# News - Guardian - Teenagers at more risk online than Interrailing in Europe, say experts

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/26/teenagers-risk-online-interrailing-europe-experts

Safeguarding experts and child psychologists have said the risks to teenagers are increasingly "far greater" online at home than when travelling independently following the row about the television presenter Kirstie Allsopp allowing her teenage son to go Interrailing.

A debate on the protection of teenagers was prompted by Allsopp, who revealed that social services had interviewed her after she posted online about her son, then 15, taking a rail trip around Europe after his GCSEs.

A child safeguarding consultant, Simon Bailey, told the Guardian: "The risk is far greater with a child up in their bedroom with access to a smart device than it is travelling to Berlin, Munich and seeing some of the wonderful sights that Europe provides."

Bailey, a former chief constable who was the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) lead for child protection before becoming a consultant on the issue, said teenagers were at greater risk at home on their smartphones than many parents realise.

"There is a greater risk to children now in the online space than there ever has been before and actually the online world in which they inhabit poses greater risks than the physical world in which they live in."

Bailey pointed to recent research by Childlight, which found that more than 300 million children around the world face sexual exploitation and abuse online each year. Bailey said the findings should "send cold shivers down every parent's spine" and that they should be more focused on managing these risks.

He said that most of the time "in the physical world, a 15-, 16-year-old is going to recognise if somebody poses [a threat]" but that "in the online world, they just don't know who they are talking to, what their motives are".

Allsopp's son Oscar, now 16, went Interrailing around Europe over the holidays when he was still 15. After writing about it on X, Allsopp was contacted by a social worker from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and asked what safeguarding was put in place for her son's trip.

Alan Wood, founding chair of What Works for Children's Social Care, said it "it was not unreasonable" for social services to make an initial contact but that he felt "a bit dubious about saying childhood is up to 18" and applying to older teenagers "rules and arrangements and processes which are really designed for much younger children".

Wood, who has led many children's services departments, said he felt technology posed a greater threat for teenagers. "Where I think a lot of the risk is coming from is slightly different to taking a tour at 15. I think the social alienation of individual children by being glued to social media and games and things like that for me is an area that potentially does have quite an impact on their mental health or emotional health."

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, whose book Anxious Generation explored the twin trends of the decline in adolescent freedom and unsupervised play coupled with the rise in a reliance on screens, praised Allsopp for the decision.

He posted on X at the weekend: "If we're going to roll back the phone-based childhood, we MUST give kids back a fun, exciting, and at times risky childhood in the real world. Kirstie gave that gift to her 15-year-old son."

Dan O'Hare, an educational psychologist, said that children's decreasing amounts of physical freedom and increased screen time had an impact on wellbeing.

He said parental worry about safety can shrink young people's physical freedom, meaning that "you're having less physical activity, you're spending more time not engaging with the world around you, but rather through screens – and you're exposed to content that you might never have come across if you were out in the park.

"I think all of these factors need to be considered … risk just doesn't come from the immediate world around us. Risk in 2024 can come from thousands of miles away in a different time zone, at 3am in the morning."

O'Hare said that independence was something that needed to be "cultivated as a skill" from an early age. He added that weighing up the risk of a teenager travelling without an adult would depend on how much support they had through childhood to build independence and whether they had learned how to go to others for help.

--

---
Recebeu esta mensagem porque subscreveu ao grupo "Pensantes" do Grupos do Google.
Para anular a subscrição deste grupo e parar de receber emails do mesmo, envie um email para pensantes1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Para ver este debate na Web, visite https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pensantes1/CACQGZqo0yPyo-i5rQv4e4vQpLC0iwNRBaz6cGp%3DB7GkFBpU9dQ%40mail.gmail.com.

# News - Stonehenge monument sprayed orange in UK climate protest

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/environment/article/2024/06/20/stonehenge-monument-sprayed-orange-in-uk-climate-protest_6675249_114.html

Police have arrested two climate activists after they spread 'orange
powder paint' around the iconic monolithic site in a protest demanding
that Britain's next government legally commit to phasing out fossil
fuels.

Le Monde with AFP

UK police arrested two people on Wednesday, June 19, after
environmental activists sprayed an orange substance on Stonehenge, the
renowned prehistoric UNESCO world heritage site in southwest England.

The Just Stop Oil protest group said two activists had "decorated
Stonehenge in orange powder paint" to demand that Britain's next
government legally commit to phasing out fossil fuels by 2030.

Footage posted on social media showed activists, wearing "Just Stop
Oil" branded T-shirts, spraying a cluster of the megalithic standing
stones with the orange substance from a small canister. The group said
Niamh Lynch, a 21-year-old student, and Rajan Naidu, 73, had used
"orange cornflour" for the stunt.

