h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So what we have, then, is a continuous path from childhood to adulthood, with markers along the way. There are the physical markers of puberty, and the less tangible ones marking the acceptance of responsibility for ourselves and for others. A seminal moment, as Crusty points out, is the first time we hold our first child. Others may be the receipt of our first wage packet, the signing of our first mortgage, marriage, our first long journey alone, the first time we vote, and so on, there are many others, and of course they vary in different societies. However there is no single moment when we can say, that is it, I am now an adult.

All of these markers mean, to me, that as we become adult, we accept that we are part of society, that we are not alone. That acceptance implies a responsibility to take part in society, and thereby to leave the world a better place for our presence in it.

None of the above precludes a sense of self, a private and personal self, or our right to believe what we want to believe, to wonder, to imagine, to create etc. It only constrains our outward behaviour.

I reject this notion of a child as an innocent. We are born with three things: a set of genes - which may harbour evil, parents - who may not be good, and an environment - society, if you like. All these play equal parts in shaping our character. (It's the old nature vs nurture debate which flourishes in many other forums on h2g2).

By definition, many people here are 'outsiders'. If they weren't they would not be sat in front of a screen, but out in the world. The 'outsider' is simply an individual yet to find their place in Society, a role to play, a tribe to belong to. A homosexual may, for example, feel themselves to be outside society until such time as they get access to a 'tribe' of fellow homosexuals, or a tribe that welcomes and tolerates homosexuals.

Can you have an effect on Society from outside? I cannot think of an example. To affect Society, you must, at the very least be heard. And to be heard you need the language of Society, and an intimate knowledge of Society. You need to know how it works, and you can only get that from being inside. Jesus, Mr Chicken's example, needed a solid grounding in the spoken language, in the way the existing religon worked, the way Society worked. He was a carpenter before he was able to utilise his talents as a prophet/religious leader.

When I talk of Society, I have a complex mechanism in mind. There appear to be, as Mr Case points out, many different Societies, each apparently with a different set of values. I prefer to think of it as an intricate web of tribes, like the internet, but with people as the individual PC's. It is perfectly possible to belong to many tribes at the same time, and they may be defined in all sorts of ways. Many tribes may work together as a Nation, bounded by Geography or language, but Society, in my concept, is super-National.

Thats enough for now, it seems I forgot my plea for 'succinct'!

If your idea of "society" is the all-encompassing idea of the totality of humanity, then I agree about accepting a responsible role in it.

About children being innocent, I disagree. I don't think that there is a gene/genes for "evil". The genes only carry a potential for certain qualities - if those qualities are supported by the environment, they find external expression in the individual, otherwise not. I believe every human carries the potential for being good, but that potential can fail to become expressed because it is not properly supported. To me "innocence" means the potential for being a good person. As a person grows up, that potential can be thwarted, and the process can start very early in life. So innocence can be lost very early, but it can also be regained later on. To me innocence means having a purely positive attitude towards the world, towards life, towards other people, to bear no grudges, to carry no resentment, bitterness or cynicism, and to maintain hope in the face of adversity. It may be true that few children are like that, but I say that is the natural attitude towards life, it only changes into something negative when the individual finds himself/herself thwarted in some way. But it can turn back to something positive again later on. How about THREE stages of growing up: first naïve or "foolish" innocence, then corruption and adulteration, then regained, "wise" innocence?

Sorry, Case old chap, we must agree to disagree. As I said, the nature vs nurture debate is available alsewhere on h2g2, but my views are firm. The genes have something at least to answer for. Evil, badness, wickedness is there in some children.

Will I understand all this when I grow up?

How can I agree with you all? I do!

You're the people who might be interested in another (related) thread.

"The Sixties" was famous for it's rebels and "free-thinkers". These are the people who are coming into control now. Why are we still making such sad mistakes in managing our world??

So you have a firm plan then, Deee, to grow up!

Ok, I belong to that generation that was educated in the sixties and some members of which are now 'in control' as you put it. So, lets see if I can put some thoughts together.

The 'free-thinkers', the rebels, were always a tiny minority. Yes there was certainly a time, perhaps only a few months in 1968, when we (the general youth population) thought that the world was really going to change, that we, the young, were actually going to somehow throw out the old guard.

I am not sure how it ended, that feeling. For me, Altamont (where someone was killed by Hells Angels at a Rolling Stones concert) and later Woodstock (for me the commercialisation, the americanisation, of the 'dream') were important events. The Paris riots were important in 1968, but showed that we 'the young' were not going to win, and also showed that we 'the young' were being led by people a little older with a different, more violently revolutionary, agenda.

Drugs, then, were really limited to the affluent, the Rock & Roll fraternity and the sons and daughters of the wealthy. They never impacted on the day to day life of the majority,in the way that they do now.

Probably unconsciously, the 'Establishment' took onboard a few of the less objectionable (to them) personalities and ideas (The Beatles were honoured etc.). Nothing stultifies like acceptance and consequent wealth.

The end of the 'dream' meant that many were disillusioned and either took to a 'hippy' lifestyle, or just gave up and got on with real life. Neither route has led to power.

Very, very few of the 'free thinkers' have thus made it through the system with their ideals intact. It is the conservative who survive, not the risk-takers. Jack Sraw, the current British Home Secretary (Interior Minister) was a prominent figure then. See how life-experience has changed him, now a very conservative figure.

There is a natural tendency for one generation to reject its predecessor. Thus my generation rebelled against the conservative 'war' generation that preceded it, and our children rebelled against our 'woolly minded liberalism' by becoming materialistic.

The 'ruling class' never really changes much. Only a certain type of person is interested in a political life, in controlling the lives of others, in knowing best. That small group is somehow self-perpetuating. Teachers beget teachers, lawyers beget lawyers, doctors beget doctors. It is very rare and difficult for a creative and imaginative mind to be determined and motivated by power for a long enough period to enable him/her to reach the upper echelons of the 'ruling class'.

There's some thoughts for you to digest!