If this new generation really is messed up, what could we do it about it?

WhyNot · December 2, 2006, 5:58pm

OOH! Cite volley!

Your serve!

marshmallow · December 2, 2006, 6:04pm

I never said they were having less sex, I said teen pregnancies are down. And they are. Really down, apparently, according to the BBC. (heh, according to this the UK has the opposite problem).

I don’t understand how anyone in there can conclude that absistence is leading to less sex though. I mean, how do you know how often teens are having sex? By asking them? Good luck with that. All we know is that birth rates are down.

As for why, most likely, IMO, is they’re not being dumb about it and using the pill/condoms and what have you. Or, if you look at some cites, they’ll say our sperm counts are dropping…which is pretty amusing to me…but again, it doesn’t matter why, but the pregnancy rates are down.

Or are you saying that teens having sex at all is the problem? If so, this is a problem social conversatives have been battling with since time immemorial (well, not really, more like ever since arranged marriages dropped out of fashion…but you know…trying to repress the sex drive of a teen is a losing battle) and you can’t pin it on this generation alone. In fact, I don’t see how one could argue more, intelligent sex is a bad thing. It certainly didn’t hurt the older generations as far as I can see.

monstro · December 2, 2006, 6:08pm

The difference is that back in our grandparents’ day, even high school drop-outs could make a decent living. Nowadays, you find truck drivers with college degrees. Getting a good factory job used to be a career goal. Or you would go work with your father at the family store. Where are the factories today? Where are the family-run businesses?

So I worry more about our high-school drop-outs than I probably would if I had lived in our grandparents’ day.

But it makes me worried about all these prison-hardened juveniles. Will a one-time shoplifter goes into the clink for a year and come out with aspirations for the straight-and-narrow? Or have they picked up skills and connections that will set them on a permanent path of crime?

Say it is just a matter of over-diagnosis. What’s the effect of over-medicated, over-coddled kids on society? Should we anticipate more “not guilty by reason of insanity” pleas in criminal court cases? What will be the effect of increased spending for special ed on the quality of general education? Do you really want to work and live with more people who won’t take accountability for their actions? I don’t!

The problem with obesity is that it tends to be a life-long problem. An overweight six-year-old can be an obese teenage, and then a heart-attack prone, diabetic, invalid, unproductive adult. Obesity is a lifestyle disease, unlike historical ailments. Kids who get polio or smallpox do not get it from parenting. But one can become obese due to parenting, making it an inter-generational problem.

Your hypotheses, while comforting, also could be a bit self-deluding. They prevent us from EVER saying anything bad about a generation. That’s exactly the basis of my argument.

monstro · December 2, 2006, 6:28pm

mstay:

Monstro, your juvenile crime rate cite is…well, I don’t know where to start. First, it doesn’t show rising rates – it’s predicting them. In 1995.

In the 80s and early 90s many talking heads and so called experts were predicting a massive crime wave to sweep across the nation, but…it never happened. Crime rates dropped like a car going off a cliff. In fact, even by 1995 the predicted crime wave was obviously not happening, but some still went along with the idea because it scared parents into watching TV.

The crime rate fall borders on what I would consider common knowledge. Here are a bunch of cites if you don’t believe me though…

From Freakonomics:

Or check out this 1997 article from CNN.

Or look at the pretty graphs from the U.S. Department of Justice.

So…yeah. Crime went waaaay down in the 90s. Most of the controversy is what caused it since all sorts of different interests and politicians want to take credit. And Freakonomics, for example, stirred up the hive by saying that the biggest reason was due to legalized abortion.

But for this discussion it doesn’t matter why it happened. It did happen. So strike out…

…in regards to crime rate, juveneille or otherwise.

This is all well and good, and I honestly do appreciate the cites, but I haven’t been talking about overall crime rates. But rather current juvenile crime rates, which have increased.

That’s great. And I’m also glad that teen pregnancy has dropped.

But I have a feeling that even in the face of stats showing the opposite, most Dopers would not really care. Maybe I shouldn’t either?

