←back to thread

349 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
forgotoldacc ◴[] No.45652698[source]
There was a period of a few decades (I guess still ongoing, really) where parents sheltered their kids from everything. Playing in the dirt, peanuts, other allergens. It seems like all it's done is make people more vulnerable as adults. People assume babies are super fragile and delicate, and in many ways they are, but they also bounce back quickly.

Maybe part of it is a consequence of the risks of honey, which can actually spawn camp infants with botulism. But it seems that fear spread to everything.

replies(15): >>45652771 #>>45652783 #>>45652794 #>>45652797 #>>45652805 #>>45652895 #>>45652915 #>>45652932 #>>45652940 #>>45653026 #>>45653220 #>>45653240 #>>45653724 #>>45654155 #>>45664493 #
1. SideburnsOfDoom ◴[] No.45653240[source]
> where parents sheltered their kids from everything. It seems like all it's done is make people more vulnerable as adults.

I don't agree that this is "all" that it has done.

There are many cases where reducing exposure as much as possible is the correct thing to do. Lead is the best-known example.

As the other reply pointed out, the second-order effect, the nuance that comes later is that sometimes this isn't the right thing to do.

But it would be basically incorrect to reduce it to blanket, binary, "all good" vs "all bad" black-or-white conclusions, just because the there is a smaller course correction when it's found out to be not entirely good. Concluding that "all it's done is cause problems" is a knee-jerk reaction.