What kind of society would we have if we organised life around care and connection, rather than productivity? How would human relationships even look like if the quality of care we share in created healthy, attuned humans?
Gah. There are spaces of possibility we can't even imagine.
Excellent article highlighting our greatest challenge to produce well adjusted and emotionally mature individuals. Ethan Crawley was only 12 when he walked into his school and killed 4 of his classmates and wounded 9 others. He was a latchkey child who drew bloody diagrams of dead children and wrote in his diary that he was on the edge, but nobody took any notice. We are the only species that has pronounced altricial development. Fetuses brains are too big for the birth canal, so nature devised altricial development from perinatal, new born, neonate, child, preteen adolescent through to adult, is the complete developmental arc, and children are very susceptible to stress especially chronic stress causes perseveration, and a inability to learn from mistakes and respond to social cues. Depressed children are more susceptible to amygdala hijack, and misreading people’s intentions, which may be linked to school shootings. It’s up to us to give our children the best possible chance to make the most of their lives.
Excellent piece. Damn, you get down and dirty with the fun, occult (hidden) science. Very cool. I’ve been thinking about menopause a lot (now that you mention it), as it came up during my recent construction of the piece debunking Manosphere evolutionary psychology that I wanted to run by you. I’ll send a DM sometime soon.
This was interesting! As a healthcare worker I am more up-to-date with the longevity aspect of (poorly planned) politics, never considered the roi of childcare! (also "a brainy fetus is a hungry little parasite" made me giggle)
I think it's fascinating about American society that there are pieces like this one, simultaneously bemoaning the lack of community investment in early childhood development and taking so for granted that even children are atomized individuals that you can joke about how hugging a kid that you are not related to is "awkward" and could send you to jail. I mean, in the context of American society, you're not wrong--there, any adult who says "cool backpack" to a kid who's desperately trying to show off his Paw Patrol backpack practically gets charged with trafficking--but this is not a normal way for a super-social species with altricial babies to behave. (I am happy to report that where I live, unrelated adults interact with children all the time, and this is considered healthy and normal. (I write more about societal trust and hitchhiking children here: https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/are-you-going-my-way )
It is no surprise that the United States has such a problem with early childhood development when the only solution that can be imagined is to throw money at it: if only childcare cost less/we paid childcare workers more/parents' paid jobs had more flex time. But the problem stems from seeing all human relationships as crass capitalist quid pro quos. So now you believe you can only trust someone to take care of your child if you are paying her, rather than because she is a fellow member of the most pro-social, most neotenous primate to ever exist, and therefore inclined to be good to children. You're not going to fix the problem of investment in early childhood development without fixing the problem of atomization and lack of trust first.
Fully on board with the atomization/lack of trust issue. But in the context of the relative anonymity that urban high-density living provides, I’d argue it makes sense for parents to (initially) be suspicious if a random person walked up to their kid for a hug – not everyone plays nice and even the most social species have policing mechanisms. I don’t live in America, but I’m pretty sure that if I’d do it, there’d (rightfully) be some explaining to do. Of course, as a joke in the original post, it’s a bit of an exaggeration. I’d probably be okay if I said ‘cool backpack’. What is ‘normal’ behavior is also shaped by context and culture, regardless of where on the social spectrum we fit as a species.
I don’t think the only reason behind the ‘throw money’ strategy is that we see interactions as quid pro quo (though we probably often do), but that we (currently) have no choice but to operate within a capitalist system. That will not change overnight. But yes, the throw money approach would ideally be a temporary band-aid rather than a conclusive solution.
Gunnar, thank you for your writing and your thoughtful comment. But I disagree that living in a high population density environment makes people anonymous and thus untrustworthy. If anything, having a higher population density should expose you to more people, more regularly, with more repeated interactions. Throughout human history, this is what urbanization has done, leading to higher levels of trust across unrelated individuals than is seen in more isolated and low-density populations. It's just in recent decades that people in wealthier countries have chosen the convenience of anonymity over interdependent communities. I think this has been exacerbated by mobility and by wealth, which have led to the collapse of extended families living in close proximity, and to other negative social effects.