It claimed the substance would "soon wash away with the rain." English
Heritage, the public body which manages the site, said its experts
were probing "the extent of the damage" to the circle of stones some
of which are believed to date back 5,000 years.

Wiltshire Police said in a statement that it had arrested two people
following the incident. "Officers attended the scene and arrested two
people on suspicion of damaging the ancient monument," the force
added. "Our inquiries are ongoing and we are working closely with
English Heritage."

'Disgraceful'

Footage of the stunt showed several people trying to restrain the pair
as they sprayed the standing stones, before the duo stopped and
remained sat on the ground. An English Heritage spokesperson called
the protest action "extremely upsetting" but noted the site remained
open to the public. "Our curators are investigating the extent of the
damage," she said.

The incident comes in the middle of the campaign for a general
election on July 4. It drew condemnation from the leaders of Britain's
main political parties. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called it "a
disgraceful act of vandalism to one of the UK's and the world's oldest
and most important monuments."

"Just Stop Oil should be ashamed of their activists," he added.

Labour leader Keir Starmer, who polls predict will be the next prime
minister, said it was "outrageous" and branded Just Stop Oil
"pathetic." "Those responsible must face the full force of the law,"
he added, in a sentiment echoed by Ed Davey, leader of the centrist
Liberal Democrats.

'Resistance'

Just Stop Oil, formed in 2022, wants an end to new oil and gas
exploration in the North Sea off the UK's east coast. It has staged
numerous protests, primarily aimed at disrupting events, institutions
or aspects of daily life, leading to thousands of its activists being
arrested and scores jailed.

The latest action was staged on the day before the Summer Solstice
festival, when crowds gather at Stonehenge to celebrate the northern
hemisphere's summer solstice. A spokesperson said that although the
Labour party, which is expected to win next month's election, has
vowed not to issue any new oil and gas drilling licenses, "we all know
this is not enough."

"We have to come together to defend humanity or we risk everything.
That's why Just Stop Oil is demanding that our next government sign up
to a legally binding treaty to phase out fossil fuels by 2030," the
spokesperson added. "Failure to commit to defending our communities
will mean Just Stop Oil supporters... will join in resistance this
summer, if their own governments do not take meaningful action.

"Stone circles can be found in every part of Europe, showing how we've
always cooperated across vast distances – we're building on that
legacy."

--

---
Recebeu esta mensagem porque está inscrito no grupo "Pensantes" dos Grupos do Google.

Para anular a subscrição deste grupo e parar de receber emails do mesmo, envie um email para pensantes1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Para ver este debate na Web, visite https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pensantes1/CACQGZqr8nxgjajJa1FtYgwn-NQoN_XQ%2B2Jp7yhXQ8PCGbGaC3A%40mail.gmail.com.

# News - The Guardian - I thought most of us were going to die from the climate crisis. I was wrong

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/02/hannah-ritchie-not-the-end-of-the-world-extract-climate-crisis

In an extract from her book Not the End of the World, data scientist
Hannah Ritchie explains how her work taught her that there are more
reasons for hope than despair about climate change – and why a truly
sustainable world is in reach

Hannah Ritchie Tue 2 Jan 2024 08.00 CET

"Scientists say temperatures could rise by 6C by 2100 and call for
action ahead of UN meeting in Paris" – Independent, 2015.

A world that was 6C warmer than it is today would be devastating. And
remember, 6C is just the average. Some parts of the world would get
much warmer, especially the poles. Crops would fail. Many people would
be malnourished. Forests would be stripped back into savannahs. Island
nations would be completely submerged. Many cities will have
disappeared due to sea-level rise. Climate refugees will be on the
move. "Normal" temperatures in many parts of the world would be
unbearable. Even the richest, most temperate nations would see
devastating floods most winters and baking summers. We would be at
very high risk of setting off warming feedback loops – the melted ice
would reflect less sunlight, the melted permafrost might unlock
methane from the bottom of the ocean, and dying forests wouldn't be
able to regrow to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. A 6C warmer world
might be short-lived – it could quickly spiral into 8C, 10C or more.
It would be a massive humanitarian disaster.

Only a few years ago, I thought this was where we were headed. Forget
1.5C or 2C – we were destined for 4C, 5C or 6C and there was nothing
we could do about it. Most people still think that this is the path
we're following. Thankfully, it's not.

