The materials of modern life

Going back to nature

As many natural environments are placed under pressure by the drive towards urbanisation, there has been a marked shift in focus in terms of approaching ecosystems that are affected by human activity. Greater attention is now being given to protecting existing wilderness areas and restoring any natural processes which may have been disrupted by agriculture or development. Large-scale conservation projects, known as rewilding, seek to protect and connect landscapes, reintroduce keystone species, and ultimately create a natural environment which requires little human-based ecological management in the long term. First developed as a method to preserve functional ecosystems and reduce biodiversity loss, rewilding has become a high-profile, and often contentious, philosophy within current land management.

A key principle of rewilding is that people, communities and livelihoods play a significant part in the success of the project. As a form of land management, rewilding is very much reliant upon local communities acting as stewards of the landscape, but their role should not be overstated. In its purest form, rewilding seeks to reinstate natural processes – meaning that the outcome is not determined by people, but nature itself. Human involvement should, theoretically, only go as far as supporting natural processes. In some circumstances this may mean removing non-native plant or animal species to allow a greater biodiversity to thrive. In others it may require the reintroduction of missing species to re-establish a balanced food chain. Once that process has been set in motion, human involvement should be kept to a minimum, allowing free movement of rivers, and natural patterns of grazing, habitat succession and predation.

The most high-profile rewilding successes have followed such an approach, often overcoming opposition from neighbouring landowners. When grey wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s, they had an immediate impact on both flora and fauna. With an apex predator controlling deer and elk populations, a more natural balance was achieved. Trees and shrubs began to grow in the valley floors, and the birds and beavers which had previously lived there returned too. As the beavers dammed rivers, and newly established trees controlled erosion, the flow of water slowed, creating new habitats. In turn, bears, raptors and a range of other species found a place to thrive. Results of the trial have provided supporters of rewilding with much positive data; however, reintroducing carnivores is a controversial step which often fails without adequate support. Furthermore, rewilding in a confined, unconnected space or without bringing in an apex predator can also have disastrous outcomes. When herbivore populations get out of control, such as happened at the Oostvaardersplassen reserve in the Netherlands, there is a danger of overcrowding and animal starvation. Such examples raise ethical concerns over ‘natural’ land-management.

From a socio-economic perspective, many critics of rewilding claim that through various projects, productive farmland is being abandoned to nature at a time when global food needs are increasing. Their view is that in prioritising the support of these vulnerable ecosystems, governments and local environmental agencies are avoiding the realities of supply and demand. However, it should be noted that globally farming is being conducted by fewer farmers on a larger scale using the best available sites. Mountainous uplands, such as the Rocky Mountains have long been avoided as it would require considerable initial investment to make farming there worthwhile. This is also true of marshlands and river deltas. It is these sites which are prime locations for longer-term ecological development, and supporters of rewilding would highlight the opportunities for diversification that such an approach offers. Many rural areas which have been returned to a wilderness state provide revenue streams that are more varied and better distributed than conventional farming.

For many advocates of rewilding, the end goal is both a revitalised natural and human ecosystem. Their overall aims include revitalising rural communities through the development of nature-based economies which generate employment opportunities. They propose that such developments would ensure that young people are given the skill sets to stay in rural areas and thrive. Certainly, rewilding tends to increase tourism and recreational activities in rural areas, sustaining an economy for landowners and local inhabitants alike. Worldwide, the annual eight billion visits to national parks and nature reserves contribute in the region of £450 billion to local economies. Nature-based adventure and eco-tourism also plays a significant role in sustaining economies as typically 65% of the total costs of a trip stay in local economies. Such is the case in Scotland’s Moray Firth, where visits to see dolphins earn the community £9 million per year.

While the economic value of the wilderness as a tourist destination is significant, it should also be noted that there are other projected long-term benefits that impact more widely. Naturally functioning forest and peatland ecosystems are shown to absorb more CO2 than commercial tree plantations, and forested uplands absorb large amounts of rainfall, ensuring that costly flooding is minimised. This has been demonstrated in England’s Lake District where reforestation has reduced the impact of winter storms on lower lying surroundings. A better natural balance also ensures that soil erosion is reduced, meaning that agricultural areas retain the best materials for more successful food production. At its core, rewilding offers an opportunity to improve landscapes and rural communities for the benefit of future generations. And that, it would seem, is a natural choice to make.

Going back to nature

As many natural environments are placed under pressure by the drive towards urbanisation, there has been a marked shift in focus in terms of approaching ecosystems that are affected by human activity. Greater attention is now being given to protecting existing wilderness areas and restoring any natural processes which may have been disrupted by agriculture or development. Large-scale conservation projects, known as rewilding, seek to protect and connect landscapes, reintroduce keystone species, and ultimately create a natural environment which requires little human-based ecological management in the long term. First developed as a method to preserve functional ecosystems and reduce biodiversity loss, rewilding has become a high-profile, and often contentious, philosophy within current land management.

