Analysis of Last Child in the Woods Article - Book Report/Review Example

For decades, the world has been talking about how alienation from nature could hinder the healthy development of our children, does Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods say anything new? A columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, Richard Louv has written several books on child rearing. His latest, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, investigates the correlation between “kids these days” and nature. Louv coins the term nature-deficit disorder to describe how today’s youth no longer spends time alone, exploring nature (Brown). Supporting his thesis is his description of youth-nature relationship in three frontiers. In the first frontier, European early settlers and their families moved further westward, having direct and useful contact with nature. The ruggedness of the natural world compelled parents and their children to expand creative and functional ways of dealing with it. It was in the second frontier, by the end of World War II that suburban expansion developed in the West. American families distanced from direct contact with nature however were still idealistically attached to it. Children may not have dwelled on the grassland or explored ravines in the second frontier; however they acted as if they did. The beginning of the third frontier in the 1990s marked the end of the ancestral and cultural connection to nature. Americans became electronically disengaged from it. Romanticism of nature lost its significance to the experience of American life, resulting in: Limited access to nature. Parents warn children not to play in vacant lots to avoid complaints from neighbors. The disappearance of public lands and open spaces is attributable to the development of more housing for the growing populace. Outdoor activities become restricted. Fear of Nature. Children are not allowed to wander around in the woods for fear of getting bitten by a snake or getting lost. National parks become places of abduction and murder. Children are purposely disconnected from nature. Environmentalists raise public awareness of biological decline. Animal rights advocates discourage activities such as fishing and hunting. Playtime is controlled. In school, academic importance and career success are emphasized. Team sports, planned learning activities, serious homework loads, and parent-structured “play dates” take the place of free play. The activities children usually enjoy such as leisurely lying in the grass, looking at the clouds, and counting the stars are nearing extinction. Electronics invade homes. Different forms of entertainment such as television, video games, computers and the Internet have promoted mental and physical inactivity and stagnation. Technology-based learning practices are highlighted. Academic syllabus focuses on reading, writing, and mathematics, frequently leaving classrooms lacking in nature experience. Other scientific disciplines have replaced traditional natural sciences (Brown). Louv’s depressing investigation illustrates in great detail how the youth today fall prey to “nature deficit disorder.” The author’s gentle style makes readers unable to see underneath the facade and recognize the kind of solution he is promoting. His description of the problem is fascinating, although it is the resolution that the readers yearn for. Louv concludes that a sense of marvel and pleasure in nature should be at the very core of environmental literacy and that the key to recovery would be to transform the way natural history is taught in the academe. For him, any kind of natural experience is beneficial. However, in his argument, he does not appear to differentiate among outdoor experiences. Indeed he supports free contacts with nature repeatedly in his book and subsequently laments that not a soul is learning one of the most structured advances of all: naming things. One cannot help but wonder at the author’s skill to search for and collect various studies shedding light on his apprehensions about a nature deficit disorder, but his strong justification for the importance of naming things is unimpressive. Does Louv actually think that if one does not know the name of a thing, for example a plant, that that person would not fight for the plant’s survival? What about those plants that are in danger of extinction in the remote places of the world? (Martin). A more appropriate title for the book should have been: ”The Last Woods in the Child.” Louv’s Last Child in the Woods is a replica of his childhood reminiscence with the woods, however that experience do not give pleasure to a majority of the youth these days. Louv explicitly explains that the “woods” are no longer accessible to the 21st century generation. It is nonetheless doubtful that a nature-filled play area, community gardens and parks; an increase in the local nature programs; or a mandatory academic course in the natural sciences will yield an environmentally educated and ecologically fanatic populace. Actually, all this may unlikely be enough to embed the “woods” once more in nearly all children (Martin). In his thorough examination, Louv seem not to find anything past the relatively exhausted traditional nature learning activities he mentions. Most of his research could have been taken from a booklet of nature study circulated before the electronic revolution. Readers may question why Louv failed to come across something more inventive, such as a more extensive education about earth. At present, nature programs are ongoing in a multiplicity of languages, and our activities or adaptations of them are used in nature centers worldwide, but obviously, Louv’s conventional nature study was blind to this, probably because he was more focused on his natural experience of his childhood (Martin). In summary, Louv makes it sound very simple: to re-engage the youth in nature in any way, and educate them with the names of things. The reason why the book became very popular is that it does not require much of anything from its readers. However, a momentous immersion in nature is just not that effortless. It is the kind of fascination that makes the distinction, and the next step one takes after reading the book. Evidently, Louv’s study served his interest at some point, although incalculable number of youths had the similar kind of fascination as Louv, and they quickly left it behind in their search for what they believe is victorious and normally acceptable in our society. Louv seem to make us want to spend a considerable amount of time and resources duplicating his childhood experience, when that experience only worked for a minute fraction of his existence. This leaves us thinking if this is really the best we can do in the 21st century (Martin). Because we live in a fundamentally formless ground that is reliant on the next device or diversion for scholastic stimulation, nature deficit disorder perfectly fits most youngsters, principally because only a diminutive fresh effort is required. The youth would just have to do what they usually do, that is to be immersed less in nature and more in technology. However, we ask: Is that really a nature deficit disorder? We can simply be optimistic that there will be a few fresh leaders who would attempt at something that encourages more kids in more significant approaches (Martin). Louv’s nostalgic and commonsensical book was a significant contribution to the work of nature lovers the world over and has greatly elevated the public’s understanding about the rising deficiency of nature contact with youngsters nowadays. On the other hand, there was something erroneous with his work. Superficially, he was speaking to the readers a great deal of the same thing the world has been talking about for decades: that the mounting human alienation from nature is unhealthy for a biologically wealthy earth. The trouble with Louv’s work was that he notices the disorder, however he misses out on what is more vital: the cure. Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder has been a great contribution and should never be ignored. His description of the dilemma is priceless, but his solution is insufficient (Martin). Works Cited Brown, Caroline. “Book Review: Last Child in the Woods.” Earth Friendly Gardening. 8 March 2006. 12 February 2012. Louv, Richard. Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. North Carolina: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2005. Martin, Steve Van. “Last Child in the Woods… or The Last Woods in the Child?” The Institute for Earth Education. Spring/Autumn 2011. 12 February 2012. Read More