Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 16, 1995 TAG: 9503160028
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JO KWONG
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
I explained that "Captain Planet" teaches children things about the environment and human nature that simply are not true. Reflecting on the theme of the show, she asked, "You mean, the power is not with us?"
My heart sank as I realized I was experiencing one of my worst nightmares: the brainwashing of my children through environmental "education."
Environmentalism aimed at children is anything but benign. Environmental policy analyst Jonathan Adler tells about how classrooms of schoolchildren submitted public comments to the Food and Drug Administration on the subject of bioengineered produce. He writes: "Their letters didn't address the scientific or even, really, the ethical issues: They were about death! They called the biotech tomato 'Franken Tomato,' and they pleaded, 'Please don't do this, I don't want to die!'''
"The letters were written all at once and they were similar," continues Adler. "I'd call that brainwashing.''
To treat technology in this emotional way violates our most basic expectations for our children's education. We need to give them basic tools. They need the scientific knowledge to understand environmental issues. This includes studies of botany, ecology, hydrology, entomology, and so on. Children also need to understand the basic scientific method: that scientific hypotheses must be verified by observation and experimentation. Of course, some of this information is technically beyond the understanding of younger ones, but if they aren't able to understand the science, they shouldn't be mobilized to lobby for specific policy options.
The drive to create Ecokids has some other disturbing aspects. For one thing, it has the potential of taking the fun out of being a kid.
"50 Simple Things Kids Can Do to Save The Earth," a best-selling book, takes a number of things that have traditionally been a source of joy for children and turns them into potential nightmares. "Helium balloons? Big, bouncing, bobbing ... Oops? When helium balloons are released, they are often blown by strong winds into the ocean. Even if the sea is hundreds of miles away, balloons can still land there. Sometimes sea creatures think balloons are food and eat them. Sea turtles, for example, eat jellyfish - which look and wiggle just like clear balloons. If a turtle makes a mistake and eats a balloon, the balloon can block its stomach. So the turtle can starve to death."
Toys? "Toys just don't come from toy stores. They come from materials taken out of the Earth. So if they break right away, and you have to buy new ones to replace them, you're not only creating a lot of extra garbage, you're using up the treasures of the Earth."
While environmental special interests may view these stories as their successes, others see failure. Are we guilty of the chronic crime against children: of making them prematurely "old"?
Isn't this exactly what we are doing by burdening children with the fright of environmental catastrophes caused by humans? How else can we explain comment after comment from the mouths of our children that express nothing less than fear of dying and guilt of living?
In Audubon magazine, a woman writes that as her 6-year-old daughter settled down in her old-fashioned maple bed, newly handed down by her aunt, she says, "I love my new bed, but ... it's made of wood. They killed trees to make my bed." To the child, the reality is that a living thing, perhaps one with feeling, was killed for her creature comfort.
Educators have embraced environmentalism to its extreme. Children are taught what to think, not how to think about environmental questions. The consequences are anything but healthy.
Jo Kwong is an environmental research assistant at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Fairfax. This article is adapted from one written for the March issue of The Freeman.
by CNB