Society vs Nature

[arnquist]

[林愛偉]

Edited October 11, 2007 by 林愛偉

[VeeCee]

I think there is a big difference between being physically ready to have children and being emotionally ready to have children. Most people under the age of 20 simply are not emotionally ready for that level of responsibility. I was 35 when I had my daughter, and it was still a big adjustment. I think one of the things that is different now days is that we have a much longer life span - nearly twice as long as it used to be. What has happened is there is a very long extended adolesence - well into the 20's. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are physically ready for sex in their teens. I think society needs to accept that and take the responsibility for teaching safe sex rather than abstinance (which is the same thing as sticking your head in the sand IMO).

Edited October 11, 2007 by VeeCee

[林愛偉]

I think there is a big difference between being physically ready to have children and being emotionally ready to have children.

 

 

Agreed!

 

I would like to add...Wise enough to have children

[Mal]

I would like to add...Wise enough to have children

 

It took us over 2 years to decide if we were responsible enough to get our kittens!

 

We will never be ready for kids

[Leidee]

Many interesting ideas, arnquist. Not entirely sure I agree with any of your assumptions!

Edited October 11, 2007 by Leidee

[joeblast]

I think there is a big difference between being physically ready to have children and being emotionally ready to have children. Most people under the age of 20 simply are not emotionally ready for that level of responsibility. I was 35 when I had my daughter, and it was still a big adjustment. I think one of the things that is different now days is that we have a much longer life span - nearly twice as long as it used to be. What has happened is there is a very long extended adolesence - well into the 20's. But that doesn't change the fact that most people are physically ready for sex in their teens. I think society needs to accept that and take the responsibility for teaching safe sex rather than abstinance (which is the same thing as sticking your head in the sand IMO).

I'm 31 and still feel like I'm on extended adolescence at times I honestly never wanted kids, but having it happen before you're 18 kinda changes your perspective. I couldnt imagine how different my life would be without my son...he's 13 now and almost as big as I am!

In some ways it has been good, in others its left me fairly disoriented. I have so many more ideas about parenting now (lol...now that I have been through a decent portion...) as opposed to before...but moving forward inadvertently always has large amounts of gray area! (I've already given him the 'wrap it!' talk )

[Lozen]

Check out the book "Sex, Lies and Menopause" if you have time.

[gendao]

Actually, a woman's cervix these days doesn't really mature until her early 20s. So, 23 is about the optimum time to pop one out.

 

Although, I agree that earlier is probably better than later for the baby. Risk of birth defects definitely goes up with the age of the mom.

 

This is why I say in a Taoist government, these types of things would be well-studied and publicized. When it comes to family planning, the populace should be educated on optimal biological ages to bear children, etc.

[Pietro]

Thanks for the interesting seed for discussion.

 

WHile therre is a lot that I could say about it and philosophize, I think I will say something that really might be a different perspective.

 

Let's talk about scaling laws. Scaling laws are those relations that by looking at what your size is, can predict how long will you live, how much is your blood pumping, its pressure, how much do you breath, and so on. For example it has been known for quite a long time that number of heartbeats in a lifetime is pretty much constant between different species. Oh, yes, those are all average quantities, averaged over a whole specie. So I can predict how much will on average live a 0.1 kg creature, just by knowing its weight, and so on. Those are laws that span through many orders of magnitude, maeaning they are equally true for the smallest multicellular being, as for the biggest mammalian. We knew about some of them from a long time, but now for the first time we are starting to have a theory about why it is so. And because of the theory we are discovering a lot more. And extending the work in many other places, like looking at scaling laws between cities, and so on.

The person who really brought this work on is Geoffrey West (Santa Fe Institute). In my memory Geoffrey is the person, that when I asked him how could I learn more about his work, he answered: "Any of my nature papers will do". Any... Wow.

 

Well, one of the scaling laws predicts the amount of energy that is consumed by a creature. Another when is on average its reproduction time. And since those two are related between them, knowing one you can know the other. Well, the average reproduction time for a chimpanzee of our size, is about 13 years, give or take a couple. But we don't consume any more the energy of a 65 kg chimpanzee. We, with out house, our car, and so on, consume about the energy of a small whale. So each of us, in the west, is like a small whale. Now the reproduction time for a small whale is about 35 years, so we are absolutely inside nature when we reproduce at 35.

