An alternate take on the reason behind the increase in "special needs" children

[Aral]

I'm not talking about certain components in vaccines, GMOs, endocrine perturbators (if that's how you say it in English, but basically those chemicals that disturb the natural hormones in our bodies, like the feminizing stuff in soy or the chemicals that apparently make male frogs gay), medication or anything else of that. I'm aware that they are, for the physical part, a source of it. It's not what I'm going to talk about here. I want to concentrate on what I believe is the "bigger" reason behind all of that.

We live in a society where it is almost criminal to depend on another person in one way or the other. I believe it started around the 1970s or so, after divorce started to become more common and the definition of the family started to break. Nuclear families are no longer the norm today. The small communities of our past are gone. I'll take the example of my mother's family: my mother was born in the 1960s in the Paris region, and back when she was little, everyone lived not too far away from each other. Then, as time passed, the family unit broke. Everyone moved to different parts of the country. It no longer feels like a family. I was told all my childhood that the most important thing in life was family yet those people never gave two fucks about me. I did not grow up going to grandma's house (for other reasons), I did not mess around with my cousins, didn't interact with my extended family like most people did in the past. It doesn't help that I'm a military brat, so that meant moving every 2-3 years. All my life I've longed for a family and a lifelong companion, but it looks like nowadays, most people actively reject anything that sounds like the word "commitment" or "responsibility". They are too engulfed in hedonism. They don't want any constraints: they want to be "free", but are they, really? Nowadays it's normal to ghost, cheat, screw people over without thinking about the potential consequences, raise children as a single parent (most often single mother who is abandoned by the daddy boy, but that can be the reverse too). It may seem like we are freer, but at the same time, the rates of loneliness and depression are skyrocketing. People, in addition, are locking themselves in a new notion: independence. I'm not talking about the healthy kind where you don't live in your mum's basement after 30 and you can function like a normal adult. I'm talking about doing everything yourself, priding yourself on "not needing anyone", and the absolutely obnoxious rise of the "strong independent woman" and "alpha male". You have to be "strong and independent" if you want to be seen as valid.

We are wired, as social creatures, to look for love, companionship, belonging and acceptance. This is a trait that comes from the time when we were living in tribes. Any outcast would die in the wild. Our ancestors' behaviour are still in us, despite technology advancement and all kinds of inventions that made human life different from what it was million years ago. But nowadays, it's almost... unspeakably wrong to look for them. You are labeled as "dependent", "codependent", "overly attached", "needy", "clingy", all those kinds of demeaning words that seek to make you feel ashamed of your need for love. Isn't it normal to want to be with the people you love, to care about them, feel empathy when they are bad, want to do things for them, to feel emotional attachment, to rely on others for support, to need love, to WANT love even? Don't we all deserve love? Don't we all deserve attention, compassion, and support, especially from our loved ones? What is a friend? Is it a person you hang out with until they're no longer useful to you, or are they a person you choose to spend time with because you enjoy their company? What is a partner? Is it someone you simply satisfy your sexual needs with, as well as your craving for attention and approval, sometimes even a material aspect, or is it a person you choose to commit to because you love them, are attracted to them in most cases, want to build a life with? How many "mental disorders" actually spring from having been denied love on a regular basis (and thus a valid response to a valid aggression), or are simply pathologization of normal human behaviour? Those personality disorders, depression, anxiety? How much of that is really an illness, and not a simple sign of a denied need for meaningful relationships and just meaning in general? How many people kill themselves because of loneliness, even if it's simply a feeling on their part?