In 2015, I went to Paris for the big, famous climate conference,
Cop21. Representatives and policymakers from every country came
together to hash out a new climate deal. The previous goal of the
international agreement was to keep the global average temperature
rise below 2C by the end of the century. So I couldn't believe it when
there were rumours that a target of 1.5C was being discussed. Were
they crazy? At that point, I had already given up on the prospects of
2C. It was so far out of our reach. The notion that we could keep the
rise below 1.5C seemed delusional. And yet the target made it into the
final agreement. Mostly as an aspiration, but it was in there
nonetheless. The world pledged to "limit global warming to 'well
below' 2C above pre-industrial levels and also, if possible, 'pursue'
efforts to cap warming at 1.5C".

My perspective on 1.5C hasn't shifted much since then. Without a
major, unexpected technological breakthrough, we will go past this
target. Nearly all the climate scientists I know agree: they obviously
want to cap warming at 1.5C, but very few think it will happen. This
doesn't stop them fighting for it, though; they know that every 0.1C
matters, and is worth working for. But my perspective on 2C has
changed. I'm now cautiously optimistic that we can get close to it.
It's more likely than not that we will pass 2C, but perhaps not by
much. And there is still a reasonable chance – if we really step up to
the challenge – that we can stay below it.

My perspective flipped quickly after studying the data, not newspaper
headlines. I didn't focus on where we are today, but on the pace that
things have moved at in the past few years, and what this means for
the future. One organisation – the Climate Action Tracker – follows
every country's climate policies, and its pledges and targets. It
combines them all to map out what will happen to the global climate.
At Our World in Data, I sketch out these future climate trajectories
and update them every year. Every time, they get closer and closer to
the pathways we would need to follow to stay below 2C.

If we stick with the climate policies that countries currently have in
place, we're heading towards a world of 2.5C to 2.9C warming. Let me
be clear: this is terrible and we have to avoid it. But countries have
pledged to go much further. They've committed to making their policies
much more ambitious. If each country was to follow through on their
climate pledges, we'd come out at 2.1C by 2100.

What's most promising is how these pathways have shifted over time. In
a world without climate policies, we'd be heading towards 4C or 5C, at
least. This is the path that most people still think we're on. That
would be a scary world indeed. Thankfully, over time, countries have
stepped up their commitments. As we saw with the example of the ozone
layer, incremental increases in ambition can make a huge difference.

The other big change is that moving to a low-carbon, sustainable
economy is not seen as the sacrifice it used to be. Fossil fuels were
far cheaper than renewables. Electric vehicles cost a fortune. But now
low-carbon technologies are becoming cost-competitive. It now makes
financial sense to take the climate-friendly path. Leaders have become
more optimistic about how the landscape is changing. We are still some
distance from a 2C pathway. We need to step up our efforts – and
quickly. But as it becomes more and more realistic, I'm confident we
can keep moving closer to it.

________________________________

When I was in my early teens, I thought most of us were going to die
from climate change. I tried to convince my classmates of this, too.
For my English oral exam, I held up a map of all of the cities and
coastlines that were going to sink by the end of the century. I showed
projected satellite images of the wildfires that would ravage the
globe. In trying to light flames of interest, I simply added fire to
my own anxieties.

By the time I reached Edinburgh University, I was being flooded with
images every day. Some from my university lectures, which, given the
fact I'd chosen a degree in earth sciences, was expected. But, more
importantly, my obsession for environmental sciences was growing in
tandem with the uptick in the frequency of reporting. The more
determined I became to stay informed, the quicker the stories came at
me, often accompanied by streams of recorded videos. I didn't have to
imagine the pain of the victims, I could see and hear it, too. As a
responsible citizen, I wanted to stay informed. I had to know what the
latest disaster was. To switch off from them seemed like a betrayal to
the lives that were lost.

With reports of disasters coming at me faster every day, it seemed
that things must be getting worse. Climate change was driving an
intensification of disasters, and more people were dying than ever
before.

Or so I thought. The problem was that I mistook the increase in the
frequency of reporting as an increase in the frequency of disasters. I
mistook an increase in the intensity of my secondhand suffering for an
increase in the intensity of global suffering. In reality, I had no
idea what was happening. Were disasters getting worse? Were there more
this year than last? Were there more people dying than ever before?

Then I discovered the work of Swedish physician, statistician and
public speaker Hans Rosling. Videos of his lectures taught me that
extreme poverty and child mortality were falling and education and
life expectancy were rising. I went looking for other areas where my
preconceptions might be wrong. I started with data on "natural"
disasters. I would have bet a lot of money that more people were dying
from disasters today than a century ago. I was completely wrong. Death
rates from disasters have actually fallen since the first half of the
20th century. And not just by a little bit. They have fallen roughly
tenfold.

