[Unthinking Majority]

Because the child's cattle-like parents "followed a trend" and moved to an isolated bungalow in the middle of nowhere.

(IMPORTANT) And if the parents refuse to drive the child to all the activities that he would have been able to walk or bike to in a pre-car-industry-altered city... the child will grow up without the necessary social skills to lead a healthy life of self-actualization.

And if one of the parents becomes a designated driver, the kids will not learn independence and autonomy at the age that kids are supposed to learn these basic life-skills (8 - 11)

That you don't seem to care about the lower quality of life that children have in automobile suburbs... really puts into question your ostensible "love" of children.

You want to get rid of technology, which includes medicine, and therefore vastly increase the child/infant mortality rate. You want billions of people to die. Kids used to die from diarrhea and infections and a gazillion diseases all the time and you're worried about smartphones.

Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with other kids. Suburbs are packed and filled with children. Kids make their own activities, this is called "playing". I had lots of friends in my neighbourhood growing up. We rode around on our bikes, it was fun.

[QatzelOk]

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with other kids. Suburbs are packed and filled with children. ...

The idea that low-density suburbs are "packed" is counter-intuitive and illogical.

People were brainwashed by mass media into desiring "lots of open space" because cars require a lower density in order to find parking spots.

Children require a safe street in which to roam. They haven't had this since the road lobbyists destroyed all our public places by filling them with machines that easily kill children.

That cars kill 10,000 American children per year... means that childhood play is often receives THE DEATH PENALTY, which is the extreme opposite of "encourageing childhood socialization."