plumberroy

This in general is true, my parents where depression /WWII era kids the did with out both because of lack of money and things just were not available They worked harder at an earlier age than we did. But they made an effort to instill respect and work ethics in us . Today it seems they are trying to raise wimps and entitlement type kids . Afraid of every little thing . Afraid of hurting feelings . They grow up every body gets a trophy and get a shock when they have to step into the real world, where not every body wins. I know people with a lot of schooling in the subject that think a lot of allergies and asthma and some other childhood problems now common are from too clean of an environment . They think an immune system with nothing to fight sometimes turns on itself
Roy

rockmom

Actually on the Darwinian level, we are excelling exceedingly well. No other hominid has spread across the globe and attained such a large population. Evidently wimpyness is very adaptive.

Van Goghs Ear

we as a herd, yes, but as individuals, no. First world countries in general create a bubble. I don't have to hunt for food so my eyesight doesn't matter, I can purchase food at the grocery store. I don't need a practical craft or trade, because my job (which has virtually no practical worldly skills associated to it outside of its own self importance) provides me with a form of essentially meaningless currency allowing me to purchase everything I need. Even say, 2000 years ago, farmers and hunters would trade, they each had useful skills the other did not...I could not trade my work skills as they are more intangible.

This is why people are currently obsessed with the 'end of the world' narrative, deep down we all know, most of us don't have the skills and abilities to survive without the bubble we live in (myself included). If the 'system' came to a halt, something as simple as my glasses breaking would end me. Sure we still deal with a 'survival of the fittest' on a very different scale (on an economic level), but on a physical level, we do not.

And ultimately, hominids in general aren't an overly successful group...or at least there are other creatures that have inhabited the planet for far longer, but I am ultimately not that optimistic about the longevity of this species as a whole, but then I could be wrong.

Rich Gibson 

Yep, they are. Too much time on their "smart" phones.

Rich

rockmom

We are still the most dominant species of hominid to evolve. And we did not get here by physical prowess. We have been shrugging off brawn in favor of brain fairly consistently since our genus first arose. What matters in natural selection is not how strong you are, but how many of your genes you pass on generation to generation.

On a physical level, we are still very much under the pressure of natural selection. Things like diseases, pollutants, climate change, population competition, and all the assorted doomsday worries are environmental pressures. But in all seriousness, we are more likely to think our way out of them, than tooth and claw our way out of them.

Walter S

I disagree completely. People are naturally seduced into believing such things because our brains are very crafty about being lazy/conserving energy. While that was a good instinct for millions of years, we've gotten far too good at it. Modern society finds it possible to expend far less energy than our bodies require for good health.

We need less time thinking, reading, watching tv, etc. and at least a little time most days where we break a sweat and really work at something physically. THAT's what the smart people on the planet are doing. The rest of them are trying to figure out how to expend even less energy than ever at a more ideally controlled temperature that promotes perfect comfort while their arteries harden.

Roody

+1 Modern biologists are saying that the human capacity for social co-operation and putting the group ahead of the individual are mainly responsible for our success as a species. Most of the species that have spread widely are co-operative social animals--ants, bees, dogs, coyotes, rodents, and above all, humans. The "lone wolf" species are mostly on the endangered species list.

Roody

This is certainly a high class problem or, literally, a first world problem. Our technology is much more a blessing than a curse, although, if we don't handle it properly it does cause big problems for us.

One great thing about being carfree is that it helps me to get my daily required exercise, while at the same time enjoying the best that technology has to offer.

As for dividing the world into "smart people" and "dumb people"--not everybody will agree on which side of the line each of us falls on. so be careful with that!

Bikeforumuser0019

At the risk of sounding womanly amongst the men having Man Talk..... only an insensitive jock would call a child a wimp. Seriously are any of you guys fathers? Have you forgotten what it was like to be a kid? Kids have their own world with their own sets of problems that are just as real and hard as grown-up problems.

Kids don't ask to be born, and modern kids certainly didn't ask to be born at this point in history.

It still hurts to be picked last for sports just like it did 50 years ago (and probably 1000 years ago). Some kids realize they can avoid being laughed at by not trying to play sports or be athletic, even if they wanted to. It's an exceedingly rare child that has a strong enough self-identity to tolerate harassment and bullying and try anyway. Some adults could do it (not all, but some) and most children definitely can't do it.

A word of encouragement is a hundred times more motivating than a word of criticism. (Hint: this is also true of adults.)

mulveyr 

Well put--as a male teen in the 80's, we were still expected to be fascinated by team sports for example, and woe to those were didn't care in the least about football, baseball, etc, with the associated lack of interest in developing skills for them. ( And yes, it is possible to come close to failing gym class, for the very reasons you cite. )

One thing I really like about how our local schools handle phys-ed now is that they have turned that around almost 180 degrees; individual fitness is given far more emphasis than team sports; they even offer mountain biking! Heck, if that was available when I was in high school I would have done everything possible to go to gym class as often as possible. :-)

Roody

Thanks for the kind words--even if it's about 50 years late in my case!

