Nature-Deficit Disorder - A discussion on Richard Louv's excerpt

                                                                                             (Source)

Quote 1:"...detachment of education from the physical world not only coincided with dramatic rise in life-threatening childhood obesity..."

I completely agree with this statement made by Richard Louv. Physical is an essential part in any school environment. I remember when I was younger and taking PE classes, I would look forward to those classes to get some fresh air and blow some steam while I prepared for the next round of school-related tasks. Big companies like Google and Apple let their employees relax and have fun in the work environment because it has been proven that it helps with work productivity and creativity. Additionally, physical education courses help children learn about how to eat correctly and how to stay active. Some children end up displaying athletic talent and they should be able to learn more about physical activity so that they can pursue their interests. 

Quote 2:"For many of us, intuition emphatically asserts that nature is good for children."

I don't agree with this statement because it's relying on intuition to prove something scientific. You can't just say that nature is good for children. No focus is put on the activities that the children are engaged in once outside. One could state that one cure for ADHD is physical activity or to engage in constructive tasks in lieu of watching television shows. The author did not state any research on children performing the same activities they do outside in a different environment with less vegetation. Whether or not this type of research exists, the results of such an experiment would help aid those who wish to prove that nature is good for children.

Quote 3:"To take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen"

I don't understand why the author would make this correlation. It seems as if the author is attempting to employ a scare tactic to further prove his point. The author is also attempting to describe the effects of nature on ADHD. Why is he now preposing that a lack of nature leads to suffocation? I don't understand how they both correlate and feel that the author should have taken this statement out. The statement could have also been replaced to something more appropriate and less extreme.