Would you trust your younger self? | thearticle

I know I wouldn’t. Until the age of eight I was essentially a Barbarian. I threw stones at passersby for cheap thrills and was very into Pokemon cards. By 12, I’d moved on to Warhammer and

discovered football. At 15, following a traumatic first encounter with a member of the opposite sex two years earlier, I had regressed. I lost the power of speech I’d worked so hard to

cultivate, and resorted to grunts and the occasional violent outburst to communicate. At age 16, I regained the power of speech, started chatting up girls again, and discovered politics.

This is the version of myself I trust the least. In all honesty, my current incarnation is hardly a dependable chap. But I certainly trust me more now. I don’t think that’s particularly

unusual; most of us consider ourselves better equipped to make decisions the older we get. If we’re being honest, we know our younger selves, no matter how principled they may have been,

didn’t have a clue. At least we know we don’t have a clue now either, back then we thought we had all the answers. So why is it that we suddenly place so much emphasis on the wisdom and

agency of children? I wrote earlier in the week about the case of Shamima Begum. Ms Begum joined the Islamic State as a 15-year-old. Everyone knows the vile actions and ideology of those

savages, and there is (justified) righteous anger that she left, remains unrepentant, and now wants to return. ‘She knew what she was doing,’ goes the cry. I agree, I think she knew exactly

what she was doing. I don’t believe she is misunderstood. But what I don’t get is why we wish to suspend the rights central to, and guaranteed by, the society we howl that she has betrayed.

Then there were the mass walkouts of children for a ‘strike’ against climate change. 50,000 or so were reputed to have joined in, in very many cases tolerated, and in some actively

encouraged, by their teachers. Plenty of people commended the children for ‘taking a stand,’ claiming that this would in some way bring about change. But what were the children actually

striking for? What key policy, what strategy, did they want enacted? It’s all very well saying ‘climate change’ but which element, and by what means? Were the children backing government

spending on wind energy, or solar power? How about nuclear? Had they gone to any lengths to weigh up the pros and cons of carbon taxes? What would they like less money spent on to facilitate

what they want? Have they given much thought to the jobs that could be lost, or the effect any of these things will have on human progress more broadly? ‘Of course not,’ I hear you say,

‘they’re children!’ which is exactly the point. We set legal limits on what people of certain ages can and cannot do for a reason; either through lack of experience, resources, or lack of

development, they are in most cases incapable of making the same reasoned choices as older people. That is not to say that their opinions are invalid, or that they themselves are stupid, but

they simply haven’t had the time. It helps no one, therefore, to start making exceptions because certain youngsters hold political or personal opinions with which we agree. We shouldn’t be

so quick to heed and respect the agency of the young. Don’t ignore them, but don’t overly empower them either. Always remember, no matter how articulate they may be, that they are you, 10,

20, 30 years ago. You wouldn’t trust you then. You shouldn’t trust them now.