We've been having a lot of conversations with one of our clients recently about the loss of childhood: the paradox where kids today are forced to grow up too quickly on the one hand (comsumerism, sexualisation and all that), and barely allowed out of the house on the other, for fear that something non-specifically awful will happen to them.
For whatever reason, kids are no longer allowed to be kids in the way they once were. Which has to be a concern.
Now I'm completely aware that this is probably a very middle class POV. And that 'childhood', in the way we now know it, is a pretty recent invention. I may even be looking at things through rose tinted specs (although my life was quite clearly different to Josh's).
But I don't care. Parents need to chill (me included - life out there isn't THAT bad). And kids need the opportunity to see there's more to life than a parasitic relationship with a Playstation (and, yes, I have read Steven Johnson's book, and broadly agree that some 'bad' things can be good for you - but just get out and get some fresh air as well will you).
All of which may make it sound as if I've switched allegiance from the Guardian to the Daily Mail. I haven't. But, it's a nice segue way into this article that appeared recently in everyone's favourite bastion of Middle England conservatism (thank's to Lee and his regular dose of Delicious links, for serving this up).
Relatively free of the usual rabid Mail-isms, it has at its heart a very simple thought (and a great map): how does the right to roam of an 8 year old today compare with 3 previous generations of the same family at the same age.
Rightly or wrongly, literally or only in our heads, it does show how much the world has changed. And traditionalist that I am, with a bit of a liking for the Great Outdoors, I think that's sad.