OTOH, it could be that modern kids are more risk-averse, conformist and acquiescent to paternalistic control; or it could be increasd neoteny, where independence of thought and action is being delayed until later.
I, for one, don't want youth to blindly accept the conventions of their elders and meekly conform to the way things are. I'd like to see more metrics around positive aspects of nonconformity rather than just the negative, and see if we're losing both ends of the spectrum here.
While I would also be interested in more data about conformity (or otherwise) today, when I look at statistics like lower drug use, etc. I don't see conformism. I see better critical thinking skills and perhaps more developed prevention programs in schools. I'd also be interested in looking at the rate of these actions under the care of parents who engage in them on a regular basis, to really identify whether there is a difference between positive social choices and conformism.
At a glance, it seems nice. Less hard drugs, less pregnancy.... But in the big picture, I'm not sure I want a generation full of wimps. It sounds like the beginning of enslavement to me.
Plus, what about soft drugs and prescription drugs? You can't tell me those numbers are down. Two other things that frequently lead to pacification!
>Less hard drugs, less pregnancy.... But in the big picture, I'm not sure I want a generation full of wimps. It sounds like the beginning of enslavement to me.
What? How does enslavement follow from lower rates of teen pregnancy? Perhaps it just mean higher usage rates of contraceptives, which is backed by evidence. It might also imply that young women are choosing to be more independent.
I worded the post poorly. I was saying that those things are great, but the overall thesis is one of pacified teens who are too fat, lazy, and unmotivated to go do interesting things.
For some, those interesting things are sex drugs and rock'n'roll, which you'll all agree are bad. For others, those interesting things translate to youth leadership, contact sports, and other things that make boys into men.
All I see when I am with American kids is a whole bunch of iGaming on iDevices and SnapChatting under the watchful eye of overprotective soccer moms who are doping them up with garbage food and SSRIs.
Good luck with all that in 20-40 years if China, Russia, or the Muslim world decide to make aggressive battle-tested men.
> For some, those interesting things are sex drugs and rock'n'roll, which you'll all agree are bad. For others, those interesting things translate to youth leadership, contact sports, and other things that make boys into men.
Sex, drugs and rock'n'roll are purely hedonistic. I don't know how you can see them helping build positive qualities.
I figure the next generation is always going to be different, whether it's more conservative or more liberal, or that they use weird apps on their iDevices. You have to make your peace with that.
Trying to paint everyone of a generation with the same brush is lazy just an excuse to be resentful.
I haven't spent that much time around teenagers in about ten years. Those that I knew then were rarely fat or unmotivated. The kids I see on the bus, including those going to what suspect is a mediocre high school, appear reasonably fit.
The soccer moms may be big on medication, but I think that garbage food is for a different economic stratum.
I definitely missed a connective thought in that comment. I am not saying hard drugs are good. I am saying the movement to soft and prescription drugs is just another form of weakness.
To me, (and this will grab more downvotes), the alarming part of that data is the idea that "less fighting" is good. There are certain behaviors that I feel are good for teenagers. Teens not fighting = teens not being teens, for whatever reason that may be.
I don't see why teens not fighting would mean teens are "not being teens".
Also what do you mean by fighting?
I don't perceive 'teens' to be being particularly passive? (Though, for around 3 more months the term applies to me, so that might change my perspective.)
Seems like survivorship bias to me. Just because kids used to fight, and turned out OK doesn't mean that fighting was a necessary part of their success.
Agreed, except smoking. Can we agree, smoking isn't a good idea anymore? I lost 20 years of healthy life for a wasteful addiction and it started in 1991 when I was 16.
>>I lost 20 years of healthy life for a wasteful addiction and it started in 1991 when I was 16.
Do you mean you smoked for 20 years, or that you lost 20 years of lifespan due to smoking?
If it's the latter, I remember reading in a medical study that the adverse health effects of smoking are mostly reversed several years after the person stops smoking. :)
Maybe it was the amount of money lost spending on cigarettes all those years? (Not just the money itself, but think of the possible investment returns if it had been invested instead of smoked.)
I used to be a reasonably heavy drinker, then I quit more or less cold turkey, didn't drink a drop for over 6 months, and even though I've now gone back to drinking a bit, I'm very careful now to limit my intake to well within the health guidelines (i.e. no more than one or two a night, no more than a couple of nights a week). Not only has this done good things for my health, it's done great things for my finances.
I seem to recall it being that one's risk of lung cancer due to smoking drops to being very close to a non-smoker's risk after refraining from smoking for 10 years.
Other damage is certainly done to the lungs that can cause other issues--emphysema, cardiovascular problems, etc--but the risk from the "scariest" threat out there is greatly diminished.
People are drinking way more to compensate for that. I prefer that people kill themselves instead of killing others (in traffic accidents related to alcohol, etc.)
>>People are drinking way more to compensate for that.
Very interesting. Are there statistics that demonstrate this? Specifically, are people really drinking more, and if so, how do we know it is to compensate for reduced smoking?
Keep in mind that the society they are conforming to is much more open-minded, tolerant, and freethinking. It is possible that earlier "rebellious" generations have done some work in toppling barriers, and those positive effects are long-lasting in such a way that future generations can simply benefit from and enjoy them.
I, for one, don't want youth to blindly accept the conventions of their elders and meekly conform to the way things are. I'd like to see more metrics around positive aspects of nonconformity rather than just the negative, and see if we're losing both ends of the spectrum here.