Question Millennials children

[weaker slayer]

Since I am a millennial, since I was born in 1990. I have been thinking of a better way to communicate a major factor about lifespan choices. It may get lost what I talk about it as myself or as your personal lifespan. It more or less dawn onto me this weekend after reading for the first time "Childhood's End." Not going to debate the book itself, but, the idea of the possibility of what our children can become.

The Millennials like myself are in a much different epic then the generation born at the end of the 19th century and having children in the 20th century. At the dawn of the 20th century, the average lifespan was under the age of 50 and only a small percentage of the population reached the age of 65. Still, there were a few people that was born in the 19th century and expired in the 21st century. Then again, it was not a official policy or any policy of any country to be thinking of the social impact of this paradox.

The Millennials are much different, even that I was born in 1990: it is still possible for myself to have a child next year or a few years down the road. In fact, a woman that was born the same year as myself or a few years before me could have a child in 2016 that will live to see the dawn of the 22nd century (1 January 2101). It was not a common thought during 1916 that a woman could have a child and see the dawn of the 21st century (1 January 2001).

It has been my thought and thinking with my personal education, that my personal lifespan is a major factor of life. Still, it has not been an argument from the older generations with this simple question of match. A child born in 2016 will only be turning 85 years old in the year 2101. And, at this time there are people around us right now that are older then 85 years of age.

Maybe the foundation why the established political framework of the left and the right of any county not being engaged with this rational debate: is the fact the current system was based on shorter lifespans. As when I get into debates with conservative arguments supporting ideas of the 19th century, are supporting arguments supporting a shorter lifespan.

 

[Wildfly]

I loved that book, but as the western world is now, it reminds me more of the City and the Stars by the same author.
Dont see a great evolutional leap incoming... not from the west, anyway.

 

[nightshade]

Personally I wouldn't want to live to see the 22nd century, but the turning of the century is 2100 surely, so why add an extra year?

 

[bespangeled]

Can I just point out that the average life span is simply that - an average. You add up all the numbers and then divide. Since kids were far more likely to die than in our time - diseases and infections, accidents, starvation, etc - the average lifespan is lower. Take 75, 63, 57, 65, 49, and your average lifespan is 54. Now add in 3, 11, 5, 7, 9, and your average has dropped to a bit above 30. That doesn't mean that people died young in the second grouping - it just means that more children died.

Sorry - serious pet peeve!

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Can I just point out that the average life span is simply that - an average.... Since kids were far more likely to die than in our time

But if you add in all of the mentally disabled people that live in large urban areas who are killed by the police at a young age then even our modern life averages are skewed.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

I'd be quite happy enough to see 2017.
But as for the average lifespan of people, like bespangled says once you take in all the babies who die cot deaths and all those who live 100, 110 or 115 years. The average age just keeps changing and IF Apophis is an ELE that'll really muck up the average age.

 

[bespangeled]

But if you add in all of the mentally disabled people that live in large urban areas who are killed by the police at a young age then even our modern life averages are skewed.

Yeah - that is an issue, but not one that contributes on a macro level. Overall, younger people die of accidents and diseases. If you are ever near an old cemetery, check out the family groups buried in 1918. The Great Pandemic was why WWI ended - more soldiers died from disease than any other cause. The epidemic killed 50 million people, and given that the world population was about 1 billion, that is a lot. Oh, and it was the last outbreak of a bird flu - which is why the CDC gets panicked.

 

[weaker slayer]

Can I just point out that the average life span is simply that - an average. You add up all the numbers and then divide. Since kids were far more likely to die than in our time - diseases and infections, accidents, starvation, etc - the average lifespan is lower. Take 75, 63, 57, 65, 49, and your average lifespan is 54. Now add in 3, 11, 5, 7, 9, and your average has dropped to a bit above 30. That doesn't mean that people died young in the second grouping - it just means that more children died.

Sorry - serious pet peeve!

True, during the birth of Lincoln and Darwin (1809) only 1 in 2 people lived to see their 21st birthday. During the time of Shakespeare only 1 in 3 people lived see their 21st birthday. And true, this data is from the United Kingdom. But, if you are in the United Kingdom today, your chance to see your 21st birthday is 99.9%. If you are a woman it makes more sense to you. If you are a woman today, the average of 2.1 births are needed to keep the population stable. If on the other hand, you are back just two hundred years ago: you would need to have more that 4 births per-woman to keep the population stable. And if you were in Shakespeare's era, you would need to have more then 6 births per-woman to keep the population stable. True, you can have a woman give birth before the age of 21, or have early marriages. Like still in the state of Alabama you can be legally married at the age of 12 with the consent of the parents. With the current lifespans at the present level, I do not feel you are advocating women should be married and producing children at the age of 12?

