Monday, July 21, 2008

Book Review: Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder by Richard Louv



I really didn't think this book was going to be much of an eye-opener. As a bonified nature lover and parent, I know just how important the connection between child and wilderness is. I see it every winter when my children are forced indoors for most of the time and at the 4th of July celebration when my 2-year-old's greatest joy is not the fireworks but catching lightening bugs. But this book wasn't just about that connection and how it's being lost, it was about revolutionizing our country, our culture, our way of living to guarantee the health of our children and ourselves. Louv runs the gamut, sharing conversations with parents and children, teachers, scientists, environmentalists, experts in child development, and religious leaders alike. Each of these conversations serves to further the main theory of his book, that children today are growing ever more disconnected from nature.

The book is split into seven sections. The first four were exactly what I expected of this book, discussing the importance of nature to human health, the factors that have led to the distancing between children and nature, and a why a reunion is in order. There is much discussion of forts, tree houses, childhood obesity and ADHD. These first sections can be summed up by this quote: "To take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen." (pg. 108)

The last three parts of the book were very enlightening for me, though. Despite my personal involvement in the back-to-the-land movement, it's been a long time since I've looked at the movement nationwide, let alone globally. Louv's encouragement for the "zoopolis" was refreshing, and he agrees with scientists who now advocate corridors for wildlife travel/migration rather than isolated pockets of habitat. The author even touched on the fact that many environmentalists see only the problem of overpopulation when they look at children and therefore disregard the needs of our little ones. His take on this matter was encouraging for a soon-to-be mother of four.

There is an extensive discussion of education reform in the book, and I wholeheartedly agree with Louv's assertion that parents alone cannot solve this problem. I did, however, find it rather interesting that he never mentioned homeschooling as an option for providing children greater interaction with nature throughout their school years. He mentions very briefly at the end of the book that one of the families he had discussed throughout homeschools, but that's it. There is no probe as to why they homeschool or whether or not this form of education is more or less likely to produce nature-deprived children.

I was also a bit disconcerted by the fact that there was no discussion of how parents should go about enacting change in their local school systems. Perhaps it wasn't the intent of the author to encourage such a thing, but I felt, after reading the portions on nature and education, that making my parental voice heard even before my children enter the school system was not only what I wanted to do but what I had to do as a mindful parent. If anyone has any ideas or stories to share on this matter, please comment or contact me.

Overall, the book was an easy read. I didn't find it to be depressing, as many "child deficit" books can be. The author sprinkled stories throughout the facts and studies, making it enjoyable and heartening. I don't plan to add the book to my personal library, but I would recommend everyone (not just parents) check this book out from their public library.

2 comments:

Green Bean said...

Great review. I read the book last summer and also felt it was an eye opener. My sister was so struck by the book she joined a group of moms to create an organization called Sustainable Schoolyards where they build gardens in schools and try to get kids outside more. Every little bit helps.

Please pop by The Blogging Bookworm to share your review.

Mist said...

Thanks, Green Bean, for sharing your sister's organization! I've been mulling ideas over in my head, and I think she got it right. The first thing I need to do is to gather other parents with me.

I'm hopping over to your link now! :)

Mike Vandeman, thank you for your insightful comments on the book. I don't necessarily agree with the argument that parts of nature should be off-limits to humans, but I understand where you're coming from. There is much yet to be done on educating the public how to tread lightly in nature. As a wildcrafter myself, though, I know that one can interact with nature and even take advantage of its bounty with reverence and without causing harm.

In regards to your question of whether or not other species want us around, you're probably right that they don't. But ask the meerkat if it wants other meerkats around, and you'll discover that the answer is an emphatic NO. There is a difference, for better or worse, between our species and every other species on the planet, especially when it comes to those of us in developed countries. The difference is that every other species is concerned mainly with survival. I think you'd agree that most of us are not. My point is, that other species quite probably don't want anything around that isn't immediately necessary to their survival, be it humans or ostriches.

I also appreciate your concern that certain activities mentioned in Louv's book may not be appropriate ways for children to interact with nature. Unfortunately, this argument goes both ways. As you said, we can't predict which child will decide to protect nature and which one will decide to dominate it, but Louv himself is an example of how someone can love fishing and take part in it yet still have a strong desire to protect nature.

Human beings are complex creatures, each individual having their own inclinations. Not every person will enjoy hiking alone. If outdoor activity is reduced to this, I think we run the possibility of boring some people to death until they want nothing to do with nature at all. Then it's, "why not turn that beautiful virgin forest into the next Cedar Point? I'd have a hell of a lot more fun there than just looking at things from a trail!" It is the responsibility of parents, educators, and the community as a whole to foster proper childhood interaction with nature and minimize the impact of outdoor activities.

Indeed, some of Louv's suggestions will help with this: planting gardens around schools, replacing existing flat expanses of landscape around education facilities with muddy pits or other interactive features. This will help to keep the kids in certain areas specified for interaction purposes.

But then we get to the question of where does nature end and education begin? If a forest glade is recreated around a school by parents, teachers, and students, should that then be off-limits to them in order to preserve the ecosystem?

And one last thing, we're completely agreed where cell phones are concerned! :) If I remember correctly, though, Louv was trying to give parents ways of letting their children have the solitary time they need in the wild while still minimizing the fear factor. I can understand that.