A key principle of rewilding is that people, communities and livelihoods play a significant part in the success of the project. As a form of land management, rewilding is very much reliant upon local communities acting as stewards of the landscape, but their role should not be overstated. In its purest form, rewilding seeks to reinstate natural processes – meaning that the outcome is not determined by people, but nature itself. Human involvement should, theoretically, only go as far as supporting natural processes. In some circumstances this may mean removing non-native plant or animal species to allow a greater biodiversity to thrive. In others it may require the reintroduction of missing species to re-establish a balanced food chain. Once that process has been set in motion, human involvement should be kept to a minimum, allowing free movement of rivers, and natural patterns of grazing, habitat succession and predation.

The most high-profile rewilding successes have followed such an approach, often overcoming opposition from neighbouring landowners. When grey wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s, they had an immediate impact on both flora and fauna. With an apex predator controlling deer and elk populations, a more natural balance was achieved. Trees and shrubs began to grow in the valley floors, and the birds and beavers which had previously lived there returned too. As the beavers dammed rivers, and newly established trees controlled erosion, the flow of water slowed, creating new habitats. In turn, bears, raptors and a range of other species found a place to thrive. Results of the trial have provided supporters of rewilding with much positive data; however, reintroducing carnivores is a controversial step which often fails without adequate support. Furthermore, rewilding in a confined, unconnected space or without bringing in an apex predator can also have disastrous outcomes. When herbivore populations get out of control, such as happened at the Oostvaardersplassen reserve in the Netherlands, there is a danger of overcrowding and animal starvation. Such examples raise ethical concerns over ‘natural’ land-management.

From a socio-economic perspective, many critics of rewilding claim that through various projects, productive farmland is being abandoned to nature at a time when global food needs are increasing. Their view is that in prioritising the support of these vulnerable ecosystems, governments and local environmental agencies are avoiding the realities of supply and demand. However, it should be noted that globally farming is being conducted by fewer farmers on a larger scale using the best available sites. Mountainous uplands, such as the Rocky Mountains have long been avoided as it would require considerable initial investment to make farming there worthwhile. This is also true of marshlands and river deltas. It is these sites which are prime locations for longer-term ecological development, and supporters of rewilding would highlight the opportunities for diversification that such an approach offers. Many rural areas which have been returned to a wilderness state provide revenue streams that are more varied and better distributed than conventional farming.

For many advocates of rewilding, the end goal is both a revitalised natural and human ecosystem. Their overall aims include revitalising rural communities through the development of nature-based economies which generate employment opportunities. They propose that such developments would ensure that young people are given the skill sets to stay in rural areas and thrive. Certainly, rewilding tends to increase tourism and recreational activities in rural areas, sustaining an economy for landowners and local inhabitants alike. Worldwide, the annual eight billion visits to national parks and nature reserves contribute in the region of £450 billion to local economies. Nature-based adventure and eco-tourism also plays a significant role in sustaining economies as typically 65% of the total costs of a trip stay in local economies. Such is the case in Scotland’s Moray Firth, where visits to see dolphins earn the community £9 million per year.

While the economic value of the wilderness as a tourist destination is significant, it should also be noted that there are other projected long-term benefits that impact more widely. Naturally functioning forest and peatland ecosystems are shown to absorb more CO2 than commercial tree plantations, and forested uplands absorb large amounts of rainfall, ensuring that costly flooding is minimised. This has been demonstrated in England’s Lake District where reforestation has reduced the impact of winter storms on lower lying surroundings. A better natural balance also ensures that soil erosion is reduced, meaning that agricultural areas retain the best materials for more successful food production. At its core, rewilding offers an opportunity to improve landscapes and rural communities for the benefit of future generations. And that, it would seem, is a natural choice to make.

Going back to nature

As many natural environments are placed under pressure by the drive towards urbanisation, there has been a marked shift in focus in terms of approaching ecosystems that are affected by human activity. Greater attention is now being given to protecting existing wilderness areas and restoring any natural processes which may have been disrupted by agriculture or development. Large-scale conservation projects, known as rewilding, seek to protect and connect landscapes, reintroduce keystone species, and ultimately create a natural environment which requires little human-based ecological management in the long term. First developed as a method to preserve functional ecosystems and reduce biodiversity loss, rewilding has become a high-profile, and often contentious, philosophy within current land management.