Now comes my point about special needs kids. It's true that a lot of it is due to the all kinds of aggressions our immune systems and bodies face nowadays. Plastics, GMOs, all the stuff I mentioned above definitely play a role in the rise of conditions like autism, ADHD (although most cases are just kids being kids, imo), physical and mental impairments, all of that. Those children who are severely disabled, whether mentally or physically, will be in need of care for all their life. You understand now where the connection with dependency is. It's a balancing of things. You cannot leave this child, they are dependent on you. In a society where depending on others is seen as horrifyingly shameful, it brings back this need for bonding back to the center stage, in a different way outwardly and way more troublesome than what I've described, but when you think about it, it's obvious. It's like those people who take life for granted, or do not get out of the comfort zone that makes them unhappy, until they have a near death experience and realize there is more to life than what they were about to leave. It's not someone's fault that they have a special needs kid, like a divine punishment or anything, that's not what I mean. It's something on a collective consciousness level. We have been so atomized, so divided, so strayed away from each other that now a way to be "brought back together" is needed, and it takes the form of birthing children who can never be independent. It teaches on an individual level, but in the end, it has repercussions on the collective, since there's so many of them, and forces it to evolve.

With a special needs child there is no escape from responsibility. You have to face it and stay committed. This is what so many people lack today.

I'm sorry if it's jumbled, I'm awful at taking out of my head whatever is in it. I'd be better at explaining it through a story.

 

[Deleted member 2362]

Nuclear families are no longer the norm today.

The nuclear family philosophy is a lie anyway; I think you're confusing two concepts here, the nuclear and extended family. The former is what plagues us today; mom, dad (if lucky) and sons, but they don't necessarily live in touch with the cousins, the grandpas and so on. The extended family however is closer to what has been common throughout most of history, which is having most members of the family living in the same area or very close to each other, being available and dependable if needed. The adoption of capitalist modes of living following the industrial revolutions and the move to the cities meant that family could be segmented more and more since they didn't depend on each other as much and cultural norms got eroded. Some countries like Italy, Greece or the slav countries still try keeping this way of living —outside the cities— alive, although it's declining everywhere.

Yes, it's a shame that such ways are being lost and shamed (for most of western society won't consider you an adult unless you impair your loyalty to everyone except the business paying you), but often there's nothing you can do as most people won't understand these concerns, willingly choosing to adopt the atomised way of living as long as it provides better status. Save yourself first, that's always the first method of change.

 

[elia925-6]

The nuclear family philosophy is a lie anyway; I think you're confusing two concepts here, the nuclear and extended family. The former is what plagues us today; mom, dad (if lucky) and sons, but they don't necessarily live in touch with the cousins, the grandpas and so on. The extended family however is closer to what has been common throughout most of history, which is having most members of the family living in the same area or very close to each other, being available and dependable if needed. The adoption of capitalist modes of living following the industrial revolutions and the move to the cities meant that family could be segmented more and more since they didn't depend on each other as much and cultural norms got eroded. Some countries like Italy, Greece or the slav countries still try keeping this way of living —outside the cities— alive, although it's declining everywhere.

Yes, it's a shame that such ways are being lost and shamed (for most of western society won't consider you an adult unless you impair your loyalty to everyone except the business paying you), but often there's nothing you can do as most people won't understand these concerns, willingly choosing to adopt the atomised way of living as long as it provides better status. Save yourself first, that's always the first method of change.

Are extended families a thing in asian countries like Japan, Korea and China? Like your older parents living in the same home with parents and children.

 

[zalaz alaza]

I'm not talking about certain components in vaccines, GMOs, endocrine perturbators (if that's how you say it in English, but basically those chemicals that disturb the natural hormones in our bodies, like the feminizing stuff in soy or the chemicals that apparently make male frogs gay), medication or anything else of that. I'm aware that they are, for the physical part, a source of it. It's not what I'm going to talk about here. I want to concentrate on what I believe is the "bigger" reason behind all of that.

