When can humans take care of themselves?

[cathmom]

I was reading in a book about animals that elephants take care of their babies longer than any other mammals except humans - 10 years. So that got me thinking. When do you consider humans to be able to take care of themselves? Is 18 only a societal/cultural construct? My 10 year old is pretty self-sufficient. Is it just because society is so complex? Do other mammals have lifetime relationships? I still like my mom's help and I am 37!

[Carrie12345]

I was reading in a book about animals that elephants take care of their babies longer than any other mammals except humans - 10 years. So that got me thinking. When do you consider humans to be able to take care of themselves? Is 18 only a societal/cultural construct? My 10 year old is pretty self-sufficient. Is it just because society is so complex? Do other mammals have lifetime relationships? I still like my mom's help and I am 37!

 

I guess that depends on how one defines "take care of."

 

I mean, Mama Elephant isn't exactly sending Junior out to get a job and secure a lease agreement! If we were still a society of hunters and farmers, I'm thinking my 10 year old would have plenty of survival skills under his belt.

 

In this era of "convenience," I'm not confident that my 10 year old could procure a loaf of bread. (To be fair, the nearest convenience store is nearly 2 miles away.)

[Mom to Aly]

I'm confident that my dd could care for herself, especially if I had had to train her to be self-sufficient. And I think baby elephants could before 10, as well. But it depends on the individual; my daughter is extremely mature. I've seen some teenagers I don't think could do for themselves, seriously.

[Phred]

I guess that depends... we, as humans, have evolved to be societal animals. We move in groups and have for quite some time. Most of our responses are based upon being in a group of some sort. Still, kids in Africa whose parents have died of AIDS have scraped by on their own as young as three. Survival is still an instinct.

 

I'm sorry though... in answer to your question... we could kick our kids out of the house at 12 or so if we desired and they'd be fine.

[Laura K (NC)]

I'm just sayin'. :leaving:

[Susan Wise Bauer]

in answer to your question... we could kick our kids out of the house at 12 or so if we desired and they'd be fine.

 

They would survive, yes. I would quarrel with "they'd be fine." You'd need to define "fine."

 

I'll be interested to see how this thread progresses...although I'm getting ready to leave to ferry children older than 12 to jobs, doctor, haircuts and library, so won't be able to see until later.

 

SWB

[cathmom]

Still, kids in Africa whose parents have died of AIDS have scraped by on their own as young as three. Survival is still an instinct.

 

 

 

Yes, my 2 year old twins are quite capable of foraging for food in the kitchen, much to my dh's dismay. But eventually the food would run out! Then I am not sure what they would do.

[Mama Lynx]

I guess that depends... we, as humans, have evolved to be societal animals. We move in groups and have for quite some time. Most of our responses are based upon being in a group of some sort. Still, kids in Africa whose parents have died of AIDS have scraped by on their own as young as three. Survival is still an instinct.

 

I'm sorry though... in answer to your question... we could kick our kids out of the house at 12 or so if we desired and they'd be fine.

 

My FIL left home when he was 14. He had nowhere to go, really, so he lived in the woods. He knew how to find food and shelter. He lived there until he had had enough, then he came back into society and got himself a job. This was back during the Depression - he'd never have been allowed to do those things today. But he was certainly fine.

 

Yes, 18 is an artificial construct. Our society has structured it so that our kids pretty much cannot function on their own until 18. But if you look historically at what teenagers have been able to do ... I think that one of the sources of the problems our society has is that we have prolonged adolescence, and it is not a good thing.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Humans can probably survive because they have to at a very young age. But, I don't know about thrive. They could find a way to eat and a place to sleep, but, that isn't all children need to thrive.

[cathmom]

My FIL left home when he was 14. He had nowhere to go, really, so he lived in the woods. He knew how to find food and shelter. He lived there until he had had enough, then he came back into society and got himself a job. This was back during the Depression - he'd never have been allowed to do those things today. But he was certainly fine.

 

Yes, 18 is an artificial construct. Our society has structured it so that our kids pretty much cannot function on their own until 18. But if you look historically at what teenagers have been able to do ... I think that one of the sources of the problems our society has is that we have prolonged adolescence, and it is not a good thing.

