Slashdot Mirror
Rise Of The 15-Year Olds, Part II
Small wonder the kids believe that older people have little or nothing to teach or tell them. It's often seemed true. The Net fosters a "Hey, I can do this, too" value system.
Sometimes, the outsiders, younger than most successful business executives, score big -- with successes like Netscape, Gnutella, Linux, IM, WinAmp. Even though they're more than 15, Lewis would argue that such pioneers help drive the status revolution. But they're exceptions, too.
Look at the allegedly-overturned powerful institutions and their upstart rivals. The music industry is in less trouble than Napster. Microsoft still makes far more money than Open Source systems. The broadcast network's audience steadily erodes, but their evening news shows still have greater reach and clout than Matt Drudge.
The strengths of 15-year-olds are also their weaknesses. Certain traits of the Net-connected 15-year old form recognizable patterns. They tend to confuse hostility with communication; they shoot (or type) before they think. They can be arrogant and posturing as well as creative and energetic. They are sometimes narcissistic: they fixate on "me" media, blocking and filtering people and ideas they don't like or agree with. Too often, they see reality only as what they (or the people on their mailing lists, blogs or p2p forums) think.
Although they consider themselves ferocious defenders of free speech, in theory, in practice many find differing opinions infuriating. Online, they have not grown up in a civil culture. Often, their hostility is a posture, a veneer.
They have profound, impressive grounding in technology, gaming and software, but big blank spots in many other areas of knowledge, including history, politics, mainstream culture -- fields not necessary to navigating online but definitely helpful in running the world.
No question they're among the leaders of the technological revolution spawned in cyberspace. But they are also kids, unprepared for the political, civic, ethical and headaches of leadership, or the responsibility that comes with running institutions. The first generation of computer kids is now running the tech world, and they've been universally sobered by the realities of economics and politics.
Does childhood end when computers come into their lives, as Jonathan Lebed's father laments in "Next"? I suspect there's some truth to the idea that things can get lost and values skewed when any single value system or interest -- computing, sports, music -- overwhelms a person's days and nights and crowds out everything else. The computer geeks and nerds I know seem healthiest to me when other powerful things in their lives help keep them grounded: close relationships with friends and parents, religion, a passion for chess, dogs, hiking ... whatever.
Despite the widening cultural gap, I still think older people have some things to teach them. One of the surreal things about being a kid, of course, is that you have no idea what you don't know or might need. Life's lessons and experiences, along with history, ethics and context, can be invaluable, and they're hard for 15-year-olds to come by on their own. The reality isn't so much that kids are taking over the world, but that the world has sometimes made them technological orphans, abandoned them to sophisticated machinery that few adults bother to comprehend.
Margaret Mead wrote years ago that the pace of cultural change in the West was accelerating so rapidly that the young were coming to believe they had nothing to learn from their elders. And that was before the Net. Her prediction has been fulfilled, more than even she imagined.
(Next -- Your feedback.)
See, I think that back 15 years ago, you had to be smart to use a computer. You had to read through books and manuals thicker and heavier than your computer before you could even figure out how to start it.
I don't think that the kiddies are getting smarter... If anything, I think they are getting dumber (I don't mean stupid). Kids now live in a world where anything they want to know is at their fingertips. This all started with the Sesame Street attention span.
These kids may be called smart. But they couldn't tell you what they learned in school today. It's not that they don't know, but they can't remember. The "Script" Kiddies may be taking down corporate web servers, but they don't know how they're doing it, they don't understand what they are doing.
To them, Code is taken to be just that, a series of commands put together to form a code to take down www.bigbucks.com or whatever. They don't see it as self expression, nor do they understand what it means. They just know that if they hit the carriage return, the server will go down.
Look, the fact of the matter is that when I was 15 (only five years ago), I hung out with my friends around the city. Wandering the streets causing whatever trouble we could find. It wasn't that I was a bad kid. It's just that, someone tells you not to smash a window, and it makes you all the more curious.
I remember my first window, the sound was beautiful. All that glass splintering and falling to the concrete... it was very satisfying, mainly because I knew that I would get in the shite if I was caught.
I haven't heard anyone tell the kids not to break windows anymore, and I am not seeing too many broken windows. I do see people telling kids not to trade or pirate software, music, videos, and just about anything else that 15 year-old boys trade, and I see that the kids now have a burnt copy of Eminem, have the Matrix on VCD, and just about every software application and exploit ever uploaded... But I don't think this makes them smart....
