HIDDEN LESSONS: BY DAVID SUZUKI

In spite of the vast expanse of wilderness in this country, most Canadian children grow up in urban settings. In other words, they live in a world conceived, shaped and dominated by people. Even the farms located around cities and towns are carefully groomed and landscaped for human convenience. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but in such an environment, it’s very easy to lose any sense of connection with nature.

In city apartments and dwellings, the presence of cockroaches, fleas, ants, mosquitoes or houseflies is guaranteed to elicit the spraying of insecticides. Mice and rats are poisoned or trapped, while the gardener wages a never-ending struggle with ragweed, dandelions, slugs and root-rot. We have a modern arsenal of chemical weapons to fight off these invaders and we use them lavishly.

We worry when kids roll in the mud or wade through a puddle because they’ll get “dirty.” Children learn attitudes and values very quickly and the lesson in cities is very clear – nature is an enemy, it’s dirty, dangerous or a nuisance. So youngsters learn to distance themselves from nature and to try to control it. I am astonished at the number of adults who loathe or are terrified by snakes, spiders, butterflies, worms, birds – the list seems endless.

If you reflect on the history of humankind, you realize that for 99 per cent of our species’ existence on the planet, we were deeply embedded in and dependent on nature. When plants and animals were plentiful, we flourished. When famine and drought struck, our numbers fell accordingly. We remain every bit as dependent upon nature today – we need plants to fix photons of energy unto sugar molecules and to cleanse the air and replenish the oxygen. It is folly to forget our dependence on an intact ecosystem. But we do whenever we teach our offspring to fear or detest the natural world. The urban message kids get runs completely counter to what they are born with, a natural interest in other life forms. Just watch a child in a first encounter with a flower or an ant – there is instant interest and fascination. We condition them out of it.

The result is that when my 7-year old daughter brings home new friends, they invariably recoil in fear when she tries to show them her favorite pets – three beautiful salamanders her grandfather got for her in Vancouver. And when my 3-year old comes wandering in with her treasures – millipedes, spiders, slugs and sowbugs that she catches under rocks lining the front lawn – children and adults alike usually respond by saying “yuk.”

I can’t overemphasize the tragedy of that attitude. For, inherent in this view is the assumption that human beings are special and different and that we lie outside nature. Yet it is belief that is creating many of our environmental problems today.

Does it matter whether we sense our place in nature so long as we have cities and technology? Yes, for many reasons, not the least of which is that virtually all scientists were fascinated with nature as children and retained that curiosity throughout their lives. But a far more important reason is that if we retain a spiritual sense of connection with all other life forms, it can’t help but profoundly affect the way we act. Whenever my daughter sees a picture of an animal dead or dying, she asks me fearfully, “Daddy are there any more?” At 7 years, she already knows about extinction and it frightens her.

The yodel of a loon at sunset, the vast flocks of migrating waterfowl in the fall, the indomitable salmon returning thousands of kilometers – these images of nature have inspired us to create music, poetry and art. And when we struggle to retain a handful of California condors or whooping cranes, it’s clearly not from a fear of ecological collapse, it’s because there is something obscene and frightening about the disappearance of another species at our hands.

If children grow up understanding that we are animals they will look at other species with a sense of fellowship and community. If they understand their ecological place – the biosphere – then when children see the great virgin forests of the Queen Charlotte Islands being clearcut, they will feel physical pain, because they will understand that those trees are an extension of themselves.
When children who know their place in the ecosystem see factories spewing poison into the air, water and soil, they will feel ill because someone has violated their home. This is not mystical mumbo-jumbo because we have lost a sense of ecological place. Those of us who are parents have to realize the unspoken, negative lessons we are conveying to our children. Otherwise, they will continue to desecrate this planet as we have.

It’s not easy to avoid giving these hidden lessons. I have struggled to cover my dismay and queasiness when Severn and Sarika come running in with a large wolf spider or when we’ve emerged from a ditch covered with leeches or when they have been stung accidently by yellowjackets feeding on our leftovers. But that’s nature. I believe efforts to teach our children to love and respect other life forms are priceless.