HIV infection, as well as that of other STDs, is increasing among young people. And although I would never go so far as to say that sex=bad, I do think there are trade-offs involved when it comes to being promiscuous. I’d rather my thirteen-year-old neice be more worried about school than shaking that ass for every Tom, Dick, and Harry who think she’s hot.

I don’t plan to have children, but this isn’t amusing to me (the whole low sperm count thing). Infertility is on the rise. My experience in toxicology has made me aware of all the substances out there (particularly in our water) that can act as endocrine disrupters. If amusement is our first reaction to evidence of a problem, and then people wave it away as a good thing, then it makes it that much harder for us to fix the situation when it really is at “doomsday” levels.

marshmallow · December 2, 2006, 7:55pm

Monstro, I agree with you that childhood obesity is a big problem. I will also say that I am troubled by our national education when it comes to science and math when compared to other industrialized countries. I believe someday the U.S. may fall out of favor as where the energetic smart people go for higher education, maybe replaced by China or India or some such. But it will take awhile for that to happen, and only if things continue to get worse every single year for a long time.

I suppose I am somewhat optimistic about the future in this regard; we seem to me to be in a somewhat anti-intellectual period right now in the U.S., and I’m hopeful that we are currently exiting it year by year. And we can’t have a monopoly on brain power forever anyway, if for no other reason than China and India are both rising, legitimate world powers that we will have to share the planet with.

As for your original question, the reason for this thread:

I guess it depends on what you mean by bad. It would probably be impossible to see the character of a generation until they begin to interact with the world in meaningful ways in their teenage years. As you say, by then it’s too late. But as long as the infrastructure and molds of society are relatively unchanged from one generation to the next I don’t see how this could happen.

Historically – and maybe this is a dumb question for a couple reasons – can you point somewhere and say AHA! This generation really screwed the pooch in a deep and systematic way…when compared to say, the generation immediately before?

I don’t agree with any of your other points. I don’t think this generation will be ‘bad’ because, well, a generation is a whole lot of people, and for a majority of them to be fucked up so bad in such a short amount of time would be very…odd. And if you wish to extrapolate into the far flung future based on statistics from today I think you’re wasting your time and will most likely be very wrong, just like the experts in the 80s were wrong when they did the same

And my main point now that I think about it…if you want to blame video games, movies, or music for the ebb and flow of crime, STDs, or pregnancy then I can’t help but ask where you get such ideas, and I would also ask for the biggest cite in the world.

Take crime. If video games somehow have an effect I would imagine it is dwarfed by (off the top of my head) gangs, parenting, education, poverty, and peers. So blaming video games just strikes me as bizarre and out of left field, and makes me think of all those politicians – on both the left and the right – who would love to censor them.

Do you want to be like Hillary Clinton monstro?

Doom came out in 1993. Mortal Kombat 1992. Quake 1996. Are they not violent enough? The talking heads and the pundits at the time thought it was practically the end of the world.

Video games don’t cause people to do things. Neither do movies. Heck, massively violent movies far outdate video games by several decades. Where’s the beef? Where’s the meat of this connection?

I won’t argue with you that 5-6 year olds shouldn’t play GTA or watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the latter mostly because they’d have nightmares for weeks). Parents that allow that either have very well adjusted and intelligent children…or they (the parents) fail at life.

Do you think a 14 year old that robs the grocery store played too much GTA? Or watched too much The Matrix? Or do you think it may be a wee bit more complicated than that? Do you think they, say, come from a stable background or live in an affluent neighborhood?

I’m glad you don’t think it does. The next paragraph is mainly aimed at those who do think it’s a factor (I certainly know some of them…ugh).

At this point crime pretty much has to go up since we’re at historic lows in many cases. However, I was looking at internet porn in 1995-6 when I was a young teen and so were my friends. That’s a good decade for results to occur in the real world, especially in regards to teenage crime/pregnancy rate/whatever. Where is it? It’s not like the internet is a local thing, either, it would be all over (or in areas where many kids have access to the internet).