It's at this point that I should make one thing clear: none of the
above means that climate change is not happening. The decline in
deaths from disasters does not mean that disasters are getting weaker
or less common. Deniers often misuse this data to downplay the
existence or risks of climate change. But that's not what the data
shows us at all.

In the past, it was common for disasters to claim millions of lives a
year. The 1920s, 30s and 40s were particularly bad. There were a few
large earthquakes that claimed many lives: China, Japan, Pakistan,
Turkey and Italy were all hit by a series of earthquakes that cost
tens of thousands of lives. The most lethal – the 1920 earthquake that
struck the Gansu province in China – is estimated to have killed
180,000 people. But it was drought and floods that were the most
deadly. China endured a number of large floods and droughts through
the 1920s and 30s, which often led to widespread famine and killed
millions at a time.

Today, the annual death toll is much smaller, usually between 10,000
and 20,000. Sometimes, there are particularly devastating years where
the toll is much higher – like 2010, when the annual death toll was
more than 300,000, with most deaths resulting from the Haitian
earthquake.

When I zoomed out and saw these trends, I felt stupid. I also felt
cheated. I had been duped by an education system that was supposed to
teach me about the world. I was a diligent student. I won medals for
coming top for everything, from earth materials to sedimentology,
atmospheric science to oceanography. I could create complex diagrams
of seismic faults, I could recite the chemical formulas of pages of
minerals from memory, but if you'd asked me to draw a graph of what
was happening to deaths from disasters, I'd have sketched it upside
down.

I wasn't alone in my ignorance. In the 2017 Gapminder Misconception
Study, the public, across 14 countries, were asked 12 key questions,
one of which was:

How did the number of deaths per year from natural disasters change
over the past 100 years?

a) More than doubled
b) Remained more or less the same
c) Decreased to less than half

Just 10% got the right answer: c). The most popular answer, 48% of the
vote, was a).

________________________________

To tackle climate change, we have to accept two things: climate change
is happening and human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible.
We simply don't have time to argue about the existence of climate
change. By "we", I mean all of us, collectively. The time for debating
is over. We need to move past it to the question of what we're going
to do about it.

Let's take a close look at where we are with carbon emissions. They
are still rising, but the world has already passed the peak of per
capita emissions. It happened a decade ago. Most people are unaware of
this.

In 2012, the world topped out at 4.9 tonnes per person. Since then,
per capita emissions have been slowly falling. Nowhere near fast
enough, but falling nonetheless. This is a signal that the peak in our
total (not per capita) CO2 emissions is coming. This is the case with
any metric in a world with an increasing population. Per capita
measures will peak first, then it's a tug-of-war over whether our
impacts per person will fall more quickly than the population is
growing.

We are very close. Emissions increased rapidly in the 1960s and 70s,
then again in the 1990s and early 2000s. But in recent years, this
growth has slowed down a lot. Emissions barely increased at all from
2018 to 2019. And they actually fell in 2020 as a result of the
Covid-19 pandemic. I'm optimistic we can peak global emissions in the
2020s.

One of the simple things that brings me the most joy in life is
getting an email from my grandma. My gran is in her mid-80s and can
almost work an iPad. By "work", I mean do the basics of looking at a
photograph and sending an email. She doesn't have an iPhone, a laptop
or a smartwatch. My grandpa rejects all modern technology, except
television. Their life is very similar to how it was a few decades
ago.

This has created something of a divide between the generations on
climate change. Many see the lifestyles of youngsters as the problem.
We spend all day on energy-guzzling gadgets. We flock to dense cities
with no gardens or green space. We buy lots of stuff and don't bother
to repair it. We never ration food and waste too much of it.

Yet my carbon footprint is less than half that of my grandparents'
when they were my age. When my grandparents were in their 20s, the
average person in the UK emitted 11 tonnes of CO2 per year. We now
emit less than five tonnes. The gap between me and my parents is
equally wide. From the 1950s to the 90s, emissions in the UK changed
very little. It's only since then – in my lifetime – that emissions
have plummeted.

Technology has made that possible. In 1900, nearly all of the UK's
energy came from coal and, by 1950, it was still supplying more than
90%. Now coal supplies less than 2% of our electricity, and the
government has pledged to phase it out completely by 2025. Coal is now
almost dead in its birthplace, where it all began. It has been
replaced with other sources of energy: gas, then nuclear, and now a
transition to wind, solar and other renewable sources.