 

How interesting about your FIL!

 

I agree about prolonged adolescence!

[Rosy]

In this society? I'd say not until late teens-early 20's can they take care of their own basic needs and be responsible for a family long-term. Many societies' kids become adults around 12 or 13...but I believe work was/is integrated into life in a much greater degree. In a society where someone hunts for food or learns a trade from their parents from early childhood, I could see them being ready to be independent at 12. I think we have different demands in our culture when it comes to literacy, professionalism, our relationship to the law, etc....I'm not saying it's better, just different. I don't think a young teenage mind can thrive in this society. A young teenager could work an entry-level job, but that wouldn't allow them (in most cases) to live independently in a way that provides for all their needs.

[PariSarah]

I guess that depends... we, as humans, have evolved to be societal animals. We move in groups and have for quite some time.

 

I don't think our need for "the herd" (or "the village," if you prefer) ever really goes away. I don't think complete self-sufficiency is desirable or possible. And if you have a functional community, you don't necessarily need to be fully competent and capable in order to survive--the rest of the community shares in your burdens.

 

It strikes me that the more complex a society is, the longer it takes to be able to function in it. I think the kind of survival a 12yo could manage in our society would be distasteful to all of us, to say the least. Whereas in more agrarian settings, particularly those with strong family or tribal practices, a 12 or 13 really is capable of handling most of what will she will encounter. She really can be a capable adult in those settings.

 

Think of all the skills you need for just-slightly-above-poverty-level living in America, whether in a rural, urban, or suburban setting. I don't think 12 years is nearly enough to master those skills. (I do think 22 years is far too long, and I get pretty d@mn annoyed at the helpless-child routine when I get it from undergrads around here. :glare:) I could see a 14yo living on her own, in some settings, and with a good deal of help from a kindly neighbor. But I'm having a hard time imagining a completely independent 10yo not living in destitution.

[Rosy]

 

(I do think 22 years is far too long, and I get pretty d@mn annoyed at the helpless-child routine when I get it from undergrads around here. :glare:)

I think it takes some people that long to get to where they are fully independent, but they should be transitioning into independence long before they move out of the house. It is strange to see young adults who still need to be handheld through every little thing.

[Parrothead]

If things were different and young adults had the training earlier to manage I think they'd be okay about 13-15. I you look back at ancient cultures offspring were turned loose earlier than they are now. To name a famous early mother, we can look at Mary, Jesus' mother. She was of marriageable age at 14.

 

Our culture keeps our kids children a lot longer.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I went off to college at 16 and never moved back in with my parents, although I did live in a home of theirs that wasn't occupied for 2 years, so in that way, they did continue to put a roof over my head. But I wasn't like some of the young adults I know whose parents still paid for everything. Losing my parents by the time I was 22 also made me grow up quick.

 

I absolutely know of teenagers that can hold down good jobs in demanding fields better than some adults.

 

My 7 year old can take care of herself when I am sick. But we pay for everything that she uses, and she is not transporting herself anywhere, so it is not what I would call "on her own".

 

I would say 14-16 is the age I would feel a child and could provide for his own basic needs if he or she had to. And it would depend a lot on the environment, is there public transportation available, things like that.

[Mama Lynx]

If things were different and young adults had the training earlier to manage I think they'd be okay about 13-15. I you look back at ancient cultures offspring were turned loose earlier than they are now. To name a famous early mother, we can look at Mary, Jesus' mother. She was of marriageable age at 14.

 

Our culture keeps our kids children a lot longer.

 

And one used to be able to get a teaching license at 16, yes?

[mcconnellboys]

I keep coming back to this with a temptation to ask: "Men? or Women?"

 

But seriously, I think studies in the past couple of decades indicate that the human brain doesn't fully mature until about age 25. Current indications in our own society seem to indicate that it might even be getting to be around 5 years later than that, LOL....

 

I don't think it's all that uncommon anymore for kids to take longer to graduate from college and decide what sort of career path they'd like to take. And lots of folks hovering even around age 30 are back home with their parents these days trying to get a start in life.

 

Those who have been taught to be more self-sufficient from an early age (or who have had that thrust upon them) are more likely to mature more quickly, it would seem. So I do think there's quite a bit of variability in this dimension for humans.

