What is the best way for a society to address adolescent autonomous agency, responsibility, and consent?
What is the best way for a society to address adolescent autonomous agency, responsibility, and consent?
I recall many times growing up when I felt like my inalienable fundamental human rights were violated in unjust autocratic ways, mostly at school. There was also the time of being a year older than my partner but the potential of ridiculous arbitrary laws having major consequences.
I feel like the age of 18 as some kind of moral benchmark is ridiculous. I feel like it is just tied to the age of conscription. Basing sexual morality on the age when the state can abduct and murder without recourse is nonsense. Most of us likely exist in a duality where we might cringe at "underage" of any kind, but not think twice when a couple of teens are dating and in a physical consensual relationship that is respectful and private.
So from a distant future culture's perspective, like if Star Trek TNG existed in hard SciFi, and there is no need for our present arbitrary policy enforcement, what should be the basis of adolescent autonomous agency?
-
Maybe it is weening, cultural pressures, and education.
-
Maybe it is full independence and self sufficiency.
For the record, this is my favored idea as it pressures society to enable a balanced financial early life and opportunities. It also adjusts to account for real world maturity levels. IMO, it is either this or number 1 as these are derived from individual human life phases.
- Maybe you think it should be something else?
You're viewing a single thread.
This reply is meant to generate discussion. It is not sarcasm or meant to be taken negatively at all:
What is the purpose of any rules? Why have them? Is it possible to make a "perfect" rule or policy or public intervention whereby all affected persons are serviced fairly? Probably not. If you conclude we need rules, how do we balance their benefits with the disenfranchisement of some of the persons affected negatively?
In your specific case, how do you make the rules minimize negative outcomes without excessively sacrificing the potential positive outcomes?
I'm genuinely interested in your perspective from your age and place in time.
These are good and valid questions. If you're passionate about them, you may consider studying political science and/or law in the future. One day, if you're still passionate about this topic, you may be in a position to change the rules.
What purpose/Why Rules: The purpose of rules is to protect those that can not protect themselves against those with the power to harm them.
The possibility of perfect rules: This is my real key underlying curiosity. If a well developed AGI governance system is possible, then fractal attention in governance becomes possible in an objective and data based way.
This makes me curious about the current potential for more direct feedback mechanisms. Obviously basing maturity on a financial threshold of independent life and self sufficiency has its flaws, but I am curious if the massive impact on military, sex, and the bulk of the workforce's need for early independent life would be a strong enough mechanism to override the negatives. I think any closed loop control system should perform far better than arbitrary open loop.
Regardless of the potential for closed loop regulations, how do you think fractal attention alters governance if we make the assumption that the laws themselves can be written as very specific AGI alignment in a system with adequate redundancy and watchdogs needed for 10 stigma elimination of the alignment problem? Now the law is not a generalization, but instead is an individualized balance and reasoning for the needs of each citizen separately. That can also include dialog with the individual to remove any push back from the perception of an autocratic limitation.
I think that creates a lot more autonomous agency where the governance is both a protection and guardian.
Thank you for your comments.
These are great philosophical questions.
Since I'm leaning towards anarchism but not an expert, I'd say that's exactly the point of being anarchists: a set of people far removed from the community (like presidents and prime minister, state counselors,or ever city mayor) are not in s good position to even know what people actually need. And that's when they do have theirs interests at heart.
Whereas the people in a community knows best what a community needs and are best suited to ask for rules that serve them, and impose consequences on a case by case basis that is not sustainable in current forms of government. So it would be totally possible to question every rule and make sure they make sense and benefit the community; and change it when it gets obsolete. Though my favorite part is the community decides how bad the rules were broken and that's important for having s fair punishment.