I think this is an example of limited perspective. I spent two recent summers working with kids ages 9-17 and was delighted at their curiosity, brightness, and willingness to get involved in elaborate conversations. Granted, the older kids were also trying to get in each others' pants, but that's the fun of being a kid, right?

I don't mind the social networking junk too much either; it's detrimental in the short term but everybody I know is getting weary of how pointless it is. I've been reading A. S. Neill's fantastic Summerhill School, where he details the things he learned after 50 years of teaching children, and he argues that letting children play is essential to their growing up properly. Freedom to play eventually leads to kids deciding what they most enjoy doing, and it leads to them being more willing to work within their society. Since reading that, I've wondered if social networks aren't just our modern form of play: useless wastes of time objectively, but people will move on from them and find better things to do.

(I hope. Facebook/the status feed are still only half a decade old. If five more years pass and everybody's still just as hooked, we've got a problem; I think we'll see feed obsession subside, but I could very well be wrong.)

> Most kids that I encounter now don't even bother to ask why or how a specific thing works. This kid gives me a lot of hope:)

It is really up to the parents. Extreme example, I remember having lunch with my cousins and one of them asked how a microwave worked. The dad, an engineer for IBM, disappeared and returned with a magnetron from his basement workshop. And then told his sons exactly how a microwave works.

The eldest son is now an undergraduate studying physics. He was about ten at the time of the question.

As a lesser example, my sister (who is not a Ph.D. like my cousins' father), loves BrainPop. BrainPop makes science fun without getting into too-many of the nitty-gritty details. Which is enough, when you are just 5.

http://www.brainpop.com/topics

I think it's also a cycle. If a parent is repeatedly dismissive of a child's questions, the child is conditioned not to ask them, and so becomes less inquisitive as a result of nurture. It's clearly not nature, as the generation isn't intrinsically different. Parents don't necessarily need to do something like the extreme example mentioned above, but they could certainly plant a seed by being more open to a lot of "Why?"'s, as annoying as it can be.

I subscribe to this theory. My rules are: always answer a 'why' question without dismissal, unless it is repeated continuously as a game. Rule 2: always tell the truth, even if it is somewhat over the Childs ability to understand. I do not make things like fairies and magic up, except as an obvious fantasy story, and everything from gravity to stars and farming and manufacturing is explained to the best of my ability. I am constantly told how smart my son is, which I accept graciously, but in my head I like to say - that's because I don't fill his head with superstitious bullshit. One of my clearest memories of childhood was the constant disappointment of finding adults had been feeding me crap for years, either out of laziness or ignorance.

Reminds me of:

"Children in professional families are talked to three times as much as the average child in a welfare family," Hart says.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132740565/closing-the-achievem...

> The sad thing that I find is that some of the younger generation now do not have the same amount of curiosity and imagination that we had when we were younger.

I'm willing to bet some of your generation did not have the same amount of curiosity and imagination you did when you were younger.

I think the scarcity of tools and resources are also a problem. At least in my case ;)