I meant nothing more than in purely biological terms when writing that. But this has to be set against the reality that, despite our modern convoluted lifestyles, we very arguably remain in an evolutionary state more attuned to the world of our ancestors than the one we inhabit. That is significant in understanding the modern world. Much of what parents do for their children is stuff that even a century or two ago would have appeared really weird.
Why are you wary of generalisations? I accept most people are. But we are educated/indoctrinated into the idea that all the reliable information comes out of science, academia and the media. However, every last one of us has 24 hours of life every day. Has that all to be dismissed as a source of knowledge because we do not submit our ideas as papers for peer approval?
I am obviously not opposed to knowledge or factual information, but what is permitted within that narrow domain is increasingly distorted by commercial interests and academic ambitions. Take statistics for example — the bedrock of much intellectual investigation. The ability to abuse, distort, cherry-pick, and add false causal relationships is enormous, and yet widely ignored. If you are to read up on that, you might come to doubt much of what you otherwise think you know.
But we are animals of habit and often seek places within social hierarchies. So when someone asks us why we believe anything, we feel confident stating that Professor So-and-so wrote a book on it and has proven it — but not saying that we have just tried observing the world and come to such a personal perspective. We all know which response invites social ridicule. And that mechanic is part of social coercion by which those outside of mainstream education are made to feel justifiably less well rewarded by the system.
But how many professors do you know who even have the honesty to admit publicly that their main motive is position and academic acclaim? Or are we to be taken in by their beards, glasses and reams of paper? Sadly, money can make a prostitute of anyone in any walk of life, and it does so without many even realising this has happened.
I do not claim proof for any generalisations I make, and am happy for them to be challenged, but I know that, like anyone, I have little motive to mislead myself, whereas many in prominent positions have very obvious motives for misleading others and exaggerating their intellectual conviction and certainty. The intellectual is in a state of mind that used to be somewhat belittled by the phrase book-learning, but that has gone out of fashion since so many people got involved in book-learning!
Meanwhile, who learns much about world affairs outside of the media? And yet the media operates as a collection of businesses that pursue audiences rather than truth — not to mention that it is also hugely conservative and often more or less manipulated by governments.
As regards your last point, it refers to my first in that one can ask what modern parenting is. And I have been there. Most parenting in the affluent world is, strictly speaking, unnecessary — other than in preparing the child to perpetuate or advance the general lifestyle of that affluent world. But whether or not the current general societal direction is tenable for much longer is something I suggest a conscientious parent needs to reflect upon. Should the child be encouraged to succeed in conventional terms, or are our bloated populations and their technological excesses simply unviable — meaning the child would ideally be prepared for dramatic global change? One position is conventional and will be endorsed by those around you. The other risks you being cast as a nutter — but might be kinder for the child.