That means that, for every unit of energy we consume, we emit much
less CO2. But that's not the only change. We also use much less energy
overall. Per capita energy use has fallen by around 25% since the
1960s. Year after year, more efficient gadgets have come into our
lives. First, it was improvements in the energy ratings of white
goods, then it was the trend of replacing inefficient lightbulbs. Then
it was double-glazed windows and home insulation to stop heat leaking
out into the street. When I was a kid, our family television – we
"only" had one – was a massive box that seemed to be two metres deep.
The screen was so small you had to sit really close to see anything.
Our car was a gas guzzler. Not a gas guzzler like we see with SUVs
today. My parents would never have bought one of those. No, our car
was secondhand and it was a "banger". It was inefficient: you could
hear the engine roar and feel it overheating. The miles per gallon
were terrible.

These massive strides in technology mean that we use much less energy
than we did in the past, despite appearing to lead much more
extravagant, energy-intensive lifestyles. The notion that we need to
be frugal to live a low-carbon life is simply wrong. In the UK, we now
emit about the same as someone in the 1850s. I emit the same as my
great-great-great-grandparents. And I have a much, much higher
standard of living.

Yet very few people know that emissions are falling. The climate
scientist Jonathan Foley recently polled his followers on Twitter [now
X]. He asked what had happened to emissions in the US over the past 15
years. Had they:

a) Increased by more than 20%
b) Increased by 10%
c) Stayed the same
d) Fallen by 20%

Thousands of people answered. Two-thirds of people picked a) or b).
Just 19% picked the correct answer d). No wonder people think we're
screwed.

Leaders no longer have to choose between climate action and providing
energy. The low-carbon choice is the economic one

We have a habit of underestimating how quickly things can change. Most
of us have been too pessimistic about renewable energy in the past,
even the experts. Part of the reason I thought that 2C was so far out
of reach was that I couldn't see how low-carbon energy could grow
quickly enough.

In just a decade between 2009 and 2019, solar photovoltaic and wind
energy went from the most to the least expensive source. The price of
electricity from solar has declined by 89%, and the price of onshore
wind has declined by 70%. They are now cheaper than coal. Leaders no
longer have to make the difficult choice between climate action and
providing energy for their people. The low-carbon choice has suddenly
become the economic one. It's staggering how quickly this change has
happened.

Poorer countries do not have to follow the fossil fuel-heavy and
unsustainable trajectories that rich countries did. They can leapfrog
the centuries-long journey that we've taken. And they don't have to
sacrifice human wellbeing or access to energy. In fact, by adopting
these technologies they can ensure that even more people have access
to affordable energy.

The huge progress being made in developing affordable low-carbon
alternatives to fossil fuels is just one counter to the doomsday
thinking of so much of the climate change conversation. It has become
too common to tell kids that they're going to die from climate change.
If a heatwave doesn't get them, then a wildfire will. Or a hurricane,
a flood or mass starvation. There is an intense feeling of anxiety and
dread among young people about what the planet has in store for us.

In my book, I look at realistic ways we can adapt the fields of
energy, transport, food and construction to rein in climate change
while improving human wellbeing at the same time. If we take several
steps back, we can see something truly radical, gamechanging and
life-giving: humanity is in a truly unique position to build a
sustainable world. Another reason some climate scientists are less
pessimistic is that they believe that things can change. The past few
decades have been an uphill battle for them. They've been mostly
ignored. Often they were the ones framed as apocalyptic scaremongers.
But, finally, the world has woken up to the reality of climate change
and people are taking action. The climate scientists know change is
possible because they've seen it happen. Against the odds, they've
driven much of it.

This is an edited extract from Not the End of the World: How We Can Be
the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet by Hannah Ritchie,
which will be published by Chatto & Windus on 11 January (£22). To
support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at
guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply

--

---
Recebeu esta mensagem porque está inscrito no grupo "Pensantes" dos Grupos do Google.

Para anular a subscrição deste grupo e parar de receber emails do mesmo, envie um email para pensantes1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Para ver este debate na Web, visite https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pensantes1/CACQGZqrhKoBzoOuN%2BWRjKnt-%2Bo%2BYZBBJsMGEYri%3DbWa-6xGgmw%40mail.gmail.com.

# Estudo revela que 86% dos jovens portugueses estão viciados nas redes sociais

https://observador.pt/2023/05/30/estudo-revela-que-86-dos-jovens-portugueses-estao-viciados-nas-redes-sociais/

Um estudo sobre o impacto das redes sociais na saúde mental revelou
que 86% dos jovens portugueses admitem estar viciados nestas
plataformas, um valor superior à média europeia (78%).

Agência Lusa Texto 30 mai. 2023, 08:46 ANDREJ CUKIC/EPA

Um estudo sobre o impacto das redes sociais na saúde mental revelou
que 86% dos jovens portugueses admitem estar viciados nestas
plataformas, um valor superior à média europeia (78%), e 90% já as
utilizam desde os 13 anos.

