Why are children valued more than adults?

[serp777]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults. I can understand that parents will value their children more because that's mostly genetic and ingrained.

But I'm talking about from a general societal perspective though. It seems to me that sacrificing an adult to save a child is a bad idea. Society has already invested many resources into an adult, and so it seems to me saving adults should take priority over children. This idea of women and children first, should really be adults first. Does anyone have a logical argument for why children should be saved over adults? For example, if you had to choose between a random adult, and a random child, which one would you save and why?

Some arguments i might expect to see are:

"Children are the future and we need to protect them!"

Sure, but the world certainly doesn't have a population growth problem, and children are easily replaceable.

"You don't know what the child will grow up to be."

That's part of the problem. The adult is already a contributor, but the child is not and so its more resource efficient to let the adult survive and just have a new child.

"The children haven't lived as long and deserve more life."

I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

 

[David T]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults. I can understand that parents will value their children more because that's mostly genetic and ingrained.

But I'm talking about from a general societal perspective though. It seems to me that sacrificing an adult to save a child is a bad idea. Society has already invested many resources into an adult, and so it seems to me saving adults should take priority over children. This idea of women and children first, should really be adults first. Does anyone have a logical argument for why children should be saved over adults? For example, if you had to choose between a random adult, and a random child, which one would you save and why?

Some arguments i might expect to see are:

"Children are the future and we need to protect them!"

Sure, but the world certainly doesn't have a population growth problem, and children are easily replaceable.

"You don't know what the child will grow up to be."

That's part of the problem. The adult is already a contributor, but the child is not and so its more resource efficient to let the adult survive and just have a new child.

"The children haven't lived as long and deserve more life."

I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

Well when you become an adult maybe your attitude will change

 

[Revoltingest]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults. I can understand that parents will value their children more because that's mostly genetic and ingrained.

But I'm talking about from a general societal perspective though. It seems to me that sacrificing an adult to save a child is a bad idea. Society has already invested many resources into an adult, and so it seems to me saving adults should take priority over children. This idea of women and children first, should really be adults first. Does anyone have a logical argument for why children should be saved over adults? For example, if you had to choose between a random adult, and a random child, which one would you save and why?

Some arguments i might expect to see are:

"Children are the future and we need to protect them!"

Sure, but the world certainly doesn't have a population growth problem, and children are easily replaceable.

"You don't know what the child will grow up to be."

That's part of the problem. The adult is already a contributor, but the child is not and so its more resource efficient to let the adult survive and just have a new child.

"The children haven't lived as long and deserve more life."

I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

It's in our nature to value & protect children.
And unlike adults, they haven't done anything heinous yet.
It's not logical....it just is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Social animals frequently protect and watch over their young. The adults have, presumably, already passed their genetic information down, whereas the children will need to grow to maturity to continue the species.

 

[Glaurung]

Superiors have obligations to their inferiors.

 

[stvdv]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults

When I was 10 years old I told my mother "I will never marry and never ever have children".
So from birth I don't value babies like you described in the OP

Got me thinking "why I feel this way, while others feel different?"
When I solved this for myself, my confusion was gone "why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults"

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

We only value children when their in a women's body otherwise we say ****em and go back to our electronic devices.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Plenty of non-rational reasons perhaps, but one rational reason might be that the genes they inherit (from both parents) might confer an advantage on the future survivability of the next generation. Not necessarily, but this surely would be a big advantage over just a continuation of the existing genes of each parent.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults. I can understand that parents will value their children more because that's mostly genetic and ingrained.

But I'm talking about from a general societal perspective though. It seems to me that sacrificing an adult to save a child is a bad idea. Society has already invested many resources into an adult, and so it seems to me saving adults should take priority over children. This idea of women and children first, should really be adults first. Does anyone have a logical argument for why children should be saved over adults? For example, if you had to choose between a random adult, and a random child, which one would you save and why?

Some arguments i might expect to see are:

"Children are the future and we need to protect them!"

Sure, but the world certainly doesn't have a population growth problem, and children are easily replaceable.

"You don't know what the child will grow up to be."

That's part of the problem. The adult is already a contributor, but the child is not and so its more resource efficient to let the adult survive and just have a new child.

"The children haven't lived as long and deserve more life."

I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

I think children should have equal value to adults and that old people have just as much value as children and young people.
I think people value children so much because they have children. That is why they think children are so important.
I admit I have an attitude. I have no children and I never wanted any. Then again, I was not wanted as a child.

 

[serp777]

Well when you become an adult maybe your attitude will change

Nice zinger

 

[serp777]

It's in our nature to value & protect children.
And unlike adults, they haven't done anything heinous yet.
It's not logical....it just is.

I know it just is, that's why I brought up parents and asked the question--since i'm of course implying that we do. The question is shouldn't we reject out genetic desire if its illogical?

 

[serp777]

Social animals frequently protect and watch over their young. The adults have, presumably, already passed their genetic information down, whereas the children will need to grow to maturity to continue the species.

Right, I understand that we have genetic predispositions to, which is why I brought up the parents example. But is there some logical/utilitarian reason for why prefer children over adults?

 

[serp777]

Plenty of non-rational reasons perhaps, but one rational reason might be that the genes they inherit (from both parents) might confer an advantage on the future survivability of the next generation. Not necessarily, but this surely would be a big advantage over just a continuation of the existing genes of each parent.

