4 ms·

The fundamental problem seems to be that of parents making choices that either benefit primarily them at the expense of their children or benefit their children

The fundamental problem seems to be that of parents making choices that either benefit primarily them at the expense of their children or benefit their children only if they grow up to be exactly like their parents. This is somewhat unusual (one would assume that most parents would place their children before themselves), and it appears to be a trait common to many cultures in the third world (i.e., in addition to biased gender ratio, indoctrination of children into the tradition/religion/culture of their parents, child labor, arranged marriage, having lots more children than is sustainable to be "competitive" with other families and to ensure help from your offspring into the old age as a kind of "life/health insurance"). I wonder whether availability of medical care and better retirement plans is a strong predictor of how much "child exploitation" by whatever measure is taking place. We don't have slavery anymore, and we have had emancipation of women in many places, yet most of the world has never had the emancipation of the future generation.

sudont 16y ago
This is common thinking with everyone. My parents thought I should rather be a janitor, or maybe a shop mechanic than a developer because it would be "good, steady work" and I wouldn't have to move away to find a job. Utterly stupid, even the people I worked with on a paving crew said programing was a better career than anything else. Remember, one of the arguments against not having children is "who will take care of you when you're old?" But on your point about "emancipation of the future generation." There will never be such a thing, due to the inherent selfishness of a population. This is why adoption is not a big deal: even if it's not you're genes, it's still your mores being instilled on the next generation of your tribe. Which is why the fear of racial shift is so idiotic: in fifty years we Americans will still be loud, stupid jerks no matter what our skin color.
- bluekeybox 16y ago
  > on your point about "emancipation of the future generation." There will never be such a thing... Agree on your other points, but disagree on this one. I think such "emancipation" of the young at least partially has happened in the developed countries (although it is rarely talked about in terms I describe it). It was enabled first by modern education (kids spending more time with their peers grouped by age and being taught arts and sciences in school as prescribed by government standards and not by their parents), and second by the spread of communication technologies (first by television and mass media, then by the Internet and the cell phones). I don't think it has fully happened though because many important (from my perspective) things such as personal finance management, political awareness etc. are not taught to high school-level students assuming they are either "too young," or leaving that area for their parents to teach, which ultimately contributes to much more financial and political weight being wielded by the older generation. See modern Japan for an example why too much power in the hands of the older generation may not be desirable.
  - sudont 16y ago
    You've got a good point, however I think the lengthening and restructuring of adolescence is being counteracted by the disenfranchisement of the youth: by the time that someone is old enough to have any power to change things, they've been steeped in the culture long enough to have accepted it. Every generation is rebellious in youth, and conservative in age. The problem is that the lengthening of youth means that it's easier for the ruling gerontocracy to remember the pathways to rebellious ideology, and board that up.
    - bluekeybox 16y ago
      > Every generation is rebellious in youth, and conservative in age That's a common thing to say, but it only touches upon appearances. What does the older generation have to rebel against if it is already its own source of authority? On the other hand, as soon as the 14-year olds develop their own source of authority separate from that of their parents, teachers, etc., they are labeled as unstable psychotic teens and measures are taken to make them conform. Being a Nietzschian, I am strongly of an opinion that, "once a rebel, always a rebel," and it may well be that the baby-boomer generation will have set the mark for generational rebellion that will not be surpassed by their children or grand children.

sudont 16y ago

This is common thinking with everyone. My parents thought I should rather be a janitor, or maybe a shop mechanic than a developer because it would be "good, steady work" and I wouldn't have to move away to find a job. Utterly stupid, even the people I worked with on a paving crew said programing was a better career than anything else. Remember, one of the arguments against not having children is "who will take care of you when you're old?" But on your point about "emancipation of the future generation." There will never be such a thing, due to the inherent selfishness of a population. This is why adoption is not a big deal: even if it's not you're genes, it's still your mores being instilled on the next generation of your tribe. Which is why the fear of racial shift is so idiotic: in fifty years we Americans will still be loud, stupid jerks no matter what our skin color.

bluekeybox 16y ago
> on your point about "emancipation of the future generation." There will never be such a thing... Agree on your other points, but disagree on this one. I think such "emancipation" of the young at least partially has happened in the developed countries (although it is rarely talked about in terms I describe it). It was enabled first by modern education (kids spending more time with their peers grouped by age and being taught arts and sciences in school as prescribed by government standards and not by their parents), and second by the spread of communication technologies (first by television and mass media, then by the Internet and the cell phones). I don't think it has fully happened though because many important (from my perspective) things such as personal finance management, political awareness etc. are not taught to high school-level students assuming they are either "too young," or leaving that area for their parents to teach, which ultimately contributes to much more financial and political weight being wielded by the older generation. See modern Japan for an example why too much power in the hands of the older generation may not be desirable.
- sudont 16y ago
  You've got a good point, however I think the lengthening and restructuring of adolescence is being counteracted by the disenfranchisement of the youth: by the time that someone is old enough to have any power to change things, they've been steeped in the culture long enough to have accepted it. Every generation is rebellious in youth, and conservative in age. The problem is that the lengthening of youth means that it's easier for the ruling gerontocracy to remember the pathways to rebellious ideology, and board that up.
  - bluekeybox 16y ago
    > Every generation is rebellious in youth, and conservative in age That's a common thing to say, but it only touches upon appearances. What does the older generation have to rebel against if it is already its own source of authority? On the other hand, as soon as the 14-year olds develop their own source of authority separate from that of their parents, teachers, etc., they are labeled as unstable psychotic teens and measures are taken to make them conform. Being a Nietzschian, I am strongly of an opinion that, "once a rebel, always a rebel," and it may well be that the baby-boomer generation will have set the mark for generational rebellion that will not be surpassed by their children or grand children.