No, the internet kiddies are hoarders, and they're doing it, because people are trying to tell them that they can't.
Our society has developed in recent years to assume that elders are superior, rather than expect them to become wise, and then share their wisdom with others.
I've got to disagree totally with this; first of all, the idea that elders are superior hasn't developed in "recent years"--it's an idea that's been around for thousands of years. And it hasn't really started to change until recently, when the mass media started inundating TV and movies with the idea that adults are clueless and kids can be totally independent, which is of course wrong.
People must command respect. They can't just expect people (even kids) to respect them simply because they're older. Many seem to have forgotten this basic truth of our instinctive culture.
Again, I don't think this is an instinctive part of our culture. And just about everybody deserves respect; it's polite to show it even if you don't feel it. Plus, kids are too inexperienced to even tell in many cases whether an adult has something to pass on or not; and in any case, EVERYONE has something to pass on, even if they're not some wise guru sitting on a mountaintop divulging the mysteries of the universe.
Am I the only one that finds Katz' fascination with 15-year-olds a bit, well, creepy?
Think about it; when you were 15, what did you do? I'm willing to bet you snuck out of your house to go make some hell on the town, just like today's kids sneak down to their daddy's computer to do some packet sniffing. I'm willing to bet that you told your parents that you were going to a friend's house but instead went out joyriding with friends, just like today kids say they're using the 'net to "just look around" when they're downloading the latest 0-day exploits.
Come on, let's keep things in perspective here. Just like Brittney Spears, it's the same song, just with a different group of backup singers.
I know a bit about geeky 15-year-olds; I've written a book and a number of articles about them.
Once, I was at the Tower of London with a friend. We were looking at the crown jewels, and both of us were convinced they had to be fake. As we were discussing this, a woman in front of us overheard our conversation.
She turned around and looked at us very gravely and said, "Oh no, those are real."
To further cement her authority, she followed her assertion with a whispered explanation -
"I've been here before."
"Despite the widening cultural gap, I still think older people have some things to teach them."
e ality cycle of purchased software once or twice, you just don't know how the real world works. And that cycle takes 5 years for a big organization, not to mention the $100M or so that a 15 y.o. won't have.
At a heavy industrial engineering firm where I once worked, we had a **7 year** development program. That is, we took new hires, age 21-24, who had already completed degrees from top engineering schools and had at least two summers of intern experience, and put them through intensive real-world OJT. At the end of that time, _some of them_ (some!) understood enough about customer requirements, interpersonnel relations, project management, and engineering to make significant contributions to the company.
Along the same lines, I have seldom met a successful project or program manager under the age of 40. No matter how smart you are, or how much you "know", there is just too much that only experience can teach you.
Example: unless you have been through the hope/pitch/buy/implement/disappointment/CLEANUP/r
Nothing against kids (I was one once), but let's get back to reality.
sPh
I don't really consider writing a book, some articles, and exchanging e-mails as experience with 15 y.o.s. Raising children and spending a lot of time with them (i.e. 24/7/365 of dealing with the good and bad) will make you more of an authority on that one, but that's just MHO. It's a real distant view that you're talking from, Jon.
I think it should be known that 15 y.o.s who:
Think they know everything.
Can be arrogant
Are unprepared for leadership
Surprise everyone with their creativity
Need to learn from adults
/*drunk.. fix later*/
But back to reality, and to the article. I don't see the widening gap. At least not with the 15 and 16 year olds I deal with on a bi-weekly basis.
One of my favorite stories is when on a youth retreat I was giving a short talk on "life'd dirty little secrets" ... which includes one of my favorites ... sometime, between the age of 25 and 30, you wake up one day .... and much to your horror, you realize ... mom & dad were RIGHT!
No lie, when I said that, one young lady put her hands on her ears and screemed "NNOOOOOOOOOO!".
Now I'm no expert. Heck, I'm a coder. But I'm at least cogent enough to recognize the following three things.
I'll say things, and/or give advice that their parents give ... but because it came from lips, and not that of their parents ... they are more likely not to roll their eyes and moan. Not because I'm some great sage, but because I'm convinced teens that age are wired that way so they don't wind up living in the basement when they're 45.
