On a Samizdata post about the Tories’ failure to capitalise on the recent loss of faith in climate science, Nick Davis comments:
At school, my 9 year old and his classmates are learning all about ranforests.
Part of his homework for the weekend is research: “Find as many reasons for the destruction of the rainforests as you can. Record them in an informative way“.
What an interesting question? What an open-minded teacher!
I have given him a handful of pointers: to raise a country out of poverty by export led growth; to clear land for industrialisation or habitation; to provide building materials; to clear land for farming.
His reply is that I have misunderstood the teacher’s instruction. He is supposed to be finding out why it has happened/is happening, not why it may be a Good Thing (TM).
He’s either too clever for me, or too indoctrinated! My explanation about eco-imperialism (why should we deny them the ability to enjoy western comforts?) was met with “if they all start to use computers and the internet, that’ll use lots of energy which will destroy the planet“.
Following our discussion he has therefore written this: “There is no reason for destroying the rainforests”.
I think I need to dig up Alvin Rabushka’s book (which I have lent out or lost or both) or Peter Bauer for some inspiration. Anyone any other ideas?
UPDATE: Just remembered that Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist has a discussion on this issue. And my well-thumbed copy is in easy reach…
William H Stoddard makes this valid snipe about “[I]f they all start to use computers and the internet, that’ll use lots of energy which will destroy the planet.”:
That kid’s mastered the green agenda, all right: We have to keep Them poor. It’s for their own good, of course.
Manuel II Paleologos chips in with:
Nick – I was revising GCSE RE with my eldest last week and came across a statement categorically stating that “poverty” has got worse in the world since the Brandt report in 1980.
What can they mean? Bring back Carter and Callaghan!
It’s hard to know where to start deconstructing this argument, but I struggled to think of any measure at all where this was true.
My eldest is a bit autistic so I tried not to confuse him too much, but Parents’ Evening is going to be fun.
Ages ago, the englishman was complaining about his son’s homework being set by Christian Aid, and being all about how climate change is making life hard for poor people.
All of this is of much interest to me, as I’m expecting to be sending a child of my own to school in, ooh, about five years or so. Nick Davis’s comment in particular is interesting because his son argues back. Now, Nick Davis’s son presumably lives with Nick Davis who is the sort of person who leaves comments on Samizdata. I’m kind of hoping that it should be possible to teach children about critical thinking; and that teachers are not necessarily the ultimate authority on things; and that in any case authority is not to be trusted all the time; and even that at school there are sometimes forces at work that mean you may be taught some distortion of the truth. They may not understand everything at once, but I would hope that someone with an interest in the world and armed with some concept of critical thinking should be able to escape even a state education unscathed.
But there is Nick Davis’s son. And there are people who tell me that children are very much influenced by their (not necessarily so critically thinking) peers.
“If they all start to use computers and the internet, that’ll use lots of energy which will destroy the planet.”
I would like to think that no child of mine could say such a thing. Of course, it could be that the boy was just winding his dad up. No doubt my children are going to rebel by becoming vegetarians and I will have to watch them starve (or cook their own food); and they will certainly learn very quickly how to wind me up I am sure.
But it makes me wonder.
