2026 / Children, Environmental Generational Amnesia

Reflections on: The Importance of Children Interacting with Big Nature

Citation

Kahn, P.H., Jr. (2026). Reflections on: The Importance of Children Interacting with Big Nature. Children, Youth and Environments 36, 9-11. dx.doi.org/10.1353/cye.2026.a992694.

Link to file

In their 2017 article “The Importance of Children Interacting with Big Nature,” researchers Kahn and Weiss argued that environmental generational amnesia (EGA) is one of the most urgent psychological problems of our time.

Here’s how EGA works: Every generation of children is born into a natural world that’s more damaged, fragmented, and diminished than the one before. But here’s the catch — people don’t realize it. As kids, we treat whatever nature we grow up around as normal, as the healthy baseline. It’s hard enough to solve big environmental problems when we clearly see them. It’s nearly impossible when we barely notice them at all.

In more recent work (Kahn, in press), Kahn reviews the evidence for EGA. The research is still limited, but the findings consistently support the idea across different environments and cultures. Kahn also expands the theory, showing that EGA is a tragic example of what developmental psychologist Jean Piaget called constructivism — the idea that children build their understanding of the world based on what’s around them. The problem is, when what’s around them is a degraded natural world, kids end up with knowledge that makes sense internally but is out of step with ecological reality.

Kahn also distinguishes EGA from two similar ideas: Diamond’s (2005) “Landscape Amnesia” and Pauly’s (1995) “Shifting Baseline Syndrome.” Neither of those concepts fully accounts for how powerfully childhood experiences shape our sense of normal. Both assume that historical records and current information can help us correct course. EGA is less hopeful: because the amnesia is rooted in what we experienced as young children, it runs much deeper and is harder to shake.

Looking ahead, Kahn points to two possible solutions to EGA — ideas that were just taking shape in the 2017 article and that he’s been developing further in his academic work.

Abstract

In “The Importance of Children Interacting with Big Nature” (Kahn & Weiss, 2017), Thea Weiss and I wrote that the problem of environmental generational amnesia (EGA) was one of the most pressing psychological problems of our lifetime. EGA happens in this way: With each new generation, children are born into an increasingly diminished, fractured, and partly destroyed natural world. Do we know that? No, because as children we take the nature we encounter as the baseline, the norm for what counts as healthy nature. It is difficult enough to address large-scale environmental problems when we clearly recognize them; it becomes ever more difficult when we barely recognize them, or do not notice them at all.

In recent work (Kahn, in press), I review the empirical evidence for EGA. The body of research is still modest, but the findings in support are consistent across diverse ecological and cultural contexts. I also extend EGA’s theory, showing that it represents a tragic success of Piagetian constructivism. Children build cognitive structures around available external input, as Piaget established, but when that input is an increasingly impoverished natural world, the result is internally coherent yet ecologically misaligned and maladaptive knowledge. I also differentiate EGA from related constructs, including Diamond’s (2005) Landscape Amnesia and Pauly’s (1995) Shifting Baseline Syndrome. Neither construct reckons with the force of childhood baseline construction. Thus, both hold that the historical record and current knowledge can reasonably correct course. EGA is less optimistic: its roots in early childhood phenomenological experience make the amnesia more deeply entrenched.

Here, looking forward, I would like to note two solutions to the problem of EGA, which were in their more nascent form in the 2017 article, and which I’ve been extending in my scholarly work.