Second, 15 and 16 year olds get bored real fast. I've done some computer projects with them, for Boy Scouts, church groups, you name it. Alot of energy at first, but when it comes down to the maintenence phase of a project ... hello ? is anyone out there ... ? Nope, they're all at the Taco Bell snarfing down things that now keep this old fart up all night.
Third ... they do listen ... they just pretend they're not so they look cool in front of their friends.
The point is, teenagers are great, fun and a pain all at once. What I enjoy, and what I get out of them is their energy and their enthusiasm and hope for the future. While I would never want to be that age again, I do enjoy being around them as it keeps me a bit younger at heart.
The problem is, in many respects we ask teenagers to grow up too fast, especially when it comes to marketing and merchandising.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Being only a few years older than those children mentioned in this article, and having grown up with computers my views may be slightly slanted. but I have begun to notice that it is not only the children that are truly embracing and learning from the computers. It is also my grandparents generation.
Yes, they are not the ones that will help to extend the reach of computing know how, or probably ever isnstall software on their own. But they are eager to learn and willing to ask for help when they get into trouble. Something that I would like to see happen to all children is to have their grandparents get online. This would allow the children to teach the grandparents what they know, and the grandparents to impart some of life's wisdom on the children.
I think that in order to truly understand how computers are affecting the children, adults need to do little more than to sit down with their own kids and listen to them. Having just gone through those teenage years, I can tell you it is nice when an adult will listen to you and learn from you.
If you truly want to understand the way that a child views the internet, do not spy on their browsing or watch over their shoulder, get involved. You will find that most children are very receptive to learning from someone willing to learn from them.
Thought that was relevant here.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For somebody who likes to bash mass media - you sure love to cater to their stereotypes of the internet today dont you? I mean most 15 year olds on the net are either sitting on AOL (some on
The Net does not cause this. Children have always been this way to a certain extent (as our society gets more liberal - the children become more uncontrollable it seems). For you to simply point the finger at the internet and say "thats why" all while assuming that this is the product of some deviant open source, copyright infringing lifestyle - is fickle to say the least. And yes that if anything would be the deviant lifestyle. You seem live under this wonderful assumption that all children today have access to computers and all of the kids are up and coming computer scientists willing to work for free. Bullshit.
Jon - come back to earth. The Net is not life. Life is not the Net. Perhaps you should begin writing fictional stories (some might argue that you do already) instead of editorializing. I believe you might find more acceptance on that platform. The fact is most kids online just sit around and IM their buddies on AOL or yahoo all day long. Some look for MP3s. Some check email. Most of them are not future Fortune 500 CEOs.
Get back in touch man.
Gam
"Flame at Will"
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
On the other hand, I'm glad to see you only need to know "a bit" about a subject to write a book about it.
This is profound ... how? When I was 15 I didn't have Internet access. I was still many of the good and bad things listed above and I can bet that 15 year olds for many decades if not centuries could be akin to this description. For once Jon is right. 15 year olds are arrogant. The reason that they are arrogant on the Internet is because they grew up with it. Oh well simple minds, simple concepts. At least Jon is dead on with this article, he's just stating the obvious :)
The Anti-Blog
Exactly! I believe we need to bring back the concept of `senior', and not just as `matinee prices at the evening showing'. There are people who I respect because they have something to teach me---not some automatic prestige that gray hairs and potbellies imbue their owners with.
Yes, age can cause one to give the benefit of the doubt. But I know several adults who are, frankly, useless, irresponsible infants who just happen to be over forty.
Yes, experience is the greatest teacher. But that doesn't mean that everyone older than me has it. And, of course, age says absolutely nothing about raw talent.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Once again, John Katz continues to exploit and over-glorify so-called "geeks" and "geek teens". After this and another recent article of his I read in Shift, I'm convinced that Katz's opportunism has truly peaked.
Here are some realities that Katz needs to grasp:
-The grand majority of "geeks" he is placing on a pedestal are merely antisocial teens who play too much Quake and spend most their time in UNIX changing their window managers. I know this because I was a wise-cracking teenaged "UNIX geek" only a few years ago.
-The most knowledgeable (sp?), clever, annd innovative computer people out there are the same people who are married with children; the normal men and women who don't get a great deal of attention in the media. This is mainly because "computer smarts" comes mainly from knowledge built from years of experience, not any kind of magical teenaged link to the wonders of bits and bytes. Anyone with both an academic and production backgroun in software will confirm this.
