To compare today’s child, teenager, to the one who grew up a mere two dozen years before, you would see remarkable change. As I was discussing with a lovely patient of mine during my volunteering at the local hospital the other evening, society seems to have opened up a great number of new dimensions to the world of the adolescent. Before today, who had heard of half the medical conditions which today hungrily buzz around, it seems, the majority of the young population? It’s not only on a scientific basis which I comment- in perhaps a deceptively gradual transition, we have successfully closed the void between child and adult. I like to compare it to history; the arcane state of the English Church after the Protestant reforms of a very Catholic Henry VIII, for it mirrors the government’s advances which have left teenagers progressing in life without any real ‘place’ in the community.

To make some decisions, we require the knowledge of life lessons and prudery learned from their subsequent outcomes. A fine example- university. Which university? Which course? Narrowing down the choice is easy part, facilitated nowadays by numerous publications and friendly ‘careers advisors,’ in their designated school library corners… It is the prospect of making a choice which will affect that young individual for the rest of his or her life which is daunting- to put it lightly (as to retain the ‘light’ humour of the article.) We are still children, but we are being made to act like adults. Can that really be asked of us?

I target a familiar area. And, although I will always feel strongly about the twisted relationship I feel is that between education and politics, my opening argument covers a much wider range of subjects. I argue, ‘is it really the advances in science which have allowed us to discover new conditions which always existed?’ or is science again the shield for making excuses to the consequences and side-effects of society’s culture on our young generation? I’ll let you decide.

A student of history, I thoroughly enjoy delving into the psychology of the subject. After all, history is the study of people. This is why I love it. As to choose a civilisation or clique which I thought lived most harmoniously, I would bet on the laity (peasant population) of Tudor England. I’d do so, not for the obvious lack of glamour and hygiene, but for their blissful ignorance towards outward life. To them, tradition took hold from the minute you were born, and such a path was not argued. They did not know different, they had not tasted change. I compare this to the lives of children in the recent past- my opinion is that in many respects, they were much more guarded and naïve, protected. They got on with things. In addition, their lifestyle often included a lot more discipline and growing up earlier as far as money management and chores were concerned. Children were far less spoiled.

It seems the sugars of today’s fruits is rotting young minds. Admitting that I have a tendency (in reality, an urge,) to exaggerate issues, I’ll continue to state that kids probably won’t agree to reverting back to the ‘good times’ by surrendering their consoles and material company. Is there a solution?