Lifespans are important, because, the foundational cost of education. When the lifespans are longer, a society is more willing to support public and private education of their children. Even today, if at the time of birth we discover a newborn with a medical condition that will limit the child's to the age of say 30 years of life. Even if the child has a high intelligence and very gifted: nobody not even the parents are thinking of the idea their child will be a Ph. D. candidate. Sorry, those are the facts of society. And, we limit education within a community if that community has lower education values and lower overall lifespan. Example, a child born in Baltimore Maryland has a lower change for higher education then say a city that is more of a college town.

If you read Victorian authors, you might want to check on their birth and death dates. The more educated you were in that era, and more so with the class conscience Victorian England. The more educated you were, you had a higher rated of a longer lifespan, and, a higher rate of children living longer then 21.

My point is, if we have a society that has a longer lifespan: it builds a more stable society with a society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.

Sorry - serious pet peeve I have: unless you want to live in a society that has a shorter lifespan. Because, there are places even within America today you have the same average lifespan as Whitechapel of 1888 if and only you are not sentenced to prison.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

My point is, if we have a society that has a longer lifespan: it builds a more stable society with a society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.

That simply is not true. Period. Lifespan has nothing to do with it.

 

[weaker slayer]

That simply is not true. Period. Lifespan has nothing to do with it.

You should read my comment about Whitechapel of 1888. The average lifespan if you were born and raised in that area was under the age of 30. If you were poor within the United Kingdom, you were more likely to migrate to Whitechapel. The crimes of Jack the Ripper did take place within that community. If Jack the Ripper was killing women right outside of Buckingham Palace, it would have been easy to find who he was. But, since the short lifespans within Whitechapel was short, because of murders, suicides, and early deaths of alcoholic drinks. More to the point, Bright's disease. An intelligent person that wanted to kill women and be able to escape law enforcement would have made the rational choice of Whitechapel as the place to kill.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

You should read my comment about Whitechapel of 1888.

I did read it. Doesn't alter the fact that believing a longer life span will create a society with fewer crimes and human vices is not accurate. Only education does that. And that has been statistically proven but allegorically proven.

 

[bespangeled]

If on the other hand, you are back just two hundred years ago: you would need to have more that 4 births per-woman to keep the population stable.

True, you can have a woman give birth before the age of 21, or have early marriages.

There are 3 periods of life that tend to control lifespan even today - child mortality, pregnancy and war/being a soldier. Disease is a huge issue, as is the ignorance of basic sanitary procedures to combat bacteria and viruses. In the Western world we have made huge strides in this area - but in much of the rest of the world they are still the main factors which determine overall lifespan.

As for 4 surviving children (births are not the issue) and 6 surviving children exactly how has the world population reached 7 billion? Why has the overall world population rebounded from all the plagues- because there were more resources left for the survivors.

How has education and social structure evolved? I'd say it's mostly medical advances which maintain population rather than fertility.

Like still in the state of Alabama you can be legally married at the age of 12 with the consent of the parents.

While a few states have no statutory age limits on marriage, Alabama’s marriage age laws require parental consent for minors aged 16 to 17. In addition to parental consent, a $200 bond must be placed with the state for minors, but will be void “if there is no lawful cause why such marriage should not be celebrated.” Once you turn 18, however, you can get married as long as you meet the marriage license requirements. - See more at: Alabama Marriage Age Requirements Laws - FindLaw

When the lifespans are longer, a society is more willing to support public and private education of their children.

Huh? When countries are wealthier and children are not needed to work, then education becomes an option. In the western world this is the norm. Of course, this took the adoption of strict child labor laws - and truancy laws. I'd flip this and say that longer lifespans are the result of universal education.

Even today, if at the time of birth we discover a newborn with a medical condition that will limit the child's to the age of say 30 years of life. Even if the child has a high intelligence and very gifted: nobody not even the parents are thinking of the idea their child will be a Ph. D. candidate.

