Adults who grew up during the Victorian Age found it very difficult to accept the loose "Flapper" morals of the Roaring 20's. Then along came the Depression, a disastrous social experiment called Prohibition and WWII. A generation later, the staid parents of the 50's begat the wildly gyrating Vietnam War protesters of the 70's...who are now unsure of how their kids will handle exploding technology in a global economy.
The reason for this quick tour of the 20th Century was to make clear that no two generations are alike. They are part of different eras with different experiences and different priorities.
With that said: Should kids still be considered an unquestioned blessing? We're bombarded with "Protect Children" messages but are kids really such a precious commodity? There are a few terrific ones and a few who are disasters waiting to happen but most are in the middle. They won't find a cure for cancer or become President. In fact, they won't do much of anything during their lives except maybe add a few more mouths to feed. Recently, the 6 billionth baby was born and a population twice that size is predicted within that baby's lifetime! Now try to think of half a dozen problems facing us today that wouldn't be made better if half the people didn't wake up tomorrow?
So now I ask, why are we so bent on protecting children? A hospital that has to spend a million dollars on a moribund baby to keep it alive for a year is going to have that much less to spend on anyone coming into the emergency ward with a threatening but treatable disorder. The raft can hold only so many. With 6 billion mouths already on board, I have to wonder why people who continue to have babies aren't seen as people who pollute because they really don't care about anyone else? Why not see breeders as selfish polluters?
At the beginning of the 21st Century, a few billion more babies will clearly offer far more in the way of problems than solutions. So who are all those people running around protecting children? Are they individuals who, unable to manage their own lives, try to hide behind those they say they want to save...using them as a kind of "Kiddy Shield?" Any adult who said "I don't like dirty words on TV so bleep them" would be told to tune to another station. No problem! But as soon as the Kiddy Shield is thrown up, otherwise sensible approaches are abandoned in the face of hysterical hyperbole. The person unable to hear certain words without suffering neurotic stress is suddenly tolerated and perhaps even supported when he screams for censorship to "Protect Children." I used to be a kid and, believe me, certain words were much more of a threat to certain adults than they ever were to me.
When a TV network used the "S" word in one of its programs, some of the local affiliates blocked it while others allowed it to go through saying that it would air after children should be in bed. The fact that the "S" word is already known and freely used by the vast majority of kids never entered into the debate. Also, is there any legitimate evidence to show that kids who use the "S" word are in any way inferior to those who don't? I doubt it. And besides, since some words are clearly capable of unbalancing some already precariously balanced adults, wouldn't it be better to try and desensitize the next generation? It would seem to be the obvious course for anyone really interested in future adults less vulnerable to petty assaults on their senses.
Look At It This Way
Each generation is forced to face unique problems. Growing up when the population was still manageable, adults today enjoy a sense of privilege. If you don't like a word you see in the dictionary, sue the publisher, write your congressman, have the book banned from the local library! The major problem for the next generation will be its size. Keeping kids from real world experiences while instilling a sense of frailty is not protection, it is simply a means of allowing the current era's attitudes to persist beyond their time.