Please, Katz, realize the above points and move on. A couple articles a couple years ago was OK, but you've been milking this for far too long. Just move on and find some other subculture you can leech on; at the very least teen geeks arent even worth it.
I know some 15-year-olds-wannabees... most of them are script kiddies. They don't know much about technology. They make dumb programs...
When I was 15 I was also a wannabe, programing away in pascal and basic, sometimes in ASM, and thinking I really understood a lot about computers.
Of course 10 years latter, now working in the core network of an ISP, I realize how stupid I was, and how ignorant I was...
You cannot proceed from the informal to formal by formal means
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Maybe if people didn't run such horribly insecure websites, then they would get taken over by 15 script kiddies. Here's a hint admins: try those bugtraq scripts, etc out for yourself on your own servers. See what you can do and learn. And then secure the damn things. I know your time is precious, and the web server currently "works as is". But seriously, take a few days a month to try hacking stuff, that's your job.
Exactly! Just because they know something their parents don't, doesn't mean it's useful.
And I can't tell you how infuriating it is every time I hear someone declare themselves l33t simply because they found more Jenna Jameson porn on the SMB network, or kick ass at Half-Life, or anything that doesn't require any significant self-education at all. It's sad; if more people wanted to learn this sort of thing, it's easier than ever, but a lot of folks just don't want to dig deeper into the mystery.
The scary part isn't how many kids become hackers, it's how many don't.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Margaret Mead wrote years ago that the pace of cultural change in the West was accelerating so rapidly that the young were coming to believe they had nothing to learn from their elders. And that was before the Net. Her prediction has been fulfilled, more than even she imagined.
There is a long held stigma that teenagers have no respect for their elders, teenagers think they're invincible, teenagers know everything...the list goes on. Not that it doesn't have some truth, but the fact is, this idea has been around long before everyone flooded the net.
The net isn't making kids any more disrespectful of their elders, or any more invincible, or any more knowledgable. It is, however, making them more of a presence. 30 years ago the geek in the corner was the geek in the corner. Now the geek in the corner has met up with hundreds of others.
It's quite possible that this isn't such a negative thing -- for every obnoxious, annoying kid on the net there's another one who is getting a lot of support from it.
It's just easier to focus on the troublemakers -- they're the ones that want to be noticed anyway. But to say that the net made them that way isn't really correct. It just made them more obvious.
I'm generally no fan of Jon Katz, but I have to applaud the following:
Except that I'd draw the line closer to 25 than 15, I couldn't have said it better myself. It's an almost perfect description of the majority here on slashdot or in the other forums Katz mentions. Web-connected young techies seem very acutely aware of how much they know, and insistent on that knowledge's importance, but startlingly (disgustingly) unaware and dismissive of all that they don't know. It's like the urge to learn is short-lived, taking them only so far before that curiosity disappears and their opinions harden into stone after only a few years. Few and far between, seemingly, are those who continue to admit the limits of their knowledge and set about making new discoveries after those first couple of years. I'm sorry, but as long as I can meet dozens of people a year who have performed and innovated at a high level for a decade or more[1], I will remain unimpressed by people with only a couple of years of less-than-stellar achievement under their belts. Enfants terribles are a dime a dozen, and their inflated sense of their own worth and importance is what brought us the dot-bomb crash.
[1] Yes, such people are also a small minority. Far more ten-year guys[2] have "one year ten times" and not ten years of continuous learning/innovation. That's kind of the point. Just about everyone has a few good years in them. The two-year guy hasn't proven he has anything more than that and, statistically, he's far more likely to fall into the "one year ten times" category, so why does he think he's so exceptional?
[2] It is pretty much just guys I'm talking about. I've known some female developers in my time, including my wife, but the patterns of performance and stagnation among them seem quite different than what we're talking about[3].
[3]Any Pratchett fans out there?
Slashdot - News for Herds. Stuff that Splatters.
here's the problem for you.
You're 23. You do know more than teens do, but you've still got a lot to learn. Wait. When you're 33, 43, 53... etc.
This
Thanks -Ryan, Salamander and szomb for the kind comments. I believe that the subject deserves considerably more attention than the occasional threads on Slashdot- which tend to focus on symptoms of this problem rather than the problem itself. The sad consequence of treating symptoms, in medicine as in addressing societal maladies, is that the sickness remains.