We live in a society where it is almost criminal to depend on another person in one way or the other. I believe it started around the 1970s or so, after divorce started to become more common and the definition of the family started to break. Nuclear families are no longer the norm today. The small communities of our past are gone. I'll take the example of my mother's family: my mother was born in the 1960s in the Paris region, and back when she was little, everyone lived not too far away from each other. Then, as time passed, the family unit broke. Everyone moved to different parts of the country. It no longer feels like a family. I was told all my childhood that the most important thing in life was family yet those people never gave two fucks about me. I did not grow up going to grandma's house (for other reasons), I did not mess around with my cousins, didn't interact with my extended family like most people did in the past. It doesn't help that I'm a military brat, so that meant moving every 2-3 years. All my life I've longed for a family and a lifelong companion, but it looks like nowadays, most people actively reject anything that sounds like the word "commitment" or "responsibility". They are too engulfed in hedonism. They don't want any constraints: they want to be "free", but are they, really? Nowadays it's normal to ghost, cheat, screw people over without thinking about the potential consequences, raise children as a single parent (most often single mother who is abandoned by the daddy boy, but that can be the reverse too). It may seem like we are freer, but at the same time, the rates of loneliness and depression are skyrocketing. People, in addition, are locking themselves in a new notion: independence. I'm not talking about the healthy kind where you don't live in your mum's basement after 30 and you can function like a normal adult. I'm talking about doing everything yourself, priding yourself on "not needing anyone", and the absolutely obnoxious rise of the "strong independent woman" and "alpha male". You have to be "strong and independent" if you want to be seen as valid.

We are wired, as social creatures, to look for love, companionship, belonging and acceptance. This is a trait that comes from the time when we were living in tribes. Any outcast would die in the wild. Our ancestors' behaviour are still in us, despite technology advancement and all kinds of inventions that made human life different from what it was million years ago. But nowadays, it's almost... unspeakably wrong to look for them. You are labeled as "dependent", "codependent", "overly attached", "needy", "clingy", all those kinds of demeaning words that seek to make you feel ashamed of your need for love. Isn't it normal to want to be with the people you love, to care about them, feel empathy when they are bad, want to do things for them, to feel emotional attachment, to rely on others for support, to need love, to WANT love even? Don't we all deserve love? Don't we all deserve attention, compassion, and support, especially from our loved ones? What is a friend? Is it a person you hang out with until they're no longer useful to you, or are they a person you choose to spend time with because you enjoy their company? What is a partner? Is it someone you simply satisfy your sexual needs with, as well as your craving for attention and approval, sometimes even a material aspect, or is it a person you choose to commit to because you love them, are attracted to them in most cases, want to build a life with? How many "mental disorders" actually spring from having been denied love on a regular basis (and thus a valid response to a valid aggression), or are simply pathologization of normal human behaviour? Those personality disorders, depression, anxiety? How much of that is really an illness, and not a simple sign of a denied need for meaningful relationships and just meaning in general? How many people kill themselves because of loneliness, even if it's simply a feeling on their part?

Now comes my point about special needs kids. It's true that a lot of it is due to the all kinds of aggressions our immune systems and bodies face nowadays. Plastics, GMOs, all the stuff I mentioned above definitely play a role in the rise of conditions like autism, ADHD (although most cases are just kids being kids, imo), physical and mental impairments, all of that. Those children who are severely disabled, whether mentally or physically, will be in need of care for all their life. You understand now where the connection with dependency is. It's a balancing of things. You cannot leave this child, they are dependent on you. In a society where depending on others is seen as horrifyingly shameful, it brings back this need for bonding back to the center stage, in a different way outwardly and way more troublesome than what I've described, but when you think about it, it's obvious. It's like those people who take life for granted, or do not get out of the comfort zone that makes them unhappy, until they have a near death experience and realize there is more to life than what they were about to leave. It's not someone's fault that they have a special needs kid, like a divine punishment or anything, that's not what I mean. It's something on a collective consciousness level. We have been so atomized, so divided, so strayed away from each other that now a way to be "brought back together" is needed, and it takes the form of birthing children who can never be independent. It teaches on an individual level, but in the end, it has repercussions on the collective, since there's so many of them, and forces it to evolve.

