With both my kids in 2nd grade and my wife also a public 2nd grade teacher, I consider myself pretty aware of what kids are being taught these days. They certainly are being gradually introduced to some of the problems of the world, but I think childhood development experts would all agree that's healthy. As for them being told they're the source or victim that's hardly the case. I'm sure there are a few isolated incidents that right-wing media love to bang on about, but not the experience for most.
> but I think childhood development experts would all agree that's healthy.
Could it be that we think it's healthy because we can just give meds to the kids that it affects?
How would someone even have the ability to say "it's healthy" - I'm struggling to think how it comes about. I think it's healthy for my kids to cry about a worm dying in the garden, but anything less than "anxiety about a dying planet"...
Put it another way: climate change messaging IS totally about anxiety and putting human as the cause, so we can (as adults) change our habits and save the planet. Could it be too much for kids though?
I grew up in the 80s and 90s. In school environmentalism was a big deal. We did conservation trips to these ecology parks, we were taught to recycle, and often watched films about animals that might die off due to climate change.
I only felt motivated to annoy my parents to recycle more. Since the effects were not directly in front of me a strong emotional reaction didn't occur.
Perhaps there are children who already have anxiety and latch onto climate change and other problems.