 

And why is it so? Why scaling laws, are a big topic and I remind the interested reader to any of Geoffrey Nature paper (there is actually an mp3 of him giving a lesson on the web). But this particular effect you could think of it as: the more we become big, the more we need time to grow before reaching an adult (according to our society size). This is when you have a house, a car, a job, and generally are an ok member of society, not needing mommy or daddy to support you anymore. This takes time. To grow from 65 kg, to the tons needed through the external objects that you need to own, and to learn how to control all your external body takes time. So at 13 a kid is not fully formed anymore, does not know how to control what will become his external body, and is surely not ready to have kids. At 35 he is, and this is why we reproduce at 35.

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1187290,00.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/94

[VeeCee]

Well, one of the scaling laws predicts the amount of energy that is consumed by a creature. Another when is on average its reproduction time. And since those two are related between them, knowing one you can know the other. Well, the average reproduction time for a chimpanzee of our size, is about 13 years, give or take a couple. But we don't consume any more the energy of a 65 kg chimpanzee. We, with out house, our car, and so on, consume about the energy of a small whale. So each of us, in the west, is like a small whale. Now the reproduction time for a small whale is about 35 years, so we are absolutely inside nature when we reproduce at 35.

 

And why is it so? Why scaling laws, are a big topic and I remind the interested reader to any of Geoffrey Nature paper (there is actually an mp3 of him giving a lesson on the web). But this particular effect you could think of it as: the more we become big, the more we need time to grow before reaching an adult (according to our society size). This is when you have a house, a car, a job, and generally are an ok member of society, not needing mommy or daddy to support you anymore. This takes time. To grow from 65 kg, to the tons needed through the external objects that you need to own, and to learn how to control all your external body takes time. So at 13 a kid is not fully formed anymore, does not know how to control what will become his external body, and is surely not ready to have kids. At 35 he is, and this is why we reproduce at 35.

 

Very interesting, Pietro. Thanks for sharing!

[Pietro]

Very interesting, Pietro. Thanks for sharing!

Yes, I was totally blown away by his work when I saw his first speach. I see him as the guy who is giving birth to a new biology. One that has predictive abilities, like physics, and not just descritpive abilities like it had for the last hundreds of years. I am pretty sure he will win the Nobel prize for his work some time soon. And for the non academists, Nature is considered a very high ranked journal. It is very hard to get a paper in Nature. So someone who sais: "any of my Nature papers will do", is indirectly telling you how succesful his work has been.

 

By the way the link I put before, the one from video google, is of a talk quite similar to the one I have seen. Same non existant power point, same hand written slides, same concepts, even same structure of the talk. I just spent 1 hour looking at that, again.

[Taomeow]

Where I come from the ob/gyns had a special professional term for women over 25 expecting their first child: "oldster-labor." In large enough cities accordingly equipped, "oldster-labor" cases were placed in special high-risk birthing facilities, because all kinds of complications in this age group were well known to be the norm more than the exception. Statistically, the ideal age, in terms of the baby's and mother's health shining rather than failing (right away as well as for the rest of their respective lives), was found to be between 18 and 23.

 

As for emotional readiness, I don't know many modern people who are ready to be real parents in any age group. That's because nearly all were brought up by parents just like themselves, i.e. parents who were unconsciously trying to get from their children what they didn't get from their parents. Energetic/emotional vampire parents. Or the toxic-dumping parents. Or the "I'm-too-busy-to-be-bothered-by-your-problems (so don't you dare have any)" parents. Or the "now that you're here, you'll have to work real hard to prove to me that you deserve to exist" parents. Or... I could go on and on, the list is infinitely long and exceedingly bleak.

 

Parenting is supposed to be about giving, not getting. This has been screwed up in civilized societies for a bunch of thousand years, and I believe that's what's wrong at the core of everything that ever went wrong. This, far as I've been able to discern, is the root of not some but all evil in our world.