O estudo divulgado esta terça-feira, desenvolvido pela Dove em
Portugal, Reino Unido, Alemanha, França, Itália, Brasil, Estados
Unidos, Canadá, inquiriu 1.200 jovens e pais em Portugal. Concluiu que
80% dos jovens preferem comunicar pelas redes sociais, em vez de
pessoalmente, e considera que estas são para os seus pares uma parte
de si mesmos. Admitem, também, ficar aborrecidos se não puderem aceder
às plataformas.

Dois em cada cinco jovens reconhecem que as redes sociais têm impacto
negativo na sua saúde mental "muito por culpa dos conteúdos tóxicos a
que assistem", nomeadamente incentivos à automutilação (25%) e 90% já
foi exposto a conteúdos de beleza tóxicos, revela o estudo.

Cerca de metade (45%) observou conteúdos que incentivam comportamentos
de restrição ou distúrbio alimentar, 70% já consumiu informações que
os incentivaram a utilizar de forma excessiva filtros nas suas
fotografias e vídeos.

Três em cada quatro jovens viram conteúdos que mostravam "corpos
perfeitos e irrealistas" e dizem concordar que as redes sociais têm o
poder de os fazer querer mudar a sua aparência.

O trabalho agora conhecido é apoiado no lançamento de uma petição
internacional em colaboração com a Mental Health Europe, uma rede
europeia que trabalha na prevenção de problemas de saúde mental, que
pretende levar o tema da segurança 'online' dos jovens ao Parlamento
Europeu e legislar as redes sociais.

O estudo também analisou a visão dos pais sobre esta problemática,
tendo concluído que 48% se sentem culpados por não estarem a proteger
suficientemente bem os filhos daquilo que veem e ouvem diariamente
'online', 52% acredita que plataformas têm mais poder para moldar a
autoestima e a confiança dos seus filhos do que eles enquanto pais e
40% confirma que os conteúdos têm impacto negativo na saúde mental dos
filhos.

Mais de 85% dos pais concorda que as redes sociais precisam de mudar
para darem uma experiência mais positiva aos adolescentes e que é
necessário adotar leis para responsabilizar as plataformas pelos danos
que estão a causar à saúde mental dos jovens.

Comentando à agência Lusa estes dados, o psicólogo Eduardo Sá afirmou
o estudo se limita "a tornar mais visível" aquilo que os pais,
professores e os técnicos que trabalham com adolescentes observam, que
é "um acesso franco, prolongado e ilimitado às redes sociais sem
qualquer tutela por parte dos adultos", que acaba por ter, em muitos
aspetos, "um impacto francamente prejudicial na sua saúde mental".

O porta-voz do estudo destacou o facto de os adolescentes reconhecerem
ser viciados nas redes sociais e que "não encontram ninguém que, de
alguma forma, os proteja ou regularize a sua relação com elas".

O estudo realça também o modo como os adolescentes comunicam entre si,
que já não é de "viva voz" como acontecia há uma geração, mas
fundamentalmente através do digital e das redes sociais em que são
expostos a uma realidade que deveria "dar que pensar".

Por outro lado, disse o especialista em Saúde Familiar e Educação
Parental o estudo "deixou claro" que aquilo que os adolescentes acham
que é a realidade e aquilo que as redes sociais lhes trazem como
realidade acaba por ser confundido para eles, o que traz "distorções
significativas na sua formação".

"[O impacto] que as redes sociais têm, muitas vezes, na deformação dos
adolescentes, acaba por ser uma espécie de droga (…) e com o
assentimento dos pais e com consequências que, nalguns casos, são
manifestamente graves".

"Eles acabam por ter contacto com conteúdos que são de uma toxicidade
absolutamente fora do vulgar sobre a beleza. E esses conteúdos são tão
massivos, tão imersivos, que quando eles se comparam com estes modelos
que lhes chegam, evidentemente, que não têm como não se sentir
piores", vincou, considerando ser "uma situação muito preocupante".

O psicólogo salientou o papel que os pais devem ter nesta matéria:
"Nós, os pais, somos muito demissionários, muito mais do que era
suposto, sem medirmos as consequências que tudo isto tem na saúde
mental dos nossos filhos que, a curto, médio prazo, acaba por ficar
comprometida e nós temos a obrigação de intervir de outra forma porque
fica aqui todo um vazio que acaba por ser prejudicial".

"Portanto, aquilo que me preocupa não são tantos os adolescentes,
somos nós na definição de um conjunto de regras que eles precisam de
ter para que o seu crescimento seja protegido", rematou.