So this is the article. However, I had a few questions that I'm a little confused about. One response questions asks whys is paragraph 6 the shortest one of the essay? I said because it transitions to give the effects of the essay.
And "Does Suzuki explore more fully the causes or effects of children's attitudes toward nature? Which paragraphs analyze most causes and which mostly effects? Is Suzuki right to place the causes first?" I said he explores more the effects, but I have trouble on the paragraphs part. And of course, I said he was right.
Thanks in advance.

Paragraph 6 is essentially the thesis of this essay.

Cause and effect? Read each paragraph carefully and decide. I'll get you started.

1. cause
2. effect

Take it from there.

Hmm, this is kind of confusing for me. I don't understand. Why would you have paragraphs of cause and effect, and in the middle of that process, stick in a thesis? I seem to not get the form here. Could you please elaborate?

So Ms.Sue, are you trying to refer to 1. 2. after the thesis? So basically, all the paragraphs that follow come in that order?

1 and 2 refer to the first and second paragraphs of this essay.

I agree, it's not the "normal" way to write an essay. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the thesis is essentially paragraph 6. You may not agree with me.

However, some of the paragraphs emphasize the causes, and other emphasize the effects.

Okay here is my attempt to answer this question.

In my opinion, I believe he talks more about the Effects of childrens attitudes toward nature. 1--> Cause 2--> Effect 3-->Cause 4-->Cause 5-->Effect 6-->Thesis 7--> (doesn't really discuss either) 8--> Effect 9--> Effect 10--> Effect 11--> Conclusion.
When they ask "Is David Suzuki right to place the causes first?", I wrote
David Suzuki is right to place the causes first, because an effect always comes after a cause. Is this what they are trying to get at with this question?

Yes. Good job!

Okay, and the device of emphasis that he uses to spark the opening sentence, I choose was contradiction. But the problem is that some people choose comparison? Could you say both?

I vote for contradiction.

In order to determine why paragraph 6 is the shortest one in the essay, we need to take a closer look at the content of the paragraph.

Paragraph 6 states: "We worry when kids roll in the mud or wade through a puddle because they’ll get 'dirty.' Children learn attitudes and values very quickly and the lesson in cities is very clear – nature is an enemy, it’s dirty, dangerous or a nuisance. So youngsters learn to distance themselves from nature and to try to control it."

The paragraph introduces the idea that children in urban settings are taught to view nature in a negative way. It highlights the attitude of perceiving nature as dirty, dangerous, or a nuisance. However, it does not go into extensive detail or analysis of this phenomenon. Instead, the paragraph serves as a transition to set up the discussion of the effects of these attitudes in subsequent paragraphs.

Now, regarding the question of whether Suzuki explores more fully the causes or effects of children's attitudes toward nature, we can analyze the content of the essay.

Suzuki primarily focuses on the effects of children's attitudes toward nature. He discusses how these attitudes lead to a disconnection from and fear of the natural world, which in turn affects actions and behaviors towards the environment. He emphasizes the importance of understanding our ecological place and the potential consequences of losing that sense of connection.

To determine which paragraphs analyze most causes and which analyze mostly effects, we can examine the content and purpose of each paragraph.

Paragraphs that primarily analyze causes are those that delve into the factors influencing children's attitudes towards nature. These paragraphs offer explanations or reasons for the negative perceptions formed in urban settings. In this essay, paragraphs 1-5 discuss the causes in more detail, examining how the urban environment, use of insecticides, and parental attitudes contribute to shaping children's attitudes towards nature.

On the other hand, paragraphs that focus on effects discuss the consequences of these attitudes and the potential impact on individuals and the environment. In this essay, paragraphs 7-11 explore the effects, such as the loss of curiosity and connection to nature, the potential extinction of species, and the need to develop a sense of fellowship and community with other life forms.

Finally, Suzuki's decision to place the causes before the effects is a strategic one. By establishing the causes early on, he sets the foundation for understanding the subsequent effects and provides a logical progression of ideas. This approach helps the reader grasp the context and significance of the effects discussed later in the essay. Hence, it can be argued that Suzuki's decision to place the causes first is appropriate in this essay.