If I move every few years to a new community, I never get to develop deep ties that come from many repeated interactions and that lead to lasting trust. If I can throw money at a stranger to get her to help me with my kids, rather than asking my neighbor to babysit for free just like I babysat for her, I'll do that--it's more convenient--but I will then lose the experience of reciprocal altruism that would have led me to trust my neighbors. In short order, I'll start to mistake the monetary metaphor for reciprocal altruism for the thing itself. (I write more about this here: https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/shave-and-a-haircut )This is the situation that people living in late-stage capitalist societies find themselves in, imagining as you do here that "we have no choice" but to rely on an individual payment model for collective problems like helping altricial babies grow up. But if a solution is one where all we can do is to pay to fix the problem, you will only ever get what you pay for--and that will never be enough.
We do have other choices. There is another way. Left to their own devices, most small children will walk up to adults on their own, treating them as trustworthy. They have to be taught that they should "never talk to strangers." This toxic piece of advice was not invented until the 1980s--which goes to show that it was not exactly necessary for human survival. We evolved to be the most pro-social mammal ever (*possibly excepting mole rats) for hundreds of thousands of years without having capitalism to dictate the terms of our trust. We can still do that if we choose to.
Thanks, Doctrix. I don’t disagree; I’m simply less optimistic. 😉
The link between urbanization and social ties/anonymity is likely dependent on culture, city design, etc. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19463138.2022.2074016). Urban anonymity is a real phenomenon, but not in every urban setting, perhaps, as you note, due to prioritizing (illusory) convenience?
Also yes on the higher mobility and its impact on having relatives nearby. The ‘don’t talk to strangers’ thing is interesting, which may have something to do with an induced landscape of fear kind of effect, but that’s just a random thought of me.
I certainly don’t hope that paying (or capitalism in general) is the only choice or option we have. I have yet to see alternatives catch on in the current Western world. We *do* have other choices. Keyword and key challenge: ‘we’.
What kind of society would we have if we organised life around care and connection, rather than productivity? How would human relationships even look like if the quality of care we share in created healthy, attuned humans?
Gah. There are spaces of possibility we can't even imagine.
All those wonderful what ifs…
Yeah, wishful thinking and daydreaming.
But to bring what if into existence, you have to begin to imagine it, no matter how preposterous or far removed from what is.
I once called myself a recovering idealist. I am now a recovered cynic.
Excellent article highlighting our greatest challenge to produce well adjusted and emotionally mature individuals. Ethan Crawley was only 12 when he walked into his school and killed 4 of his classmates and wounded 9 others. He was a latchkey child who drew bloody diagrams of dead children and wrote in his diary that he was on the edge, but nobody took any notice. We are the only species that has pronounced altricial development. Fetuses brains are too big for the birth canal, so nature devised altricial development from perinatal, new born, neonate, child, preteen adolescent through to adult, is the complete developmental arc, and children are very susceptible to stress especially chronic stress causes perseveration, and a inability to learn from mistakes and respond to social cues. Depressed children are more susceptible to amygdala hijack, and misreading people’s intentions, which may be linked to school shootings. It’s up to us to give our children the best possible chance to make the most of their lives.
Thanks, Geoffrey!
Excellent piece. Damn, you get down and dirty with the fun, occult (hidden) science. Very cool. I’ve been thinking about menopause a lot (now that you mention it), as it came up during my recent construction of the piece debunking Manosphere evolutionary psychology that I wanted to run by you. I’ll send a DM sometime soon.
Thanks, Joe!
This was interesting! As a healthcare worker I am more up-to-date with the longevity aspect of (poorly planned) politics, never considered the roi of childcare! (also "a brainy fetus is a hungry little parasite" made me giggle)
Thanks, Barbs, always glad to make you giggle.
Childcare, longevity, two sides of the same coin, aren’t they?