[Danestress]

In a wealthy world like ours, 12 year olds could probably live on what they get from dumpster diving in the suburbs. Many of them would be raped or murdered before the end of, say, 5 years, but there would also be survivors - enough to say that 12 year olds "can" take care of themselves.

 

In a society where things (water, shelter, food, medicine) are very scarse and everything must be truly fought for, I believe most 12 year olds would be toast. I think a large percentage of 14 year olds would not survive outside of a family group. In fact, I think when goods are extremely scarce, most people need to be part of a "tribe" to survive.

[Karen in CO]

An elephant can take care of itself at the age of 10, but that is after it has learned what to eat, where the water is and how to defend itself. The females generally stay with their mothers even after that. The matriarch knows where the water and good food is and leads the herd to save forage. So in a sense, though they could care for themselves, they remain part of a group to increase their chance of survival. I can understand why they kick out the teenage boys. ;)

 

So are we talking about the age in which a human can find food and water in a natural environment, or the age in which the same human can finish medical school, buy a house and afford a trophy wife?

 

I know for certain that a human with proper training could run a farm by herself and take care of her children at age 14. My aunt did that and so did most women in my family at the time. She married at 14, had babies, cooked meals, plowed a field, raised all the food for the family, carried water from a well and all that at the tender age of 14. So 14 is my answer, but I suspect that it is younger than that.

[Tabrett]

I know for certain that a human with proper training could run a farm by herself and take care of her children at age 14. My aunt did that and so did most women in my family at the time. She married at 14, had babies, cooked meals, plowed a field, raised all the food for the family, carried water from a well and all that at the tender age of 14. So 14 is my answer, but I suspect that it is younger than that.

 

My Great-Grandmother was married at 13 and did all the above things. The reasons children can be let go earlier is our society:

 

-You not allowed to work full time till you are 16.

-Most places won't hire you unless you have graduated school or are in school.

-You can't drive till 16.

-You can't vote till 18.

-Our society says "you can't, you can't".

-Homes are so expensive.

-You have to build credit to be able to get loans for our over priced market.

-Oh and a biggie-Teen girls don't can't marry older men. My Great-Grandmother's husband was in his early 20's. Even in Bible times girls could married much older men. In non-westernized societies, girls marry older men. When I read about marriages in history, what was normal, would now be considered child abuse (Obviously, I DON"T want my dd's doing this!).

 

In societies where it is not so difficult to get shelter or food, meaning you build your own shelter-no artificial building codes, you grow your own food-no grocery stores or need for money, no need for a car or an education, 12-13 year olds can thrive as well as any other adult in that society. Our society is very, very complicated making the things necessary to survive very complicated to achieve.

[cathmom]

Thanks everyone for your input! My conclusion is that children could be considered grown at 14-16 depending on the individual. At that point, they have adult strength for physical tasks and are capable of reproducing. I think in a simpler society, a person of that age could thrive. Our society is more complex, and so additional training is usually necessary to really thrive.

[Rosie_0801]

I've known some guys in their 30's who I really don't think would manage if their daddies didn't pay their mobile phone bills. It's a family business, which is quite a nice idea. I just think the "boys" should have spent a bit more time working. One of them used to give away hundreds of dollars worth of freebies to his mates, which I think is a rotten thing to do. Who cheats their own dad? Who cheats their own dad who pays most of their bills and ensures they don't actually have to work if they don't feel like it?

I think a lot of it is about expectations...

Rosie

[Peela]

Humans are such social creatures- we are interdependent with our communities and environments. There are street kids in my city less than 10 years old. They survive, through cunning, stealing, begging, prostitution- but it's hardly ideal.

In past generations, young women 12 or so might have been sent to work for wealthier families. In India, many kids are taught begging and scavenging from a young age.

Many of our grandfathers may have left school and joined the workforce at around age 14 or 15.

I would say nature might have set it up that we are ready to stand on our own, without so much direct parental input, from around puberty. However, that doesn't mean kicked out from the tribe to survive in the wilderness alone (although that was/is a common initiation rite of many traditional cultures). We would still be surrounded by support.