, looking around at others from the same scene I see many well-rounded individuals whose only real hangover from their youth is a healthy cynicism of political process and authority. Who knows-maybe the kids of today-inspired by a drive to complete things fostered by computer games and a love for conservation fostered by Steve Irwin and his ilk, and imbued with an almost symbiotic relationship with technology-will save the world? Or not, as the case may be.