I was turned off athletics when I was in school by the loud, macho bullying that was part of the whole athletic culture. All too often, this crossed the line over into bullying, although there was little awareness of this at the time.

It wasn't until I was more than 40 that I discovered a "sport" that appealed to me--bicycling.

But I'm still a wimp--and happy with it! Wimps are the creative, thoughtful people--whether their parents, coaches, teachers, and internet social critics realize it or not.

Walter S

I did not call the child a wimp and would not consider doing so. I refer to the child as a wimp. Big difference.

Roody

The 10 year old child who had presumably just climbed UP the mountain, and was now too tired to climb back down. How big of a climb is it? The kid might have needed a little more rest before proceeding. It sounds like you just happened to see a family in the middle of a hike. You may not know everything about family dynamics, health issues, or how hard the child had been exercising earlier. Why did you assume that the child is a "wimp" based on what little you saw?

When my grandson was 10, we went on fairly long hikes and bike rides, but he couldn't just keep going for hours without frequent stops for resting. He also needed encouragement from time to time, and a good explanation of what was needed/expected from him. He would get bored if the activity lasted too long, and express this as feeling tired. Sometimes a song or a joke would be all he needed to keep going. But I don't think it would have done much good to nag him, scold him, or even bribe him.

He definitely wasn't a wimp, and if anybody had "referred" to him as a wimp, I would have wanted to punch them in the nose.

I-Like-To-Bike

You "aren't sure"? Let me enlighten you.

This topic is being discussed on LCF because it is of a piece with the threads with a topic based on daydreaming, naval gazing theories, and associated discussions that are routine for this list. Nothing unusual at all.

Bikeforumuser0019

I don't know what gave me the impression that you're insensitive to children.

There's no difference between hurting someone with your words and hating on them quietly inside but saying nothing. Does holding one's tongue but harboring resentment in the heart make a man right with God (or if you don't fear God, at least right with the boy mentioned above)? Sorry, no. And kids are not stupid; they're often more intuitive than adults and can tell when adults are down on them even without being explicitly told.

Not cool to be down on kids regardless of whether or not they can keep up with your memories and experiences of your own childhood.

delcrossv

Correct. The smaller the kid, the less endurance they have. There'a also variability among kids in the same age group. I wouldn't make assumptions based on adult endurance profiles.

Walter S

He nor his mom climbed up the mountain. They rode the skylift. Wimps.

Walter S

I was not trying to have a thread about this one little boy and whether he is or is not really a wimp. He's just an example to illustrate a point. He could have been a fictitional character. The thread is about the phenomenon. Not this kid.

edit: and "wimp" is just a short word that fits into a title. It's not meant as a personal attack. It's just saying the kid lacks endurance and strength from lack of exercise. I would be the same if that's how I lived.

Walter S

You're crazy if you think I hate this little boy! He could use some better parenting maybe...

Yellowbeard

Oh my, what an ordeal.


This thread is wimps.

Bikeforumuser0019

Look, think of it this way. Whatever it is about this phenomenon that bothers you, ask yourself why it bothers you, and then work on that. It is of absolutely no consequence to you whether kids exercise or not, or whether their parents are doing an adequate job of parenting or not. Why so angry? You're only responsible for youself and you're doing great, right?

Rather than judge why not accept that everyone does the best they can with their circumstances and it's absolutely no reflection on their worth as a person if they exercise or not. And likewise, there are "kids" out there who are athletic, and who do exercise, who are real jerks.......dot..dot......

In other words exercise doesn't make anyone a good or bad kid, parent, or person. So, again I ask..... why does this make you angry? Figure it out, and then work on that. If you don't then you're not interested in anyone's well-being or health, and are just complaining..... to be a crank? It's still not clear to me what your beef is but if you can define it I'm interested.

Roody

The impression I got from the OP was the same--that you hate the boy and everybody in his generation. Or at least despise them and are disgusted by their weakness and laziness.

But I really doubt if you hate them. You sound like my grandfather, who was often talking about how the younger generation --a bunch of long-haired lazy hippies--was ruining the whole world.. But at the same time I knew that he loved me, his long-haired hippie grandson. It was just that sometimes when he was feeling threatened by some of the changes occurring in the world, it was easier to blame it on silly stereotypes than to think the problem through.

wolfchild

Constructive criticism can be just as good or even better then encouragement. Any person who can't put up with constructive criticism is a wimp.

Van Goghs Ear

I'm 100% in agreement with you, but the original post is in fact about physical fortitude, and that is the context I'm adressing this in.

Bikeforumuser0019

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Constructive criticism *can* be helpful, when received from someone who is trusted and emotionally safe.... in other words the danger with all criticism, even "constructive criticism" is that it's perilously easy to communicate that my relationship with you is conditional.

It's possible constructive criticism can be helpful, given that the relationship feels safe especially for a child but for adults too. One man's or woman's constructive criticism can be another person's crushing rejection (Any of you who are married, have you tried to give "constructive criticism" to your wives? How's that going for you?

Alternatively, healthy encouragement (which is far different from co-dependent enabling) never does harm.

For example:

This is a good example of how not to do it.