How to Promote Conservation?

[Wild-Woman]

I'm going to think about this question today and come back hopefully with some answers and questions of my own. Having worked with children for many years now, I think the question needs to be put to them.
Get back to you later. Julie

[Airehead]

Originally Posted by carlj

but my childhood was spent without computers, tv's in our rooms, consoles, mp3 players. Today's youth, it seems, require a different approach to engage them. But how do we find that happy medium?

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.

[wildone]

I was privelleged last Sunday to watch a birdringer at work. There were only 5 of us there watching, 2 children, their parents and me. The interest shown by the children was great. They asked sensible questions to which they received answers that took into account their ages (10 and 7), but they were not spoken down to. During the 15 or so minutes while the ringer processed the birds the children stood quietly and attentively, listening to what was said about individual birds. The parents obviously were not that knowledgeable but were also interested and I feel that those children are probably hooked for life. As we wandered back along the path afterwards, insects, such as Dragonflies and Butterflies were looked at and talked about. Two young naturalists in the making? As I say a privelege to have been present.

[Imaginos]

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.

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.

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.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Steve Irwin jumping into a tree to catch a Green Mamba, or Cwis Packham po-facedly telling you that if you stay really still for a few hours you might get a photo?.

QUOTE]

I many ways I feel that Chris Packham is teaching kids the most important lesson ... ie ... that patience does bring rich rewards. If only people would sometimes take the trouble to watch and wait as inobtrusively as reasonably possible because it is in that situation that you can see nature as it really is. The trouble is that the likes of Steve Irwin did and do seem to fit in with the modern notion of now! now! now! Rather than teaching patience.

The truth is that unless the persons that your are trying to interest in the natural world are prepared to accept that having patience is a vital part of enjoying the study of wildlife and that often you may see little and that you have to make the best of what you do see and accept this then they are unlikely to be able to sustain a long term interest.

[ogwen]

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?

I've just finished sixth form and am of this generation and yes many of my friends played almost continually on Play Station in the common room at school (when they didn't have a lesson). Out of school they were never interested in walking around outside but prefered to hang around each others houses watching films. Or sitting in their rooms emailing each other .

I was different because I always got fed up of sitting and just talking and prefered the "great outdoors".

I agree with Imaginos that TV to a certain degree can teach (I used to watch the Really Wild Show which encourage my love of nature along with my parents love of the countryside) and it can capture young peoples interest. Most of us young people want to feel as though we are involved in something and one way of engaging the younger generation might be to adopt the hands on approach? I wouldn't know because everyone is different and have differing motivations etc.....

[chunkychambers]

I think it's like most things, it's down to individual personalities rather than a generation gap.

I have three nephews and a grandson, their ages range from 18 to 15 and we all live very close to each other.
Now, when they were growing up, and still to this day, we all went camping, fishing, swimming in the river and took every opportunity to get out and about in winter or summer.

None are house birds but Andrew has gone wild-life mad, they all still love the out-door life but Andy has taken it further, my point being that different personalities make different choices.

[speckled wood]

>>or with friends out on bikes.<<
This may be another critical factor, these days you hardly see youngsters out on their bikes, certainly you don't see them out in the countryside. I lot of it is down to the fear of "abduction factor", truthfully something that has always been there but something that we are now paranoid about, so paranoid that we do things to avoid it that place our children at far greater risk of harm.

[Mr Mag00]

With regards to your point SpeckledWood and abduction, i am very worried about letting my 9 year old ride his bike more due to the traffic than abduction, I live in a village with no amenities and he does ride a mile to his friends. But the size of the traffic!!!! he is very very sensible and I have taught him well but the tractors, combines and haulage lorries are immense compared to anything we would have faced.

[Earth Hart]

One thing that comes to mind when working with children, is that if you get the the interest going then sometimes you get the children to teach their parents a thing or two. When in Brighton working in local schools, I had parents phoning me & asking for more info on what the kids & I were doing. As I say, teach the children and get them to teach their mums & dads.
Earth Hart