The ironic difficulty here is that many partipants in the Slashdot community are themselves unknowingly victims of the sickness of an inability to contextualize information and/or an ignorance about the indispensability of values in the life of an individual and a society. Hence, the tendency of threads about the symptoms (school shootings, etc.) to deteriorate quickly into futile but sometimes compelling arguments about first-amendment-versus-second-amendment freedoms, etc.
I hope a lot of you will give Postman's work a read. He is a brilliant, lucid social theorist- and he touches on many profound subjects in his works. It is, in my opinion, his most intriguing work.
If you find the premise of childhood's eradication to be engaging, do also help yourself to his other works.
"Technopoly" discusses the eradication of culture by technology itself. It was written in a pre-Internet age (by this I mean before the Internet had reached outside of the academic/institutional/research worlds and into all of our daily lives). Postman had no foreknowledge of the Internet's upcoming capacity to accelerate the trends he describes, so the work is feeling less like prophecy and more like history every day.
Also consider "Amusing Ourselves to Death", which discusses the corrosive effects of our modern media structure on everything from attention span, to literacy, to capacity to reason, and so forth.
All of his books will leave you with new lenses by which to view some of the more vexing of what are (currently) American societal ills. (If "Technopoly" is currect, we are currently exporting the problem to other highly developed nations and we can expect to see them experience similar societal problems within a generation or two...) You may find (as I did) that you do not agree with particular theories or concusions, but that you agree with and are edified by the broader observations and disturbed by the potential longterm societal consequences of the trends in media, education, and culture. They are ultimately, and I don't use the term loosely, "apocalyptic" in nature (in a secular sense of the word).
If you have a religious worldview (as I do), you may also find these trends to be apocalyptic in the religious sense, as well. I know I may be checking my intellectual credentials at the door with many of you by stating I am a Christian- and so be it. I say this because my own religious worldview, a filter which lenses "meaning", "purpose", "morality", "judgment", etc., is one of the means by which I contextualize the information we're discussing. And it suggests (to me) that the outcome is pre-determined and the course of mankind unchangeable- even as it is our duty (as Christians) to call others to awareness of the outcome (as well as the purpose of man, the holiness of God, the nature of sin, etc.). When you read the works of Postman in the context of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel (Old Testament) and Revelation (New Testament), the overlap is perfectly congruous- which is simultaneously terrifying and comforting. (I know I just lost the majority of you on this point, but what can I say? These are my beliefs.)
I know I could be 100% incorrect in my interpretation of these separate information sources (secular social theory and biblical prophecy). Nevertheless, I am grateful to have had a real childhood, to have learned how to reason, to believe in God and Christ, and to have a brain that can process information and contextualize it well enough to have confidence in my beliefs, and a hope that life may have meaning, despite the pain we experience and the senseless acts of evil we witness. And I hope for everyone who reads it, the same peace-of-mind and sense of purpose in your own lives.
Bah! When I was fifteen, I couldn't take pride in myself because people told me I had an ego problem, so I shut up. I'd shamble up to the front of the auditorium, shyly accept `x' award, and shuffle back down, hoping no one saw me and would think I was being big-headed for doing well at `x'.
Never occured to me that the dozen Mr Steroid contenders didn't mind constantly crowing that they were the greatest. Somehow it must have been less threatening to people.
It's taken me until now to be able to say ``I'm clever, I'm capable, and I don't have to be ashamed of it.'' I feel like some sort of Ayn Rand hero saying that, but it's true. It was always ``Shut up, Drago, no one cares what you have to say.''
I have this odd feeling that some crackhead moderator will mark this as a troll, but it's the unvarnished truth---I had the opposite of an ego problem.
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
For a man who decries negative images and stereotypes of geeks, Katz (who I do not think is nearly as bad as some thing) manages make this a hideously offensive column. In short, teens are smart a$$holes and we need to teach them ethics.
Wonderful. In one fell swoop he manages to both generalize and be shallow.
The part that galls me the most is that agression in teen online culture (which is there, but its in many online cultures) did NOT happen in a vaccum. Guess what? It came from their parents, culture, religion, media, etc. The violence and violent attitudes we see don't just appear, the kids didn't invent them.
It almost sounds like Katz blames the net by default.
