Talking to my brother this morning about rapidly youth crime, it seems to be a thing happening globally. The rate of change depends on the past baseline, but it is ramping up rapidly, and becoming far more aggressive and violent in nature. There are many sides to it, but what I have noticed talking with various people, is that most seem to think thew solution lays in legislation and policing. I don't think this is going to help at all, other than increase the cost of management of an escalating problem, because it doesn't address the cause of the issue.
The supply needs to be cut.
It is an upstream problem.
There is a famous parable that visualizes the upstream problem.
“Imagine a large river with a high waterfall. At the bottom of this waterfall hundreds of people are working frantically trying to save those who have fallen into the river and have fallen down the waterfall, many of them drowning. As the people along the shore are trying to rescue as many as possible one individual looks up and sees a seemingly never-ending stream of people falling down the waterfall and begins to run upstream. One of other rescuers hollers, ‘Where are you going? There are so many people that need help here.’ To which the man replied, ‘I’m going upstream to find out why so many people are falling into the river.’”
—Saul Alinsky
Where are all these delinquent children coming from?
And I think this is where it gets challenging to solve, because the problem isn't singular in nature and has many influencing factors that need to be addressed. Also, the river itself isn't a part of the environment, it is the stream of society as a whole, with everyone approaching the edge of the waterfall, just travelling at different rates. If the problem of youth crime is to be addressed adequately, it isn't enough to focus on individuals, or even the groups, the entire direction of the stream needs to be changed so it doesn't lead to the cliff it is hurtling toward.
At the core, I believe the macro thing of supreme importance to humanity and the individual, are the qualities of our relationships. Large and small, it is these that make up society at the global and the local levels. I believe it is obvious that nearly everyone on earth is better when they have healthy relationships in their lives, but it is rarely considered how all of these relationships bind together to provide a meta for society.
Over the last several decades, the rise of individualism for profit has been the business direction, which has led to all kinds of developments that facilitate us to be more capable by ourselves and less reliant on others. This sounds like a good thing and it is in many respects, but it has also led to disconnection, disenfranchisement, and isolation. This has created a host of societal problems, with one symptom of the dysfunction being youth crime. But there are other symptoms, like depression, substance abuse, and loneliness.
For a long time "the breakdown of the family" has been talked about, but the focus tends to be narrow, as if it is the family itself that is important. Yes, families are a big part of this, but at the core it is about the quality of relationships within the family that matter, not the concept of a family itself. A family alone is not enough to change this, because there is peer interaction and influence. Treating all of this as isolated instances, isn't going to help.
The meta has to change.
The breakdown of the family has happened because of all of these isolating disconnection activities, and it has sped up because business has found ways to make them stickier for profit. Things like social media and streaming services are examples of isolating consumer products and despite what many people believe about themselves, we are all influenced heavily when we use them. But even when we don't, we are influenced by them indirectly through our interactions with others.
There is a term called "competitive cognitive artifact" which is relevant here.
The mathematical biologist David Krakauer penned the term and it means: technologies that improve our cognitive power, but leave us worse off without them.
However, these consumer tools aren't only competing cognitively, they are competing socially. They are "Competitive Social Artifacts" (if this hasn't been penned by others, I claim it). And the impact of these artifacts have been enormously detrimental to society as a whole, as the compete for and degrade the relationships at an individual level, and therefore change the meta at a group level also. Everything from the amount of time and quality of time we spend with each other, to the depth of friendship, the circles of trust, the ability to communicate and how we are able to read others have all been affected, and much, much more.
The changed meta has not only directed us away from human-need development, it has pushed us toward a cliff to where humans are increasingly irrelevant, using technologies that speed the flow of the stream. The upstream problems are multifaceted, and while the breakdown of the family is one aspect, there are problems further upstream again. Essentially, we need to get to the root causes of what directs the stream and we need to redirect, cutting off the flow to the waterfall, and over.
Legislation treating symptoms is never going to work, in the same way that even with all of the legislation around illicit drugs, problem usage is increasing. Problem usage isn't increasing because people are enjoying their lives so much, it is increasing because they are looking to escape whatever life they have. They are looking for an easing of their problems, a way to disconnect from them. And social media, streaming services, food, medicine, and all other consumer industries are leveraging this desire to ease discomfort, for profit. It doesn't matter that the solutions they sell are treating symptoms and not the causes, because that just means they have repeat customers.
As you have likely noticed, none if this addresses youth crime directly, nor is any of it a potential quick fix. That is because there is little point in treating youth crime other than mitigating risk, if the cause of the issues aren't being addressed. It is the same for loneliness, depression, domestic violence and problem drug usage. As long as the upstream factors aren't addressed, nothing will change.
If there are only the resources available to do one thing, it makes far more sense to save those who aren't in the water yet, because that stems the flow and will eventually lead to no one going over the edge of the waterfall. This easing at the edge will show positive progress and save more resources, that can then be moved to other areas. Treating at the waterfall point will not only mean a continual flow, it will also result in a massive amount of failure, which puts more pressure on the system, as it collapses further and further under the stress, no matter how many resources are thrown at it.
As I see it (very idealistically), our activities from the ground up, from the individual all the way through to the governments and largest corporations, should have the main goal being improvement of human wellbeing. If this was the underlying mechanism for all activity above from business and government, then it would impact positively on everything that facilitates wellbeing - the environment, the energy sector, military, finance, automotive, medicine, consumer electronics and the list goes on. And, these impact on people at the professional level with work-life considerations, which impact on families, children, and individuals as a whole.
The underlying mechanism is "for profit" currently, and that leads to all of the problems that appear above. The problems are symptoms of illness and dysfunction, and while it is easy to blame individuals and small groups, they are products of the environment, influenced at every touch point, which is driven by the "for profit" meta. That meta reduces the quality of our relationships, which is why so many people say "never get into business with friends and family".
That shouldn't be the case.
We should be able to be in business with friends and family because business should be aimed at improving wellbeing, meaning that our relationships strengthen, not degrade. However, we have been so conditioned by the current meta, that we don't know anything else, and can't imagine a different way. Any suggestion that questions the status quo is rejected as crazy and fanciful, as if it is impossible. But just imagine telling a tribe a hundred thousand years ago that they won't care about each other, and that they shouldn't work together for the common good, and that they are better off alone.
Could they imagine it?
Are we better off alone? Should we only work for ourselves? Should we not care for others?
Society is suffering a death by a thousand cuts, yet we seem to keep ignoring the underlying tool that is being used as a knife to sever the relationships that bind us together. There is no quick fix. But the fix isn't that complicated to understand. It is just more convenient to not do something now, even if we all go over the edge in the future.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
