Growing up in the 80s as a child with lots of siblings, I played in the street until dark or until we were called for dinner. We had an amazing community of neighbours. However, one elderly neighbour hated us. Every time the football went into her garden, she would confiscate it – and then pop the ball. When she collected over 20 deflated footballs, she would take them down to the police station and complain. To her, at least, free and active children were a pest and a disgrace.

Actually, at that time, nothing but one stopped us playing: the shattering of a window and the scream of a parent coming outside to tell us off. On reflection, I was probably part of the last generation of children to play outside regularly. Now in London, the estate I live in is covered with historic signs saying: “No ball games”.

The signs function as a play ban for children. Even during the summer, there are only a couple of rebels who dare to play football on the street. They get my nod and a kick of the ball back when it comes in my direction.

The problem is, many people don’t know that these signs are not enforceable by law: they are simply a request from local housing associations.

Of course, if people are kicking the ball against someone’s house or out on the streets making noise late at night, it would be considered criminal damage and antisocial behaviour – and quite right. But most of the time the signs are just preventing children from playing.

The London Sport charity has recommended that these signs are removed. I agree - let’s burn them all. But I do think it is simplistic to imagine banning the signs will combat a national obesity epidemic.

The Active Lives Survey shows that just 47% of children in England are getting the recommended 60 minutes or more of sport and physical activity a day. Removing “No ball games” signs doesn’t mean that the other 53% of children will feel motivated to venture outside and play.

The Active Lives Survey also suggests that boys are more likely to be active than girls. Perhaps boys are still given more activity opportunities. The Lionesses(英格兰女足)win at the Euros football tournament highlighted the lack of opportunities for girls in football and inequitable sports curriculums in schools.

Children and young people of black, Asian and other minority ethnicities are least likely to be active. Perhaps because racism in sport is alive and kicking?

In addition, access to sport and physical activity is a social justice issue that depends on location and financial circumstances. For a child from an economically disadvantaged background, who lives in a high-rise flat with little green space around, the costs and practicalities of participating in sport are prohibitive. For example, a weekend tennis court costs anywhere between £10 and £27, without travel or equipment.

So, while we can burn all the “No ball games” signs in the country, the real barrier to combating low activity levels in children is social inequality. What really needs to happen to get our children moving?

Smart phones are greatly changing the way we walk down the street. Office workers and young people are walking like the old as they check emails and messages.

Scientists have found mobile phones make us walk more slowly, with modest steps, to avoid falling over. The leader of the study said the walk is just like someone in their eighties. Researchers found people writing a text message walk more than twice as slowly as those without a phone, finding it harder to stay in a straight line.

The scientists examined 252 people walking while reading a text message, writing one, speaking on their phones or without their phones at all. Writing a text is the hardest activity, causing people to look down at their phone 46 percent more, and 45 percent longer, than when reading a message. This led people to walk 118 per cent more slowly than when they were without their phones. People walked almost a third more slowly while reading a text and 19 per cent while talking on the phone.

Smart phones were found to stop people from walking in a straight line, putting them at greater risk of running into other people, cars or street lamps. This increased the need to slow down and take more careful steps.

John Timmis said the idea for this study came from following someone walking down the street in the afternoon, who was walking as if he had had several drinks. I thought it was a bit early for that, then walked up alongside him and saw that he was on his phone. Simply being on the phone changes the way people walk.

On May 1, 1926, Ford Motor Company became one of the first American companies to adopt a five-day, 40-hour week. It was something workers and labor unions had been calling for. However, the five-day workweek was to increase productivity. With more time and money, workers were expected to buy and use the products they were making. Manufacturers soon followed Ford’s lead, and the Monday-to-Friday workweek became standard practice.

Since then, everything has changed but the hours. Many people worked longer, which severely influenced health and well-being, as well as the environment. Until the Second World War, it was common for one person in a family, usually the oldest male, to work full-time. Women gradually made up 42 percent of the world’s full-time workforce. Later, technology made lots of work unnecessary, with computers and robots doing many tasks previously performed by humans.

Well into the 21st century, we continue to work the same long hours as 20th century laborers, using up more of Earth’s supply to produce more goods that we must keep working to buy, use and replace in a seemingly endless cycle of hard work and consumption. It’s time to pause and consider better ways to live like shifting from fossil-fueled lifestyles with which our consumer-based workweeks are connected.

The UK New Economics Foundation argues that a standard 21-hour workweek would address a number of interconnected problems: overwork, unemployment, over-consumption, high carbon emissions, low well-being, and the lack of time to live sustainably, to care for each other, and simply to enjoy life. Economic systems that require constant growth on a finite (有限的) planet make no sense. It’s time for a change in our economic thinking.