[kathrynwyles]

I think one of the biggest (but by no means the only) problems with teen pregnancy is the fact that our society shows so little respect to young people. In Australia you cannot vote until you're 18, and yet you can drive a car and buy smokes at 16. We're treated like children throughout school and then expected to magically "grow up" in the few summer months between graduating and starting university. In a number of other societies a child becomes an adult when they reach puberty. They can take on the responsibilities and rights of being an adult. They can start to procreate (and it's expected of them). We in the west say that these children have "had their childhood taken away", but I disagree. I think we simply smother our young far too much - wrap them up in cotton wool so they don't have to see the nasty side of life... and still expect them to function fully when they reach 'adulthood'. I think this shows that Western culture truly is moving further away from the natural way and cycle of life.

[Leidee]

Where in Australia can you buy smokes at 16? And, it should be pointed out, that you can only be a learner driver at 16.

 

There is no "magic" age when someone becomes an adult.

 

Quite frankly, I am glad that I didn't have any expectation from family members or myself to procreate at the onset of menses!

[Trunk]

Society is out of tune with our biological nature.

I tend to agree.

Historically, humans have lived much shorter lives - and have been much more intensively involved with responsible physical labor (farming, gardening, ranching) from an earlier age.

 

I think that if I'd grown up on a farm/ranch, I would've been helping from somewhere in grade school, and by the time I was in my mid-teens I'd be running the place... and perhaps starting to shift towards starting a place of my own, clearing trees, plowing fields, building my own place, starting a family, with all that youthful teen-to-mid-twenties energy.

 

~ later ~

Also, I think that community structure has been different historically. Smaller more isolated villages, so that you actually knew and looked out for everyone in your village as a process of growing up, helped take care of each other's kids (even while growing up), etc. Living with the extended family was more common.

 

Modern community tends to be very fragmented. People live alone, with one or two people, or with just their immediate family, - and often don't know nor hang out with even their immediate neighbors. There's a lot of resultant isolation, both psychologically and practically, including the increased burden of raising kids alone vs. the more traditional structure of "it takes a village to raise a child".

 

I think that (at least some of) the Amish social model is very appealing. Also the modern movement of Intentional Communities (link).

[rain]

Where I come from the ob/gyns had a special professional term for women over 25 expecting their first child: "oldster-labor." In large enough cities accordingly equipped, "oldster-labor" cases were placed in special high-risk birthing facilities, because all kinds of complications in this age group were well known to be the norm more than the exception. Statistically, the ideal age, in terms of the baby's and mother's health shining rather than failing (right away as well as for the rest of their respective lives), was found to be between 18 and 23.

 

As for emotional readiness, I don't know many modern people who are ready to be real parents in any age group. That's because nearly all were brought up by parents just like themselves, i.e. parents who were unconsciously trying to get from their children what they didn't get from their parents. Energetic/emotional vampire parents. Or the toxic-dumping parents. Or the "I'm-too-busy-to-be-bothered-by-your-problems (so don't you dare have any)" parents. Or the "now that you're here, you'll have to work real hard to prove to me that you deserve to exist" parents. Or... I could go on and on, the list is infinitely long and exceedingly bleak.

 

Parenting is supposed to be about giving, not getting. This has been screwed up in civilized societies for a bunch of thousand years, and I believe that's what's wrong at the core of everything that ever went wrong. This, far as I've been able to discern, is the root of not some but all evil in our world.

 

 

hear hear! contemplate original sin. we chose to baptize at home to avoid the term original sin dumped on the kid by some priest, (something that was a major frictional issue btw the king and the church in Denmark around 16-1700). but you know, it seems to be a deep worldwide both sub and conscious consensus about this, it seems hard to avoid. i think this is what hurts the most is when you realize that you have unwillingly contributed to this domino-effect dumping your own unconscious sh on your child. if that isnt the ultimate evil..

Edited October 16, 2007 by rain

[arnquist]

As for emotional readiness, I don't know many modern people who are ready to be real parents in any age group. That's because nearly all were brought up by parents just like themselves, i.e. parents who were unconsciously trying to get from their children what they didn't get from their parents. Energetic/emotional vampire parents. Or the toxic-dumping parents. Or the "I'm-too-busy-to-be-bothered-by-your-problems (so don't you dare have any)" parents. Or the "now that you're here, you'll have to work real hard to prove to me that you deserve to exist" parents. Or... I could go on and on, the list is infinitely long and exceedingly bleak.