A key principle of rewilding is that people, communities and livelihoods play a significant part in the success of the project. As a form of land management, rewilding is very much reliant upon local communities acting as stewards of the landscape, but their role should not be overstated. In its purest form, rewilding seeks to reinstate natural processes – meaning that the outcome is not determined by people, but nature itself. Human involvement should, theoretically, only go as far as supporting natural processes. In some circumstances this may mean removing non-native plant or animal species to allow a greater biodiversity to thrive. In others it may require the reintroduction of missing species to re-establish a balanced food chain. Once that process has been set in motion, human involvement should be kept to a minimum, allowing free movement of rivers, and natural patterns of grazing, habitat succession and predation.

The most high-profile rewilding successes have followed such an approach, often overcoming opposition from neighbouring landowners. When grey wolves were reintroduced into the Yellowstone National Park in the 1990s, they had an immediate impact on both flora and fauna. With an apex predator controlling deer and elk populations, a more natural balance was achieved. Trees and shrubs began to grow in the valley floors, and the birds and beavers which had previously lived there returned too. As the beavers dammed rivers, and newly established trees controlled erosion, the flow of water slowed, creating new habitats. In turn, bears, raptors and a range of other species found a place to thrive. Results of the trial have provided supporters of rewilding with much positive data; however, reintroducing carnivores is a controversial step which often fails without adequate support. Furthermore, rewilding in a confined, unconnected space or without bringing in an apex predator can also have disastrous outcomes. When herbivore populations get out of control, such as happened at the Oostvaardersplassen reserve in the Netherlands, there is a danger of overcrowding and animal starvation. Such examples raise ethical concerns over ‘natural’ land-management.

From a socio-economic perspective, many critics of rewilding claim that through various projects, productive farmland is being abandoned to nature at a time when global food needs are increasing. Their view is that in prioritising the support of these vulnerable ecosystems, governments and local environmental agencies are avoiding the realities of supply and demand. However, it should be noted that globally farming is being conducted by fewer farmers on a larger scale using the best available sites. Mountainous uplands, such as the Rocky Mountains have long been avoided as it would require considerable initial investment to make farming there worthwhile. This is also true of marshlands and river deltas. It is these sites which are prime locations for longer-term ecological development, and supporters of rewilding would highlight the opportunities for diversification that such an approach offers. Many rural areas which have been returned to a wilderness state provide revenue streams that are more varied and better distributed than conventional farming.

For many advocates of rewilding, the end goal is both a revitalised natural and human ecosystem. Their overall aims include revitalising rural communities through the development of nature-based economies which generate employment opportunities. They propose that such developments would ensure that young people are given the skill sets to stay in rural areas and thrive. Certainly, rewilding tends to increase tourism and recreational activities in rural areas, sustaining an economy for landowners and local inhabitants alike. Worldwide, the annual eight billion visits to national parks and nature reserves contribute in the region of £450 billion to local economies. Nature-based adventure and eco-tourism also plays a significant role in sustaining economies as typically 65% of the total costs of a trip stay in local economies. Such is the case in Scotland’s Moray Firth, where visits to see dolphins earn the community £9 million per year.

While the economic value of the wilderness as a tourist destination is significant, it should also be noted that there are other projected long-term benefits that impact more widely. Naturally functioning forest and peatland ecosystems are shown to absorb more CO2 than commercial tree plantations, and forested uplands absorb large amounts of rainfall, ensuring that costly flooding is minimised. This has been demonstrated in England’s Lake District where reforestation has reduced the impact of winter storms on lower lying surroundings. A better natural balance also ensures that soil erosion is reduced, meaning that agricultural areas retain the best materials for more successful food production. At its core, rewilding offers an opportunity to improve landscapes and rural communities for the benefit of future generations. And that, it would seem, is a natural choice to make.

Free play

The intense activity that children display during free play is recognised by psychologists as an essential learning process that facilitates the development of the highly complex skills necessary for adult life. When given free time, children invest a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and concentration into exploring their world and as they do so, they gain experience, knowledge and skills relevant to their own lives. This type of learning is self-directed and meaningful and therefore retained in the long-term memory.

Essentially, for the child, learning is play, and this has been the case throughout human history. However, according to experts, this vital part of childhood is being eroded by modern society with potentially devastating consequences.

Although the importance of play is widely recognised for pre-school children, there is a general assumption that once a child is ‘of school age’, the best way for them to learn is in school in same age groups. But while the concept that school education results in children ‘learning’ is widely believed amongst educators and parents, many experts claim that adult-directed learning of this type is detrimental to child development.

