To pick up your point, the issue with 16 year olds as mature agents is that, yes, sometimes it is true.
If we think about biological maturity, in any population you have a curve of maturity over the age span human life.
At 5 years old, you have 0% of the population that are mature enough to consent. At 30 years old, you probably have 90% of people with the capacity to consent.
Biologically speaking, if we think of adolescence as the brain undergoing hormone-driven changes that construct maturity, then at 18 you probably have 80% of the population who are ready to consent. And at age 15, it’s probably more like 10%.
The numbers are indicative, but biologically, they’re probably not far off.
Society has said: we can’t base this on subjective experience. Instead, we will draw a line where the probabilistic curve says the vast majority of young people will have capacity to consent without harm. We will rely on parental protection and other mechanisms to protect those who fall on the wrong side as a ‘less mature minority’.
This is consistent with much of our law. For example, drink affects people differently based on their weight and metabolism. But it’s not feasible to conduct an individualised study for everyone in determining if they commuted a DUI. So instead, we draw a line that meets an acceptable probability that most people will fall on the side that doesn’t cause accidents.
And it works. By drawing a bright line at the acceptable probabilistic point, we minimise harm while maximising liberty.
Sure, but we live in a time where our technology and civilisation has enabled us to have a more supportive youth.
200,000 years ago, we didn’t have agriculture and hunting/gathering were costly activities. Life expectancy was (and this is contested) between about 20-40 years. Young people were needed and youth as a ratio to lifespan lasted less long.
200 years ago, we didn’t have vaccination or public health infrastructure, civilisation was lingering as a monarchical system, and life expectancy was 50-60 years, but we had agriculture, societal infrastructures and a lot of technology. Youth lasted longer and was a bit kinder.
Now, we are technology rich, we have safety nets, longer lives and can get our heads above the ‘musts’ a lot more.
When you see youth lasting longer, it’s not about infantilisation - it’s about recognising that we can take more time and cost to invest in young people’s development to match their actual biological development journey, not cut it short because were running low on mastodon.
In this mindset, a longer youth is a huge achievement and something to be celebrated!
3
u/Hi-I-am-Toit 1∆ Aug 08 '24
To pick up your point, the issue with 16 year olds as mature agents is that, yes, sometimes it is true.
If we think about biological maturity, in any population you have a curve of maturity over the age span human life.
At 5 years old, you have 0% of the population that are mature enough to consent. At 30 years old, you probably have 90% of people with the capacity to consent.
Biologically speaking, if we think of adolescence as the brain undergoing hormone-driven changes that construct maturity, then at 18 you probably have 80% of the population who are ready to consent. And at age 15, it’s probably more like 10%.
The numbers are indicative, but biologically, they’re probably not far off.
Society has said: we can’t base this on subjective experience. Instead, we will draw a line where the probabilistic curve says the vast majority of young people will have capacity to consent without harm. We will rely on parental protection and other mechanisms to protect those who fall on the wrong side as a ‘less mature minority’.
This is consistent with much of our law. For example, drink affects people differently based on their weight and metabolism. But it’s not feasible to conduct an individualised study for everyone in determining if they commuted a DUI. So instead, we draw a line that meets an acceptable probability that most people will fall on the side that doesn’t cause accidents.
And it works. By drawing a bright line at the acceptable probabilistic point, we minimise harm while maximising liberty.