For the Children

I am interested in discovering primary political positions that place an emphasis in political strategy on the children of a community. It seems to me that neither capitalism, communism/socialism nor anarchy/libertarianism place a primary emphasis on the treatment of children as the foundation of liberty and equality. References that indicate otherwise are welcome.

The question is motivated by my consideration of "natural ethics" and ethical imperatives that serve the cause of species survival, and the following are my perhaps idealistic ramblings when I apply this thinking to my own species and community.

On the face of it our species is doing remarkably well despite our clear neglect of children and the absence of liberty and equality. The bottom line question, however, is one of sustainability in the face of the whim of due process by natural selection.

Quality of life is not a function of evolution, the wretched and the happy serve equally well. Ideas still sweep our numbers and modify our internal behavior, but practical limits are maintained by nature. These practical limits do threaten the sustainability of our species and we have begun to give serious consideration to some of them. For example, there are now serious plans to deal with threatening asteroids, global climate change and so on.

So, as a reasoning species we face a dilemma. Increased numbers is a natural process to ensure our survival of catastrophe. If the planet survives the impact of an asteroid or other catastrophe then our current numbers and broad planetary distribution should serve species survival. If we reduce our numbers in the cause of increasing the quality of life then we may actually reduce the sustainability of our species.

Nature is indifferent. When one looks at the strategies of species they range from the brute force - more is better - approach, to the greater care of the child. For example, birds that lay many eggs to ensure that sufficient survive versus birds that lay few eggs and invest parental care to ensure that the few survive. The ironic thing is that both strategies work equally well it seems.

Where are we in this grand scheme and where do ethical imperatives that drive political strategies count? We surely cannot claim that a reasoned approach has led us to become the dominant species. Our success in numbers arises as much from our cruelty and apparently irrational behavior, as it does from our compassion and wisdom. Is that OK? Is it enough? Is it how we wish to be? Do we have any choice in the matter?

I suspect the real answer is that we do not have a choice - it is what it is. A review of history suggests however that the ship can be steered by ethical imperative, by the power of ideas.

So here is a suggestion. It's the children. An ethical imperative that would ensure both our sustainability, improve the quality of life for all, and be more reasoned and more peaceful, is one that seeks to ensure that all children of our species have equal opportunity and equal resources. That is, it is the responsibility of individuals to ensure that wealth is distributed such that each child in the community is provided with the foundations of liberty and equality.

I asked a few of the people around me about this notion and they did not seem to think that it is at all practicable. They did not feel a responsibility to the children of the community at large - only to their own children. I find this disappointing. Certainly, we naturally place our children first in our own distribution of wealth. However, while our modern notion of ensuring advantage against others may ensure the sustainability of our species, it seems a wretched affair that neglects a sustainable quality of life for all.

PS. A point of clarification and response to an offline comment. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, not states, to distribute wealth. I am not advocating public policy, but rather an ethical imperative directed at individuals.