In his book Free to Learn, Developmental Psychologist Peter Gray explains that the need for children to play extends far beyond the pre-school age, but that once they begin school and are exposed to predominantly adult-directed activities, their innate curiosity is essentially switched off.

Children are genetically hard-wired to play and as a result they learn all they need to know through real experiences which have meaning to their lives. The learning they derive from this is intrinsic (coming from within) so is highly motivating and engaging. However, once a child goes to school, a distinction is made between learning and play. Generally, learning is said to occur during periods when the children – usually while sitting down – complete teacher-directed lessons according to a set curriculum, while play is an activity allowed only during a designated ‘play time’.

In school the majority of lessons are theoretical because the children only read or hear about the world beyond the classroom – they don’t experience it. They are rarely given time to question or discuss a subject in detail as doing so might affect the teacher’s ability to complete the lesson in the allotted time. The purpose of school becomes the memorisation of facts or the production of work to please adults. Creativity is stifled and the child’s thirst for learning wanes, making rewards and coercion necessary as a means of motivation. Such adult-directed, performance-related activities erode the child’s sense of self-esteem and individuality.

The fact that children have few opportunities to play with older or younger children is a particular concern. Research shows that children learn best when they work collaboratively in mixed-age groups. This is because essential skills such as explaining concepts, negotiating rules, thinking critically, solving problems, and assessing risks are developed. Older children hone vital empathy and care skills looking after the younger ones while the younger ones benefit from the support, encouragement, and behaviour-modelling of the older children, increasing emotional literacy for all. The concern is that if today’s children miss out on mixed-age free play, society will create adults who are lacking in many social and communicative skills.

Unfortunately, most children are not free once the school bell goes because they attend after-school clubs and activities. Performance testing in schools and increasing competition for university places and jobs has led to a sense that children need to be prepared for the competitive stresses of adulthood from an early age. Play is seen by many parents as a waste of valuable learning time – the more time spent on résumé-building, the better. While on paper, out-of-school activities may give the illusion of a well-rounded childhood, they bring none of the benefits of free play because, like school, they are adult-directed. When children do have free time, they are mostly restricted to their own home due to parents’ safety concerns. Although the media frequently highlights concerns about the amount of screen time that many children and young people have in our modern society, Gray points out that may not necessarily be detrimental because the virtual world is one place where they can ‘play freely without adult intervention and direction.’ In his opinion, ‘Nothing that we do, no amount of toys we buy or “quality time” or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.’

While society has changed, children remain children and therefore, as a society we need to value childhood and ensure that they are given greater opportunities for free play in all settings whether at school, in the community or at home.

Free play

The intense activity that children display during free play is recognised by psychologists as an essential learning process that facilitates the development of the highly complex skills necessary for adult life. When given free time, children invest a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and concentration into exploring their world and as they do so, they gain experience, knowledge and skills relevant to their own lives. This type of learning is self-directed and meaningful and therefore retained in the long-term memory.

Essentially, for the child, learning is play, and this has been the case throughout human history. However, according to experts, this vital part of childhood is being eroded by modern society with potentially devastating consequences.

Although the importance of play is widely recognised for pre-school children, there is a general assumption that once a child is ‘of school age’, the best way for them to learn is in school in same age groups. But while the concept that school education results in children ‘learning’ is widely believed amongst educators and parents, many experts claim that adult-directed learning of this type is detrimental to child development.

In his book Free to Learn, Developmental Psychologist Peter Gray explains that the need for children to play extends far beyond the pre-school age, but that once they begin school and are exposed to predominantly adult-directed activities, their innate curiosity is essentially switched off.

Children are genetically hard-wired to play and as a result they learn all they need to know through real experiences which have meaning to their lives. The learning they derive from this is intrinsic (coming from within) so is highly motivating and engaging. However, once a child goes to school, a distinction is made between learning and play. Generally, learning is said to occur during periods when the children – usually while sitting down – complete teacher-directed lessons according to a set curriculum, while play is an activity allowed only during a designated ‘play time’.

In school the majority of lessons are theoretical because the children only read or hear about the world beyond the classroom – they don’t experience it. They are rarely given time to question or discuss a subject in detail as doing so might affect the teacher’s ability to complete the lesson in the allotted time. The purpose of school becomes the memorisation of facts or the production of work to please adults. Creativity is stifled and the child’s thirst for learning wanes, making rewards and coercion necessary as a means of motivation. Such adult-directed, performance-related activities erode the child’s sense of self-esteem and individuality.