And back to **monstro[/.b]: you say that they are going up. I’m unable to find a cite that says this is happening over the entire U.S. I can find some cites that say they are going up within the past year in some major cities, which is something…but first you have to demonstrate this has anything to do with what you said. The articles I’m seeing put the blame elsewhere (like cuts in the police department, failing schools, and gangs).

Plus, keep in mind, rates will pretty much have to go up. If they return to the levels of the 80s maybe we do have a problem…if they never go down again.

I don’t believe our society is deteriorating in any serious way, at least when compared to past trends. And if we are starting to right now, like I said, it will be nearly invisible to us IMO and will probably not continue unabated for some long stretch of time, even if just due to random chance.

I was mostly amused because the politicos were trying to take credit for the drop. “Look, they’re using condoms – that means less babies!” “Ha! You’re wrong! See, a little Jesus will do them good!” Then someone comes along and says naaah, they’re still having sloppy, irresponsible orgies – the guys are just shooting blanks!

But this is something of a hijack. I don’t know much about this subject, except it seems if it’s happening it’s going at a snail’s pace. We certainly aren’t running out of people for the near future (and if it is a big problem someday I imagine by then we’ll have solutions to it, medically speaking).

Even today there are many options for couples who are having trouble conceiving.

Big summary:

Violent video games, movies, music, and dirty, delicious porn – little or zero credible effect on crime, STDs, teen pregnancies, suicide, or anything else I can think of. Well, it will directly increase your fun…
There’s little reason to suspect the new generation is special in any way in regards to being bad. Even if crime were to absolutely soar they’d be as bad as the kids in the 70s and 80s and we rebounded and thrived at the time and since, right? So it’s not the end of the world unless something weird happens.
Politicos and talking heads will, no matter what, try to find a way to make you afraid.

monstro · December 2, 2006, 9:25pm

I think it’s difficult to “see” it essentially because demographic science is relatively new. One hundred years ago, people weren’t collecting the kind of population statistics that we gather today. We can’t objectively measure the “quality” of human beings today compared to, say, those four generations back, because we simply don’t have the data to allow for such comparisons. All we can do is speculate.

But I would argue that the infrastructure and molds of society have changed dramatically over the last 100 years (I’m wanting you to broaden your range a little, because 1993-1994 is still “today”, not “back in the day” as you keep suggesting). We are emersed in a different bath of chemical stressors. We relate to technology in a different way. Our young people are subjected to different pressures. We consume different foods and drinks, spend our leisure time in different ways, and we have different family structures and conventions. Different cultural mores. There is no reason to believe that in another 100 years, our society will not have flip-flopped in a totally different way.

I don’t think it will ever happen that we will find a generation that’s dramatically different than the one after it. I’m 29 and I’m not arrogant enough to think I’m that much removed from a 19-year-old.

I’m just opposed to the silly idea of “Every new generation will be just as good or better than we are!” that seems to enter into a discussion like this one. I think it’s possible that a society, at any given time, can be “too good for its own good”, and all the “improvements” we think we’ve made can actually turn out to be curses.

I never said this generation is bad. Note that in the OP, I talk about how this new generation is perceived and I post links supporting this claim, but I never said that I think this generation is bad. I admit that I’m no different than all the other fuddy-duddies of the past, bemoaning “kids today”.

I agree that it would be odd if a majority of a generation turned out to be fucked. But the whole point of my OP was to ask whether or not we can detect this or not, not whether or not it’s possible. Of course it’s possible. If meth and crack use skyrocketed over the next ten years, you better believe the next generation would be some wacked-out, crazy-ass children. But there would be a chorus of Boomers who would still wax nostagically about dropping acid in the 60s or smoking pot in the 70s, and they would convince many of us that the trends are perfectly normal. And they would be wrong and self-deluded fools.