--

---
Recebeu esta mensagem porque está inscrito no grupo "Pensantes" dos Grupos do Google.

Para anular a subscrição deste grupo e parar de receber emails do mesmo, envie um email para pensantes1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Para ver este debate na Web, visite https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pensantes1/CACQGZqrnhJ23v%2BpNZh2f9MNSVKdv0%2BSTaCYg9spFQ%3DkOkkLN2w%40mail.gmail.com.

# Como se tornou viva a vida?

MEDITAÇÃO II

1. O universo espanta, assombra e esmaga o nosso entendimento. A Ciência não sabe como nasceu o universo, e sobretudo porquê. Pode alguma coisa vir do nada? Se o universo teve um começo, como defende a cosmologia científica do Big Bang, pergunta-se o que produziu esse começo. Os cosmólogos modernos parecem tão perturbados quanto os ateus sobre as potenciais implicações teológicas do seu trabalho. Alguns especulam que o universo emergiu do «nada». Mas o que é o « nada »? De onde surgem as leis da natureza? Porque temos estas leis e não um conjunto de leis diferentes? Como explicar que tenhamos um conjunto de leis que convertem gases inertes em vida, consciência e inteligência? A natureza aparece de tal forma ordenada, com regularidades tão matematicamente precisas e universais, que Einstein falou delas como «razão encarnada» e Mente de Deus. Afirmou o ateu Stephen Hawkins, na parte final da sua vida: «A impressão esmagadora é a existência de uma ordem. Quanto mais sabemos sobre o universo, mais percebemos que é governado por leis racionais». E noutra passagem: «Continuamos a ter pela frente a questão: porque é que o universo se dá ao trabalho de existir? Se quisermos podemos definir Deus como a resposta a esta pergunta». Cientistas geniais como Newton e Einstein, e mais recentemente os pais da Física Quântica, Max Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger e Paul Dira pronunciaram-se eloquentemente no sentido de uma íntima conexão entre as leis da natureza e a Mente de Deus. Os cientistas que falam de uma Inteligência Superior propõem uma visão da realidade que emerge do coração conceptual da ciência moderna e que se impõe à mente racional. O notável filósofo contemporâneo Antony Flew sustenta que se trata de uma visão imperiosa e irrefutável.

2. Como se tornou viva a vida? Questiona este filósofo. Como pode um universo de matéria inanimada produzir seres com propósitos intrínsecos, capacidade de replicação e com uma «química codificada»? Como surgiu o primeiro mecanismo genético? A vida só conseguiu sobreviver dadas as condições favoráveis do nosso planeta; mas não há lei da natureza que dê instruções à matéria para produzir entidades dirigidas para fins e que se auto-reproduzem. Como explicar a origem da vida? A ciência não sabe como começou, quando começou e em que circunstâncias. Em 2020, o geneticista e biólogo celular britânico Paul Nurse, Prémio Nobel, no livro que editou justamente com o título «O que é a Vida», sustenta que a vida deve ser definida com base em três princípios: a. A capacidade de evoluir mediante a selecção natural. Para evoluírem, os organismos vivos têm de se reproduzir, têm de possuir um sistema hereditário que exiba variabilidade; b. O segundo princípio diz que as formas de vida são entidades físicas delimitadas. Existem separadas dos seus ambientes, mas em íntima simbiose com eles. A vida na Terra pertence a um único ecossistema vastamente interligado que incorpora todos os organismos vivos; c. O terceiro princípio refere que as entidades vivas são máquinas químicas, físicas e informativas. Constroem o seu próprio metabolismo e utilizam-no para se sustentarem, para se desenvolverem e para se reproduzirem. Em conjunto, estes três princípios definem a vida tal como existe actualmente na Terra, e esta vida, sublinha o autor «começou apenas uma vez». Se toda a vida faz parte da mesma árvore genealógica, que tipo de semente originou essa árvore? Ou seja, como começou a vida? A esta interrogação crucial, Paul Nurce não faculta uma resposta cabal. Tece conjecturas sobre o tema, mas acaba por confessar ( pag. 151) : «é muito difícil saber o que estava a acontecer nos primórdios da vida». O fisiólogo George Wald, também vencedor de um Prémio Nobel argumentou, num comentário que ficou famoso, que «decidimos acreditar no impossível: que a vida surgiu espontaneamente, por acaso». Anos depois já sustentava que foi uma mente preexistente que constituiu um universo físico gerador de vida. Essa é também a posição de um lote notável de cientistas e de pensadores: a origem da vida encontrámo-la numa Mente infinitamente inteligente.