With a special needs child there is no escape from responsibility. You have to face it and stay committed. This is what so many people lack today.

I'm sorry if it's jumbled, I'm awful at taking out of my head whatever is in it. I'd be better at explaining it through a story.

I really like what you are saying here. And whereas @Ruby Hexagon has stated that the nuclear family is a lie I believe it to be one manner of the larger(extended family) family maintaining structure. It is true that being dogmatic about maintaining a specifically "nuclear" family can actually cause moral decay itself, this is what the some of the worst boomers did in the apst and do in the present, but it is also true that keeping some looser standard of a nuclear family as part of a larger family can be greatly helpful.

For me, and for my wife, we know that the commitment we made when we got married wasnt solely for us as individuals to enjoy life more or to specifically support each other. Thats part of it but there are many other parts too. Of course our kids are probably the primary focus of our lives but also there are other roles we take on as well. Being able to help our family out when they need us(for instance recently when my brother had a heart attack). Or checking on the eldest members of our family and just being there for company. Just for us to be collectively good and happy(that is our nuclear family) builds strength around us. When we go to Christmas spirits lift. At the family reunion, where many of our "nuclear families" meet once a year, happiness reigns and sadness nearly disappears. Even the year the patriarch(My grandfather was a great and good man) died we had a refuge of joy in the event(the family reunion) despite his loss. This strength of happiness even extends to friendships.

Just recently I had a friend stay with us when visiting from over seas. He is a very successful person on an international level yet he is taken to self pity frequently, and depression as well. I could tell that his stay with us rejuvenated him. Not just because he is my old friend but because my whole family, kids included, actually just spoke to him like a human that they like to talk to instead of trying to extract value from his existence.

This is of course what you are pointing to as causing the evolutionary reaction. The sad thing is that our reaction to it has become institutional, sterile, and lacking in meaningful connection. This will likely make things worse in the near future.

The most interesting thing I have found about this way of being is that it really does just continue to build itself up and it almost universally makes sense. The question is never "why do we want to help our grandparents?" but always "why dont we want to help our grandparents?". That is to say "help" is the standard and absence needs to be explained. We arent' perfect though, we have our share of troubles. My childhood was a rough one, and there is remaining resentment in me for that which i try to get past continually. My wife and I get in arguments like all married couples do and should. But we agreed to make it work and so we DO make it work. Does that mean that nothing could destroy us? No, but the normal relationship problems most people have are more easily solved when we know that we both work to build something that is larger than ourselves and also very real(unlike what most religions or mysticism have to offer) I hope that many in my generation and those after us get the message that actually building familial strength is quite possibly the best way to both assist those around us that we care about and resist all forms of corruption set in our way. While no family is perfect, even my own, it is a good and simple answer.

 

[amn]

Oh I see, yes, those mental disorders in children are a way that nature found to force humans to restore their empathy. The universe truly is wise.

 

[Aral]

I think you're confusing two concepts here, the nuclear and extended family.

Reading your reply, yeah, I think I did. Family basically is no longer united, but instead disunited and often scattered everywhere, this is what I meant.

Oh I see, yes, those mental disorders in children are a way that nature found to force humans to restore their empathy. The universe truly is wise.

You just summed up in one sentence exactly what I wanted to say with my longwinded ass explanation, how do you do it?