Not really - if the medical condition does not impact the ability to learn then higher education is an option. Keep in mind that it takes far less than 30 years for medical breakthroughs. As a teacher I had more than one kid with leukemia - that's now considered highly curable but 30 years ago it was a death sentence.

And, we limit education within a community if that community has lower education values and lower overall lifespan. Example, a child born in Baltimore Maryland has a lower change for higher education then say a city that is more of a college town.

Poor kids don't get into college because they can't afford it. I have no idea exactly what lifespan would have to do with this issue. It's pure politics. What we need is free community colleges, an idea that is currently being proposed. This is purely an issue of economic class which has nothing to do with lifespan. Keep in mind there are parts of any advanced country that have huge issues with poverty, but get no publicity.

My point is, if we have a society that has a longer lifespan: it builds a more stable society with a society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.

Care to give any proof? I'd say a stable society gives more people access to medical care, food, and life necessities, and therefore results in a longer lifespan. You have the wagon in front of the horses.

Sorry - serious pet peeve I have: unless you want to live in a society that has a shorter lifespan. Because, there are places even within America today you have the same average lifespan as Whitechapel of 1888 if and only you are not sentenced to prison.

Huh?😕

 

[ILLYRIAN]

weaker slayer,
some folk say things say things on this board that are untrue because they do not know the truth and do not mind being told what the truth is. But you appear to try to make it seem as though you do know better, so why make ludicrous comments:
My point is we have a society that has a longer lifespan; it builds a more stable society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.
Mr. Pole's reply was accurate though I would have been more colourful in a reply.

But you didn't stop there you said that it would have been easier to find who Jack the Ripper was if the killings were done outside Buckingham Palace as compared with Whitechapel, places that are so different in the extreme that I don't consider them to be not worthy of mention.

If you were poor within the United Kingdom you were more likely to migrate to Whitechapel.
Really? All the poor in the UK could not have fitted into greater London let alone a small suburb of inner London.

An intelligent person who wanted to kill women and be able to escape law enforcement would have made the rational choice of Whitechapel as the place to kill women.
Do you really think an intelligent person would make a rational choice to kill there?

So who was the killer, was he or she intelligent and where did the killer live?

 

[Skanky Vamp]

So who was the killer, was he or she intelligent and where did the killer live?

Or was it more than one person? I am not sold on the idea it was Kosminski. Maybe not just Kosminski, and not to put my tinfoil hat on, but there are so many curious things about the killings and the whole ordeal.

 

[ILLYRIAN]

Mr. Pole I have never heard of Kosminski.
What is a Kosminski or who is Kosminski?

Why were the killings ever remembered, anything to do with the newspaper report?

 

[Faith]

Mr. Pole I have never heard of Kosminski.
What is a Kosminski or who is Kosminski?

Why were the killings ever remembered, anything to do with the newspaper report?

He was widely considered to be the lead suspect, I don't buy it personally but that is just me. I think that the killings are remembered partly due to the newspapers and partly to do with the brutality of the killings. There were obviously crimes before it that would have been reported on. I'm not a Ripper Historian (yes there are such things) but it may have be the first recorded serial killer at the time.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

He was widely considered to be the lead suspect, I don't buy it personally but that is just me.

It doesn't seem to fit. I think people have presented a nice little case, but it's not very compelling when you really dig into it.

And it's bad, but when people ask 'what three people alive or dead would you like to meet' my answer is always Jack the Ripper, The Zodiac and Chuck Manson. It would be an amazing dinner. So many questions.

 

[weaker slayer]

weaker slayer said: ↑
My point is, if we have a society that has a longer lifespan: it builds a more stable society with a society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.
Click to expand...
Care to give any proof? I'd say a stable society gives more people access to medical care, food, and life necessities, and therefore results in a longer lifespan. You have the wagon in front of the horses.

Well, if you live in a poorer American society, it is more of a given that it is true. If you study poorer American cities like Detroit and Flint Michigan, or now Baltimore Maryland. And in these communities we are spending more per-student to get a basic general education then the average American community. But, if you are born and lived their your entire life without being arrested and sent to prison: your lifespan in some places are less then 30 years of age. If you double the cost per-student to get a basic education and they are aware that they are already middle-age if they stay there. You are not going to push them to be better with their education, nor, will they be interested in improving themselves. If you understand your life is shorter then the general population: you feel alienated and conduct yourself in a lifestyle that shortens your lifespan.