3. O que é a pessoa humana? Porque surgiu, e para que fim? Na visão materialista, o homem não difere do animal. Como este, não é um ser livre e indeterminado, mas exclusivamente prisioneiro de códigos genéticos e ambientais. Postula o materialismo que a vida do espírito é produzida e determinada pela matéria, pelo que o homem não constitui excepção no reino animal. Cabe perguntar: o animal é responsável, tem consciência moral, cuida dos mortos, utiliza a palavra ou símbolos na comunicação, faz perguntas, pode prometer, ri, odeia ou tortura em vão, contempla e cria beleza, ergue edifícios jurídicos, professa uma religião? É claro que não. O monismo físico não consegue explicar a excepcionalidade humana. O homem pertence a uma espécie singular e única no universo. Nas palavras de Pico della Mirandola: «Se dos animais se espera tudo aquilo que serão», a felicidade do ser humano vai no sentido de «ser aquilo que quer». Ou no entendimento de Ortega y Gasset: «O ser humano é feito de uma matéria tão estranha que em parte é aparentado com a natureza e em parte não, ao mesmo tempo natural e fora da natureza, de algum modo centauro ontológico com uma metade na natureza e uma outra que o transcende ».De facto, como sublinhou Oriana Fallaci «o bem e o mal não podem ser uma coisa meramente de hemoglobina e de clorofila». Não somos seres para a morte, como tanto insistiu a filosofia existencialista do século passado. Não aceito que não vimos de lado nenhum e que vamos para nenhum lado. Não acredito que nascemos por acaso, e que quando morremos nos extinguimos inexoravelmente. É antiquíssima a resistência humana ao destino niilista da vida, ao nada como origem e ao nada como destino. O pensamento do nascimento como iniciação e da morte como passagem sustentam, como afirma o teólogo Pierangelo Sequeri no seu livro «A Iniciação», que «não somos nada e que não acabaremos no nada». Somos, diz este teólogo, «uma paixão de Deus e não uma anomalia do Universo».

4. Num tempo em que impera um sentimento desesperado de orfandade num mundo que pretendeu abolir a Transcendência e substitui-la leviana e ingloriamente por sucessivas mitologias vazias e estéreis, como sublinhou George Steiner no seu famoso livro « Nostalgia do Absoluto», desde o marxismo, à psicologia freudiana, à antropologia de Lévi-Strauss e às mistificações orientais, a que eu acrescentaria, mais recentemente, a insanidade e o delírio do wokismo, o ser humano vai acabar por regressar às origens. Sondemos a profundidade da nossa intimidade. É aí que se joga o nosso futuro. É aí que travamos a luta entre o conhecimento e a ignorância, entre o bem e o mal, entre o amor e a indiferença, entre o justo e o injusto, entre a matéria e o espírito. É aí que podemos buscar a bússola que orienta, a candeia que ilumina e o bordão que nos ajuda a soerguer quando tombamos nos caminhos da vida. É aí que sabemos quem somos, e para onde caminha a caravana onde nos integramos. É aí que reconhecemos que a vida tem um desígnio, tem sentido. E que a morte é uma passagem para outra margem. É aí que então entendemos, com Dostoievsky, que « somos cidadãos da eternidade». E com Goethe, que «a vida é a infância da imortalidade». E com Fernando Pessoa que «morrer é apenas não ser visto. Morrer é a curva da estrada». Porque, como afirma Maria Zambrano no seu livro «O Homem e o Divino» no ser humano resplandece a sede e o anseio de uma vida divina sem deixar de ser humana, uma vida divina que o homem parece ter tido sempre como modelo prévio…». Como esta autora, entendo que o ser humano tem sede do sagrado e da transcendência, porque é obra divina. Quando se busca Deus, esvai-se o sentimento de orfandade. Por outro lado, « somos parasitas numa partícula do universo que é a Terra», assim se exprime Bertrand Russell no seu magistral conto « O Pesadelo do Teólogo». Insignificantes que somos, e profundamente ignorantes, porque preferimos a jactância à humildade, a soberba à modéstia, a arrogância à simplicidade? Porque tentamos ser deuses na nossa incomensurável pequenez e na nossa absoluta e arrasadora insignificância?

Dinis Freitas

(texto publicado no Facebook em 2023.05.20)

--

---
Recebeu esta mensagem porque subscreveu ao grupo "Pensantes" do Grupos do Google.
Para anular a subscrição deste grupo e parar de receber emails do mesmo, envie um email para pensantes1+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Para ver este debate na Web, visite https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pensantes1/CACQGZqoKhm5rC_RG16S5-jWUffcfuXtN8TvEedAUrQgjPRUv8g%40mail.gmail.com.