All I’m doing is suggesting that they could be a problem. And you know what? When you see scenes from Columbine and then watch some of these video games or movies, you don’t have to be a Debbie Downer to see parallels. When you hear testimonies from teenagers with HIV and then watch these rump-shaking music videos on MTV, you don’t have to be Church Lady to go “hmmmm.” I mean, it’s not like I’m suggesting that Fruity Pebbles are making young men violent and horny. What is so insane about linking messages and images in the media to deviant, maladaptive behavior?

Don’t know if it counts as the “biggest cite in the world world”, but here goes: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/07/sexual_lyrics_prompt_teens_to_have_sex/.

Have you actually done research on this topic? I mean, I’m wondering why blaming video games is so bizarre to you. Oversimplistic, I could see. But bizarre?

You might be interested in this cite.

[quote]
Doom came out in 1993. Mortal Kombat 1992. Quake 1996. Are they not violent enough? The talking heads and the pundits at the time thought it was practically the end of the world.
[/quote[

Again, I ask you to extend your range a bit. We are talking about generations, which span decades, not just a few years. The “new” generation includes people who were children during the 90s. So you bringing up “Doom” and “Mortal Kombat” really isn’t disuading me against my position.

I was born in '77. My childhood was spent playing video games, so I’m not “anti-games” at all. But I grew up playing Galaga, Pac Man, SuperMario Bros, etc. The most violent game I played on a regular basis was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, although occassionally I would go over to the laundry mat and play the arcade-version of “Double Dragon” (but only because I liked the theme music).

I was a teenager when kids were playing things like Mortal Kombat and Doom. My formative years (pre-teen years) had long-gone. However, one of my male cousins–who was a kid in the early 90s–played violent games all the time. He’s had some brushes with the law and dresses like a thug, but no, I don’t think he’s planning on killing anyone any time soon. However, I do think there’s a difference between playing a violent game for the first time as a 16-year-old, and playing one all throughout childhood. Waving speculations off as “bizarre” when they are actually not can keep one from anticipating a real danger.

So you admit that it can be bad to have young children play violent games. Are not a lot of the young people in our society doing exactly that? And do you believe that all of them are well-adjusted and intelligent? Have great, fantastic parents?

We have parents in our society who play these violent games right alongside their young children. Because their parents grew up playing “Mortal Kombat”–and hey! They turned out okay! (I’m vamping up my hysteria a little, but do you not understand my point at all?)

Juvenile crime has increased among the well-to-do as well as the po’ folks.

But the logic here doesn’t strike me as reasonable. Let’s say video games do cause harm to a developing brain and conscientous. They will still have a disproportionate effect on poor people. Poor parents are more likely to have unsupervised children. Their leisure time will be more unstructured, leaving them with hours to spend in front of the tube. Poor people tend to be more predisposed to crime anyway, either due to being in crappy environments or desperation. Video games that desensitize its players to violence certainly don’t HELP these people.

So yes, the situation is very complex. But blaming violence on unstable homelife is just as simple as blaming it on media influences. The confluence of a LOT of different factors is at work. I don’t think it’s “bizarre” to suggest that media influences fall into this equation somewhere.

I have only noted that juvenile crime has gone up. I have not listed any causes of this, because I don’t know what they are. So I haven’t “said” anything.

You’re focused on causes and blame. I’m asking about trends. I have no idea if things are worse today than in the past, and I’m not even concerned if they ARE worse. I’m just asking if it’s possible for us to reach consensus if things really WERE worse. And so far, I’m starting to feel like the answer to this question is a resounding NO.

I think some of us would notice it, but we would be booed off the stage for even suggesting it.

Seriously, I do think science would help us really make a statement about generational trends. We don’t have enough data to do it now, but five generations down the line, we will be able to talk reasonably about trends. It may be too late or too overwhelming for us to break from our trajectory, but I do think it’s possible to detect a “bad” crop.

You have not presented any cites supporting your first claim.

There is reason to suspect that the new generation is dealing with problems at levels we haven’t seen before, but we don’t have enough data from PAST generations to solidly say this. We can be optimistic, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking everything’s gonna be okay, no matter what we do.

monstro · December 2, 2006, 9:28pm

Dammit! I previewed and still messed up my coding!