Kids are young people. Teach them. Raise them. Be responsible and understand them. Nuff said.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
I also used to read Kats on HotWired He seemed pretty insitefull then.
But not so much anymore.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
If you, ANY of you, are interested in the subject, you owe it to yourselves to read Neil Postman's very thoughtful analysis of the sad subject, "The Disappearance of Childhood".
Postman posits that the phase of human development we commonly refer to as "childhood" is a social construct, one that came about primarily as a result of the public educational system created in America only a couple hundred years ago.
Childhood was a period in which the institutions of society (from schools, to government, to families, to churches) actually "protected" children from information. (I can hear you squints groaning already, but please, let me finish). This was easily managed because there was a rather universal morality that the various institutions that made up our society subscribed to- and- terror-of-terrors, it was pretty much the Judeo-Christian one that most of the founding fathers (Deists, Puritans, Christians, Agnostics all) believed in. Children, brought into the public education system, were not only taught math, science, etc.- they were taught the ten commandments, the pledge of allegiance, etc. (They were taught patriotism and morality- by the schools! ARGH!!!)
Childhood, then, was a period in which children were taught a standard of right-and-wrong, and were also kept innocent from much of the harsh realities that their minds were deemed not yet ready to contextualize.
Information was tightly controlled and regulated. There was no ratings-driven-and-and-advertising-subsidized-mas
I know, it seems terrifying. There are a million bad things to say about such a society, and I've no doubt that hundreds of you will re-appropriate all the bile and vitriol you've stored for diatribes about the evil menace that is Microsoft in eviscerating the evil menace that was "America" until recently. We know too well that such a system is capable of legislated racism and sexism (truly and inarguably terrible legacies of America 1.0). We know it is capable of gross violations of civil liberties, with impunity (government-sponsored biological experiments on its own citizenry, wiretapping, etc...).
But there are benefits and advantages to having universal standards in a societal system- and I don't just mean for those institutions determining the standards. I'm talking about the people. One of the greatest benefits of such a societal system was a public education system that was, in its time, unparalleled in the entire world for providing a quality of education to any willing citizen. Another benefit was that shame was a powerful psychological force for discouraging behavior that was not in the society's best interests. Seem puritanical? It was! But many of today's societal ills- especially those that affect children- were all but unimaginable then. Teenage pregnancy? School shootings? Drug-addiction in teenagers? They weren't a problem. Why? Because it was "WRONG" to have sex before marriage, "thou shall not kill", and "what are drugs", respectively?
The human mind is, in a very real sense, akin to the computer it ultimately conceived of in its image. The best and most productive minds are like the best and most productive computing systems- the have a tested, feature-rich operating system controlling the activities and information storage/retrieval of information itself. When humans don't get taught a worldview (a comprehensive perspective on right, wrong, truth, value, etc.), they are less effective when it comes to contextualizing information. You can have the biggest hard-drive in the world, and if you're running DOS 1.0 on an IBM-PC, you're pretty much going to be limited to a dull-ass computing life.
In answer to the original question, "does childhood end when computers come into (kids') lives?". No. Childhood ends when children are given unrestricted access to uncontextualized information. So often, when the subject of school shootings comes up on Slashdot, it descends into arguments about gun-control, videogame violence, first-amendment issues, etc. But every so often, someone nails it by saying, "Parents should teach their children right from wrong". Parents now are the sole institution with the authority to teach their children a worldview. And sadly, more and more parents are abdicating this profound responsibility by turning their kids over to be taught by television sets and now, the Internet. (Divorce happens in half of all households, showing children that even the parental institution isn't reliable or trustworthy). Childhood, as we've known it, is going to become an outdated concept. And it is more fitting to ask, "can childhood ever begin?".
I've hardly done justice to Postman's wonderful book- go and buy it now if you've any interest in a thoughtful, NON-CHRISTIAN examination of the issue of the eradication of childhood.
Teenagers in other parts of the world aren't necessiarily anything like the negative stero-type painted by you and others. I've seen levels of dedication, intelligence & humility among teenagers & children in some ethnic groups that would make Americans' jaws drop in shock.
People think humans are a certain way, from the behaviour they observe in their own society, & from what they know of other societies. In a highly insular society like in the USA, other behaviour-sets are unfamilia, & thus people believe certain behaviours are inherant to humans, when they are infact 90% cultural.