 

Parenting is supposed to be about giving, not getting. This has been screwed up in civilized societies for a bunch of thousand years, and I believe that's what's wrong at the core of everything that ever went wrong. This, far as I've been able to discern, is the root of not some but all evil in our world.

 

This really rings true to me being a former Mormon. I am so grateful for my parents, I think they did a really good job. Which is why I'm excited about starting my own family when the time comes. People who investigate the Mormon church and are willing to look past the mythology will see well balanced, loving, respectful people. Well, that's usually what you'll see. Mormons aren't perfect, they're just trying to be. And I don't think that's a bad attitude to have, as long as you realize perfection is impossible and don't get stressed out over it. Anyway, families are the most important thing in the world. Bad families leads to bad societies leads to bad world.

[Taomeow]

 

Historically, humans have lived much shorter lives -

 

depends on what period in history we look at. We've been taught the system of "history" invented in Germany about 150 years ago that postulated "progress" and "improvement" of the human condition (without any scientific proof, incidentally -- it was just decided that people need to be taught that their lives are getting better and better, they are much easier to manipulate if they are told that whatever is done to them is making their lives better and longer) --

--however, the well-informed (and the non-sold-out) among paleoanthropologists assert the opposite:

 

prehistoric humans lived long healthy lives, and were equally good at caring for the young and the old (e.g., skeletons were found with evidence of disabling injuries that happened at least thirty years prior to the individual's death -- which means someone cared for the prehistoric disabled person during all this time.) The skeletons they loved to date as those of 25-year-olds (asserting that's the average prehistoric life span) on closer examination proved to be those of 75-year-olds free of modern disease...

 

It ain't for nothing that the main mantra of taoism is "return," not "advancement." They knew...

 

hear hear! contemplate original sin. we chose to baptize at home to avoid the term original sin dumped on the kid by some priest, (something that was a major frictional issue btw the king and the church in Denmark around 1800). but you know, it seems to be a deep worldwide both sub and conscious consensus about this, it seems hard to avoid. i think this is what hurts the most is when you realize that you have unwillingly contributed to this domino-effect dumping your own unconscious sh on your child. if that isnt the ultimate evil..

Oh sister...

 

yeah, it's one huge banana peel spread underfoot -- every generation slips at exactly the same spot.

[Taoist81]

depends on what period in history we look at. We've been taught the system of "history" invented in Germany about 150 years ago that postulated "progress" and "improvement" of the human condition (without any scientific proof, incidentally -- it was just decided that people need to be taught that their lives are getting better and better, they are much easier to manipulate if they are told that whatever is done to them is making their lives better and longer) --

--however, the well-informed (and the non-sold-out) among paleoanthropologists assert the opposite:

 

prehistoric humans lived long healthy lives, and were equally good at caring for the young and the old (e.g., skeletons were found with evidence of disabling injuries that happened at least thirty years prior to the individual's death -- which means someone cared for the prehistoric disabled person during all this time.) The skeletons they loved to date as those of 25-year-olds (asserting that's the average prehistoric life span) on closer examination proved to be those of 75-year-olds free of modern disease...

 

It ain't for nothing that the main mantra of taoism is "return," not "advancement." They knew...

 

??? You have any peer reviewed studies to back that up or just more anecdotal evidence from your family? The "consensus" between science, comparing historical records and archeaology shows that people live long NOW, and that is djusting for infant mortality because people always try to claim the whole "no, people just seem to live longer because less babies dies artificially inflating the average life span". We can compare growth rings in bones etc. to see how old people were at the time of death.

Every society has had a "Golden Age" myth just like most people look back on the times of their childhood as "the good ole days". The bottom line is it is wishful thinking and doesn't fit the evidence. The only "scientists" who back up claims that we live shorter or less healthy lives (admittedly we do now have problems with people eating too much, or over processed foods, but less death from common diseases etc) are those whose "scientific method" fits quite comfortably into those of Intelligent Design or Conspiracy "researchers".