There are 3 periods of life that tend to control lifespan even today - child mortality, pregnancy and war/being a soldier. Disease is a huge issue, as is the ignorance of basic sanitary procedures to combat bacteria and viruses. In the Western world we have made huge strides in this area - but in much of the rest of the world they are still the main factors which determine overall lifespan.

As for 4 surviving children (births are not the issue) and 6 surviving children exactly how has the world population reached 7 billion? Why has the overall world population rebounded from all the plagues- because there were more resources left for the survivors.

How has education and social structure evolved? I'd say it's mostly medical advances which maintain population rather than fertility.

How has education and social structure evolved, when the need to have more children per-woman needed to keep a stable population base. It has evolved more so with the gay and lesbian community over the last hundred years. Say you are a lesbian in a society that needs to have 6 children per-woman to maintain a stable population. Only 1 out of 3 women lived to see their 21st birthday during that era. And you find a woman that made the choice to be open with the idea of being a lesbian and such will not be producing any children for herself. In fact, she and her lover will both not be having any children. If you are a woman back at that time and you are confronted with these lesbians. Other then you feeling it is a sin, you also find it a risk to your society. As you are asking other women to produce more children just to offset the two women making a free choice not to have children.

Even today, with people looking at their lives more inline with old fashion views about the family unit with the mission to produce children. It is a argument, but, with the over population of the world we are more accepting of gays and lesbians then we were just a century ago. And more accepting when the population needed more children.

If and only if the population crashes and we are back with higher early death rates of 400 years ago, the social structure with gays and lesbian will become more negative.

When the lifespans are longer, a society is more willing to support public and private education of their children.
Click to expand...
Huh? When countries are wealthier and children are not needed to work, then education becomes an option. In the western world this is the norm. Of course, this took the adoption of strict child labor laws - and truancy laws. I'd flip this and say that longer lifespans are the result of universal education.

We both agree but look at it a little different. If the lifespans are short, and the need for women to have more children are increased. It only increased the ability of women to have a higher or basic education. If a woman needs to produce 6 children and the lifespan is 35, the social norms are not to educate a woman. On the other hand, when today in western countries a woman needs to produce 2.1 children: society is more willing to accept women to have a higher education because she has a longer lifespan. True, it will not be equal with men.
 

weaker slayer,
some folk say things say things on this board that are untrue because they do not know the truth and do not mind being told what the truth is. But you appear to try to make it seem as though you do know better, so why make ludicrous comments:
My point is we have a society that has a longer lifespan; it builds a more stable society that has fewer crimes and less human vices.
Mr. Pole's reply was accurate though I would have been more colourful in a reply.

But you didn't stop there you said that it would have been easier to find who Jack the Ripper was if the killings were done outside Buckingham Palace as compared with Whitechapel, places that are so different in the extreme that I don't consider them to be not worthy of mention.

If you were poor within the United Kingdom you were more likely to migrate to Whitechapel.
Really? All the poor in the UK could not have fitted into greater London let alone a small suburb of inner London.

An intelligent person who wanted to kill women and be able to escape law enforcement would have made the rational choice of Whitechapel as the place to kill women.
Do you really think an intelligent person would make a rational choice to kill there?

So who was the killer, was he or she intelligent and where did the killer live?

Well, the poor in the United Kingdom was more willing to immigrate to the United States of America. More so with the vast open door policy of the Lincoln Administration. It is a fact, that during the American Civil War, 45 percent of the union army were first generation Americans or European/Canadian immigrates. The purchased the draft cards of Americans or freely joined the army. If they purchased a draft card, they received $300, and let the American walk away from his service. If they lived, they were welcomes to half a section of 180 acres in the Homestead Act. Plus, it kept the United Kingdom out of the war with so many Irish and English fighting on the union side. True, if you want to find your English family members of the 1860's, you might want to visit the plain states.

I stand by my comments, as it is always best to find people to kill if you do it within a poorer high crime area. If I was a man and wanted to kill a woman. I have better luck in Chicago Illinois then any city in Wyoming. If I wanted to kill a illegal immigrant woman, I have better luck ten miles from the American Mexico boarder then being ten miles the American Canadian boarder. True, there is a risk to be found out and convicted. But my risk are lower in a crime ridden area. If done in Chicago, just another unsolved murder. And with the backlash with the Chicago Police Department, the Ferguson Effect is my friend.

But, this is just an academic exercise.