Some time ago I got into a heated discussion about how we as humans are aged. Currently a person is born on a certain date and that date is considered your birth date. A year following that date a person is said to be a year old. On the surface this ideology seems pretty cut and dry but I felt as if it was flawed in some ways. Nine months is the amount of time we recognize that it takes for a baby to be born. We also recognize that a living baby can be born on a premature basis before those nine months. With that being so its obvious that a person is capable of living before the allotted nine months. Why is though that we consider a nine month old human to be only a year old when a birthday comes around.
Its obvious that society clearly dates age from the time a human is actually born, but could it be done otherwise?. Why aren't we considered a year old 3 months after the date of birth in the case of babies born after 9 months. Or simply just considered a year old after what ever the difference in months is between the amount of months at which you were born and 12 months. Though it may seem minuscule in its nature, perhaps if we aged ourselves correctly, our development would come along differently. Maybe we would be more advanced due to the fact that youth would be brought along differently.
In essence I believe there could be some truth in what I feel. Many cultures hold their children to a high standard at very young ages. Here in America the baby is admired and often given much idle time. Interestedly enough though there are whole segments on American television shows dedicated to highlighting kid "geniuses" who may not be geniuses at all just simply children immersed in knowledge at an accelerated pace.
No comments:
Post a Comment