"Progress" is not always a good thing, it gave us the Bomb, but it also gave us Penicilin. We certainly need to reconnect with Nature, but we don't need to throw out what we have learned during the past few hundred years of scientific "advancement". Lao Tzu said to "stay with the ancient Tao, yet move with the present", we need not fear "advancement", it is like everything, a part of the Tao. Tao is not threatened by change, it flows through it. We need not fear having our myths destroyed. Keep the meaning behind the myths, but "move" with the new information as it becomes available.

[Cameron]

I have a teacher at school now who..and I could literally see this and it was actually rather funny..sort of in the us vs. them we need to arm nuclear weapons to the teeth mode.

 

It's wild to meet people with this strong programming because it's like....You can't see how clearly destructive and arrogant your views are for the Earth?

 

Maybe Al Gore knew what he was talking about after all

 

ps. I don't judge or blame people with these views because I know that build up of fear energy can be so powerful. Let's face it.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Cameron

[Pietro]

??? You have any peer reviewed studies to back that up or just more anecdotal evidence from your family?

 

 

Well, I heard it from at least two sources. One being Jarred Diamond, the second being Vilhjalmur Stefansson, captain who described the life of the Eskimo people before they started eating western style, having lived with them.

 

And I do think (but I am not an anthropologist) that the consensus is that hunter gatherers lived a long and healthy life. The idea of the short and bruttish life coming from some philosophers in the 19th century. But with agriculture things went downhill (but was necessary, or at least you could not go back) because agriculture gives you more food (of less quality, but still you feed more people), than hunting.

Industry was from there an improvement.

 

BTW (sorry for the sidetrack), have you read Guns, Germs and Steel, from Diamond? Really interesting. And especially it explains in a direct way how the land you are in defines the kind of economy you tend to get, and from this the society that is developed. With richer lands generating enough surplus in the economy that they always build up casts, poiticians, even merchants. While poorer countries where everybody have to find their own food every day simply does not permit such 'luxuries'.

[Taomeow]

??? You have any peer reviewed studies to back that up or just more anecdotal evidence from your family?

 

and why the condescending tone pray tell?..

 

I read "studies" when I have nothing better to do with my time or when I need to learn what the common-denominator status of a particular field of study is today --

but on the subjects that really interest me, whenever these happen to be ones I can't learn about "from family anecdotes," I read books. Occasionally by cutting edge (and occasionally controversial precisely because of that) authorities. Occasionally on the subject of buying, selling, and bartering "peer reviewed studies" and the consequent near-zero relevance of same to the actual value of any work done by any researcher. And occasionally on the subject of paleoanthropology. The latter was the source of the information I presented -- e.g., it can be found in

HOW THE HUMAN BEING EMERGED FROM THE CATACLYSMIC HISTORY OF THE EARTH,

By NOEL T. BOAZ, Ph.D.

 

So that's me. What about you -- where do you learn what you believe to be true? Could it be you were taught by salaried "repeaters" who were taught by other salaried "repeaters" to repeat what they were told to repeat? Many, many people mistake a bunch of things they were conditioned to repeat for "science." As one Lewis Carrol's character put it, "what I tell you three times is true." Surely what they tell you three hundred thousand times must be three hundred thousand times more true!

 

But is it?..

 

Most "scientists" of anything life-related are "repeaters." Most repeaters-for-hire are repeaters of lies. Most lay repeaters of those repeated lies have no clue how what they're repeating was concocted, and when, and by whom, and why, and what for.

 

Learning how to stop that sh.t, how to stop being one of the repeaters taught by other repeaters to repeat what you're told to repeat and believe it just because you were told to believe it three hundred thousand times or more is as good as enlightenment, I tell ya... transforms a parrot into a human, for starters... really, really cool to wake up and tell all of the repeaters to take a hike. Beats nirvana.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Taomeow

[Oolong Rabbit]

Taoist81,

 

When something doesn't fit in with the currently accpted consensus, it gets labeled as an 'anomaly' and ignored. You might also want to check out Forbidden Archeology by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson.

[arnquist]

Conspiracies!!! I like conspiracy theories, whether they're true or not, it's nice to see people brave enough to question the official story. That Forbidden Archeology book looks like it's drawn a lot of skeptics saying it's biased because of the author's Hindu beliefs and use of outdated information, but who knows, it could be closer to the truth.