Some other observations:

First, this was in a "ghost town", says the article. Presumably there were buildings, in whatever kind of shape they might be. There was water, which the kids did have to tote. There would have been food; otherwise, the articles without a question of a doubt would have pointed out a possibility of starvation.   So the kids had shelter, water, and food for their forty days.

As pointed out earlier, there were a lot of adults who were obviously well aware of what was going on, the kids' physical condition, etc. When there were mishaps, medical care was provided.

All the kids (and their parents!) were aware of these things, and consented. None of these kids were dragged there by kidnappers.

From what was said in the articles (and more importantly, what was not said!) in the end no one was oppressed by a sadistic reign of terror among the kids, a la Lord of the Flies.

The two mishaps cited--grease spatter burns while cooking and a kid mistakenly mixing a chemical into a drink--could have happened at home or camp. In the event, neither seems to have resulted in any permanent harm, probably due to the medical help that was right at hand.

The mama who complained is trying to place on others the guilt she retroactively feels for her having agreed to place her child in a situation she now decides was risky.   

While the words "reality TV" are used, this is far unlike such shows as Survivor, which are set up to induce actual conflict or at least stress and strain among participants. As I read the articles, it seems, since the idea was that the kids were to set up a government (which the kids knew beforehand) and regulate themselves, the concept from the beginning was cooperation. And then kids (and parents) knowing this, could be expected to result in a population of kids skewed toward the brighter and more responsible end of the spectrum.

I honestly don't see where there's any room to complain.


Dave Oesterreich