The fact that children have few opportunities to play with older or younger children is a particular concern. Research shows that children learn best when they work collaboratively in mixed-age groups. This is because essential skills such as explaining concepts, negotiating rules, thinking critically, solving problems, and assessing risks are developed. Older children hone vital empathy and care skills looking after the younger ones while the younger ones benefit from the support, encouragement, and behaviour-modelling of the older children, increasing emotional literacy for all. The concern is that if today’s children miss out on mixed-age free play, society will create adults who are lacking in many social and communicative skills.

Unfortunately, most children are not free once the school bell goes because they attend after-school clubs and activities. Performance testing in schools and increasing competition for university places and jobs has led to a sense that children need to be prepared for the competitive stresses of adulthood from an early age. Play is seen by many parents as a waste of valuable learning time – the more time spent on résumé-building, the better. While on paper, out-of-school activities may give the illusion of a well-rounded childhood, they bring none of the benefits of free play because, like school, they are adult-directed. When children do have free time, they are mostly restricted to their own home due to parents’ safety concerns. Although the media frequently highlights concerns about the amount of screen time that many children and young people have in our modern society, Gray points out that may not necessarily be detrimental because the virtual world is one place where they can ‘play freely without adult intervention and direction.’ In his opinion, ‘Nothing that we do, no amount of toys we buy or “quality time” or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.’

While society has changed, children remain children and therefore, as a society we need to value childhood and ensure that they are given greater opportunities for free play in all settings whether at school, in the community or at home.

Free play

The intense activity that children display during free play is recognised by psychologists as an essential learning process that facilitates the development of the highly complex skills necessary for adult life. When given free time, children invest a great deal of energy, enthusiasm and concentration into exploring their world and as they do so, they gain experience, knowledge and skills relevant to their own lives. This type of learning is self-directed and meaningful and therefore retained in the long-term memory.

Essentially, for the child, learning is play, and this has been the case throughout human history. However, according to experts, this vital part of childhood is being eroded by modern society with potentially devastating consequences.

Although the importance of play is widely recognised for pre-school children, there is a general assumption that once a child is ‘of school age’, the best way for them to learn is in school in same age groups. But while the concept that school education results in children ‘learning’ is widely believed amongst educators and parents, many experts claim that adult-directed learning of this type is detrimental to child development.

In his book Free to Learn, Developmental Psychologist Peter Gray explains that the need for children to play extends far beyond the pre-school age, but that once they begin school and are exposed to predominantly adult-directed activities, their innate curiosity is essentially switched off.

Children are genetically hard-wired to play and as a result they learn all they need to know through real experiences which have meaning to their lives. The learning they derive from this is intrinsic (coming from within) so is highly motivating and engaging. However, once a child goes to school, a distinction is made between learning and play. Generally, learning is said to occur during periods when the children – usually while sitting down – complete teacher-directed lessons according to a set curriculum, while play is an activity allowed only during a designated ‘play time’.

In school the majority of lessons are theoretical because the children only read or hear about the world beyond the classroom – they don’t experience it. They are rarely given time to question or discuss a subject in detail as doing so might affect the teacher’s ability to complete the lesson in the allotted time. The purpose of school becomes the memorisation of facts or the production of work to please adults. Creativity is stifled and the child’s thirst for learning wanes, making rewards and coercion necessary as a means of motivation. Such adult-directed, performance-related activities erode the child’s sense of self-esteem and individuality.

The fact that children have few opportunities to play with older or younger children is a particular concern. Research shows that children learn best when they work collaboratively in mixed-age groups. This is because essential skills such as explaining concepts, negotiating rules, thinking critically, solving problems, and assessing risks are developed. Older children hone vital empathy and care skills looking after the younger ones while the younger ones benefit from the support, encouragement, and behaviour-modelling of the older children, increasing emotional literacy for all. The concern is that if today’s children miss out on mixed-age free play, society will create adults who are lacking in many social and communicative skills.

Unfortunately, most children are not free once the school bell goes because they attend after-school clubs and activities. Performance testing in schools and increasing competition for university places and jobs has led to a sense that children need to be prepared for the competitive stresses of adulthood from an early age. Play is seen by many parents as a waste of valuable learning time – the more time spent on résumé-building, the better. While on paper, out-of-school activities may give the illusion of a well-rounded childhood, they bring none of the benefits of free play because, like school, they are adult-directed. When children do have free time, they are mostly restricted to their own home due to parents’ safety concerns. Although the media frequently highlights concerns about the amount of screen time that many children and young people have in our modern society, Gray points out that may not necessarily be detrimental because the virtual world is one place where they can ‘play freely without adult intervention and direction.’ In his opinion, ‘Nothing that we do, no amount of toys we buy or “quality time” or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.’

While society has changed, children remain children and therefore, as a society we need to value childhood and ensure that they are given greater opportunities for free play in all settings whether at school, in the community or at home.