In the past I would have agreed with you, particularly considering that most adults didn't have useful skills and prime breeding age was very young. Plus people died early, and so adults by their 20s were almost certainly going to die.

However I think this is not a rational reason in our current century. Technology and societal contributions are actually much more important to the survivability of everyone and people live vastly longer lives. So an adult who's already had resources invested in them and their skills is more valuable, particularly considering the massive population growth. There is a huge supply of children.

 

[RabbiO]

@serp777 -

I can see you as a fire fighter racing through a burning building and yelling, "To get folks out of here I need everyone to line up in order. Nobel Prize winners up front, followed by medical doctors, research scientists, other Ph.Ds....."

 

[Augustus]

I've always been confused why children, particularly babies are valued so much more than adults... I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

Some good news for you then:


By investigating a new and much larger sample of maritime disasters than has previously been done, we show that women have a substantially lower survival rate than men. That women fare worse than men has been documented also for natural disasters (Frankenberg et al., 2011; Ikeda, 1995; MacDonald, 2005; Neumayer and Plümper, 2007; Oxfam International, 2005). We also find that crew members have a higher survival rate than passengers and that only 7 out of 16 captains went down with their ship. Children appear to have the lowest survival rate. Moreover, we shed light on some common perceptions of how situational and cultural conditions affect the survival of women. Most notably, we find that it seems as if it is the policy of the captain, rather than the moral sentiments of men, that determines if women are given preferential treatment in shipwrecks. This suggests an important role for leaders in disasters. Preferences of leaders seem to have affected survival patterns also in the evacuations of civilians during the Balkan Wars (Carpenter, 2003). Moreover, we find that the gender gap in survival rates has decreased since WWI. This supports previous findings that higher status of women in society improves their relative survival rates in disasters (Neumayer and Plümper, 2007).

https://www.ifn.se/eng/publications/wp/2012/913

 

[Revoltingest]

I know it just is, that's why I brought up parents and asked the question--since i'm of course implying that we do. The question is shouldn't we reject out genetic desire if its illogical?

Sure, we could reject that when it's dysfunctional.
I can imagine such situations.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Superiors have obligations to their inferiors.

I wish this held true in the job world

 

[Quintessence]

I've never understood it either - you're not the only one. It makes no sense for humans.

For one, humans do not have limited life spans. For some other organisms (and human, historically, to some extent) a mother might only produce a single litter of offspring within their lifetime. That is simply not the case of humans.

For two, humans are entirely the opposite of an endangered species - they're horrendously overpopulated. When species are endangered, maintaining younglings is critical for both genetic diversity and preservation of the population. This is blatantly not the case for humans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

In the past I would have agreed with you, particularly considering that most adults didn't have useful skills and prime breeding age was very young. Plus people died early, and so adults by their 20s were almost certainly going to die.

However I think this is not a rational reason in our current century. Technology and societal contributions are actually much more important to the survivability of everyone and people live vastly longer lives. So an adult who's already had resources invested in them and their skills is more valuable, particularly considering the massive population growth. There is a huge supply of children.

Not think genes provide for much of our abilities, including intelligence? The evidence seems to point in this direction, so surely this is an advantage - whether on our survivability or whatever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"Children are the future and we need to protect them!"

Sure, but the world certainly doesn't have a population growth problem, and children are easily replaceable.

Except adults come from children, so by that logic adults are easily replaceable too. All you need to do is ensure a few children survive long enough to replace them.

"You don't know what the child will grow up to be."

That's part of the problem. The adult is already a contributor, but the child is not and so its more resource efficient to let the adult survive and just have a new child.

If you're basing your opinion purely on this sort of logic, then you should care more about children dying than adults, because a child dying means more resources lost before a child has grown to actually contribute, so your logic here that having more children is more resource efficient is wrong. It's more efficient for a child to grow into an adult than it is for a child to die before adulthood and then their parents (or whoever) have to go through the whole resource-consuming process of having a second child and trying to raise them to adulthood.

"The children haven't lived as long and deserve more life."

I don't accept that they deserve it in exchange for the loss of an adults life.

Children represent a greater potential contribution to society than your average adult, especially in this day and age where life expectancy is always improving. By this cold, hard, resource and efficiency-based thinking, an adult of 40 who has 40 years to live is of less worth than a child of 10 in the same generation who has 80 years left to live, with a potential of around 60 years of contributions against the adult's 40 (if we discount the time they spend infirm).

But, this is just cold, hard logic at work. The real reason people see young lives as having more value is the simple, primal fact that parents love their kids and wish to protect them, often and instinctively at the cost of their own. People without kids (such as myself) don't really get that, but I'm always reminded of a great quote by Christopher Hitchens that I feel helps me understand the real, instinctive feelings of absolute dedication many parents feel for their children:

“To be the father of growing daughters is to understand something of what Yeats evokes with his imperishable phrase 'terrible beauty.' Nothing can make one so happily exhilarated or so frightened: it's a solid lesson in the limitations of self to realize that your heart is running around inside someone else's body. It also makes me quite astonishingly calm at the thought of death: I know whom I would die to protect and I also understand that nobody but a lugubrious serf can possibly wish for a father who never goes away.”