I think it's fascinating about American society that there are pieces like this one, simultaneously bemoaning the lack of community investment in early childhood development and taking so for granted that even children are atomized individuals that you can joke about how hugging a kid that you are not related to is "awkward" and could send you to jail. I mean, in the context of American society, you're not wrong--there, any adult who says "cool backpack" to a kid who's desperately trying to show off his Paw Patrol backpack practically gets charged with trafficking--but this is not a normal way for a super-social species with altricial babies to behave. (I am happy to report that where I live, unrelated adults interact with children all the time, and this is considered healthy and normal. (I write more about societal trust and hitchhiking children here: https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/are-you-going-my-way )
It is no surprise that the United States has such a problem with early childhood development when the only solution that can be imagined is to throw money at it: if only childcare cost less/we paid childcare workers more/parents' paid jobs had more flex time. But the problem stems from seeing all human relationships as crass capitalist quid pro quos. So now you believe you can only trust someone to take care of your child if you are paying her, rather than because she is a fellow member of the most pro-social, most neotenous primate to ever exist, and therefore inclined to be good to children. You're not going to fix the problem of investment in early childhood development without fixing the problem of atomization and lack of trust first.
Thanks for reading and for the comment!
Fully on board with the atomization/lack of trust issue. But in the context of the relative anonymity that urban high-density living provides, I’d argue it makes sense for parents to (initially) be suspicious if a random person walked up to their kid for a hug – not everyone plays nice and even the most social species have policing mechanisms. I don’t live in America, but I’m pretty sure that if I’d do it, there’d (rightfully) be some explaining to do. Of course, as a joke in the original post, it’s a bit of an exaggeration. I’d probably be okay if I said ‘cool backpack’. What is ‘normal’ behavior is also shaped by context and culture, regardless of where on the social spectrum we fit as a species.
I don’t think the only reason behind the ‘throw money’ strategy is that we see interactions as quid pro quo (though we probably often do), but that we (currently) have no choice but to operate within a capitalist system. That will not change overnight. But yes, the throw money approach would ideally be a temporary band-aid rather than a conclusive solution.
Gunnar, thank you for your writing and your thoughtful comment. But I disagree that living in a high population density environment makes people anonymous and thus untrustworthy. If anything, having a higher population density should expose you to more people, more regularly, with more repeated interactions. Throughout human history, this is what urbanization has done, leading to higher levels of trust across unrelated individuals than is seen in more isolated and low-density populations. It's just in recent decades that people in wealthier countries have chosen the convenience of anonymity over interdependent communities. I think this has been exacerbated by mobility and by wealth, which have led to the collapse of extended families living in close proximity, and to other negative social effects.
If I move every few years to a new community, I never get to develop deep ties that come from many repeated interactions and that lead to lasting trust. If I can throw money at a stranger to get her to help me with my kids, rather than asking my neighbor to babysit for free just like I babysat for her, I'll do that--it's more convenient--but I will then lose the experience of reciprocal altruism that would have led me to trust my neighbors. In short order, I'll start to mistake the monetary metaphor for reciprocal altruism for the thing itself. (I write more about this here: https://doctrixperiwinkle.substack.com/p/shave-and-a-haircut )This is the situation that people living in late-stage capitalist societies find themselves in, imagining as you do here that "we have no choice" but to rely on an individual payment model for collective problems like helping altricial babies grow up. But if a solution is one where all we can do is to pay to fix the problem, you will only ever get what you pay for--and that will never be enough.
We do have other choices. There is another way. Left to their own devices, most small children will walk up to adults on their own, treating them as trustworthy. They have to be taught that they should "never talk to strangers." This toxic piece of advice was not invented until the 1980s--which goes to show that it was not exactly necessary for human survival. We evolved to be the most pro-social mammal ever (*possibly excepting mole rats) for hundreds of thousands of years without having capitalism to dictate the terms of our trust. We can still do that if we choose to.
Thanks, Doctrix. I don’t disagree; I’m simply less optimistic. 😉
The link between urbanization and social ties/anonymity is likely dependent on culture, city design, etc. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19463138.2022.2074016). Urban anonymity is a real phenomenon, but not in every urban setting, perhaps, as you note, due to prioritizing (illusory) convenience?
Also yes on the higher mobility and its impact on having relatives nearby. The ‘don’t talk to strangers’ thing is interesting, which may have something to do with an induced landscape of fear kind of effect, but that’s just a random thought of me.
I certainly don’t hope that paying (or capitalism in general) is the only choice or option we have. I have yet to see alternatives catch on in the current Western world. We *do* have other choices. Keyword and key challenge: ‘we’.