I understand this article's point, but I think it's nonsense, to be honest. It seems like it's saying something, but, really, it's not. It might even be making its readers stupider, sadly.
Walt Disney, Leonardo DaVinci, Steve Jobs, et. al. had gigs at 13, so now we draw grand conclusions about how shitty kids have it today?
Nah. Doesn't credit.
Even accepting as given the undemonstrated premise of the article, that society today has fewer "onramps" for children to contribute, what conclusion can be drawn from that?
Do we really have fewer (let us call them) extreme contributors today?
Have all extreme contributors had childhood onramps, or are those cited in the article cherry-picked examples?
Are all adults who worked as children demonstrably greater contributors as adults than those who did not? Or are they about equivalent?
We need answers to those questions before asserting anything at all about how society is failing its children.
Now, let us turn our attention to the question of childhood today versus that of even pre-1970. A child today is by all measures safer and healthier than a child of any time in the past: child mortality, disease, environmental pollution, heavy-metal poison, homicide, abuse, all down globally as well as in the US.
Let us take as given (not demonstrated, but why not, for the sake of argument) that somehow the rate of extreme contributors is lower now than in the past. Is it really the lack of child labor or is there something else causing this (again, so-far imaginary) problem? Just concluding "lack of avenues to contribute is the problem" could create other problems without addressing the root cause.
Definitely, give kids who are eager to take on adult responsibilities some, and let them figure out how much they can handle. Let them fail safely, or succeed wildly, but let them be kids.
That's a great message, but it does not need to be couched in terms of some grand societal failure. That part is bullshit.
Furthermore, I suspect that there is no formula to making these extreme contributors other than (continue) to make society a better, safer, healthier, wealthier context for children to contribute, or not, as they will.
> It seems like it's saying something, but, really, it's not
This was the same takeaway I had of your comment. It reads like glenn beck.
Purpose & meaning are strong motivators and I agree with the author that there is not enough focus on that to help promote agency in individuals. There are societal failure(s) to be highlighted here, despite your unwillingness to see them.
> Purpose & meaning are strong motivators and I agree with the author that there is not enough focus on that to help promote agency in individuals. There are societal failure(s) to be highlighted here, despite your unwillingness to see them.
... and you edited your response to add this after I criticized you.
If you had written this in the first place, maybe left out the insults, we could have had a nice conversation.
Walt Disney, Leonardo DaVinci, Steve Jobs, et. al. had gigs at 13, so now we draw grand conclusions about how shitty kids have it today?
Nah. Doesn't credit.
Even accepting as given the undemonstrated premise of the article, that society today has fewer "onramps" for children to contribute, what conclusion can be drawn from that?
Do we really have fewer (let us call them) extreme contributors today?
Have all extreme contributors had childhood onramps, or are those cited in the article cherry-picked examples?
Are all adults who worked as children demonstrably greater contributors as adults than those who did not? Or are they about equivalent?
We need answers to those questions before asserting anything at all about how society is failing its children.
Now, let us turn our attention to the question of childhood today versus that of even pre-1970. A child today is by all measures safer and healthier than a child of any time in the past: child mortality, disease, environmental pollution, heavy-metal poison, homicide, abuse, all down globally as well as in the US.
Let us take as given (not demonstrated, but why not, for the sake of argument) that somehow the rate of extreme contributors is lower now than in the past. Is it really the lack of child labor or is there something else causing this (again, so-far imaginary) problem? Just concluding "lack of avenues to contribute is the problem" could create other problems without addressing the root cause.
Definitely, give kids who are eager to take on adult responsibilities some, and let them figure out how much they can handle. Let them fail safely, or succeed wildly, but let them be kids.
That's a great message, but it does not need to be couched in terms of some grand societal failure. That part is bullshit.
Furthermore, I suspect that there is no formula to making these extreme contributors other than (continue) to make society a better, safer, healthier, wealthier context for children to contribute, or not, as they will.
What is up with HN promoting articles advocating working 13 year olds? Here's another, just as nonsensical: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27675603