 

[Makadam]

So you're saying that children are becoming stunted as a sort of genetic crying call? I don't think I quite agree with that, I think the problem generally has to do with several man-made - and man-influenced - aspects.
Firstly, children are created that way. The current child-raising generation was, itself, largely raised in a defective manner. I'm talking people raising their kids in a super protective, permissive way and speaking to them like dogs. Then this second generation raises their children in that way, except you add a new factor into the mix - new technology. Today's kids are brought up with phones or tablets in their hands, their faces glued to those small, stupifying screens from increasingly younger ages. Mommy and daddy don't have time or patience to take care of their little sunshine, so they simply stick their latest piece of technology into his or her little hands and that's a day well spent. You've got toddlers running and crawling around public places, screaming like wild animals while their parents stand beside, trying to keep them under control in a meek tone that's not fooling anyone, not even the parents in question. The older kids, meanwhile, are busy imitating their favourite Tik Tok dances.
Secondly, it's enforced by the stunted kids' weak-willed parents. They might not have the time or patience to properly raise their children but by God, they will make sure that everyone knows their little flower petal is precious, nevertheless. Little sunshine has a hard time paying attention in school because shiny screens are more entertaining than school. Couple that with a lack of proper upbringing and discipline and you've got a recipe for disaster. The educational system cannot properly process kids anymore because those second generation permissively educated parent will be in an uproar the moment a teacher attempts to exert some proper authority.

So you reach a spiral where kids are both becoming more mentally stunted as a result of failed upbringing, but where parents, and the system at large, also create conditions for their children out of thin air. Kids with too much energy now have disorders, but kids with actual disorders are pumped with meds and kept without proper supervision among the general populace to further deteriorate the condition among the other kids.

 

[amn]

You just summed up in one sentence exactly what I wanted to say with my longwinded ass explanation, how do you do it?

It's very slow to type with paws so I got gud at abstracting.

It would take me a whole afternoon to write a text like yours.

 

[Aral]

So you're saying that children are becoming stunted as a sort of genetic crying call?

Sort of, yes, for the ones who are born with disorders that will affect them their whole life.
I agree with your reply as a whole too, even if this wasn't what I meant by special needs kids. Badly raised kids don't have a disorder in the same sense as, for example, a kid who was born autistic due to, who knows, being temporarily deprived of oxygen at birth, or kids who are born to alcohol/drug addicts and then adopted by another family. They are simply badly raised and didn't know any better than their just as badly raised parents' ways. Those are not special needs.

 

[Makadam]

I agree with your reply as a whole too, even if this wasn't what I meant by special needs kids.

Alright, I see. Do those kids actually comprise such a large population? I suppose pollutants and older age of parents play a part in more kids with defects/disorders, but don't the majority of "special needs" children fall into the category I described in my post?
I've got a retired defectologist in my family so I had a bit of an insight into the situation, the increase in the special school in question was in part due to a high rate of mentally retarded kids among the immigrant families and in part due to a general inflow of kids diagnosed with ADHD and similar stuff. Not that the latter were so very significant; most parents don't want their kids to be in the special school so they leave their rascals in the regular schools where they disrupt class and act as a general nuisance.

 

[naggyboy]

It's obvious vaccines have a direct impact... like you gotta be fuckin retarded not to look at the data and figure that out. CDC even lost in court when they couldn't prove it. It's fucking vaccines.... deal with it.

 

[Outer Heaven]

It's not someone's fault that they have a special needs kid, like a divine punishment or anything, that's not what I mean. It's something on a collective consciousness level.

I agree that this is a collective issue but I also think its divine punishment. The further a society strays from god, the more societal ills appear that plague it. Its not that any individual is being punished by having a disabled child or diseases and drugs running rampant, its the entire community. Because of this, I don't see disability as a Darwinian correction like you do. If anything, the more widespread the phenomena becomes, the less incentive there is even have children or to not abort them if you do. The disincentive here makes the problem of atomization even worse. Its a societal punishment that exacerbates negative circumstances.

Every positive you mentioned of social interaction with extended family and so on is predicated on belief in God. Once you God away, all that is left is materialism and no objective morality. Nobody can argue that putting family over personal material gain is the way we should live our lives in a secular world because your blood connections mean just as much as any other relationships you have. There's a reason every religion stresses filial piety and responsibilities towards family and community. Families are the building blocks of society and liberal capitalism erodes them. All societies ills therefore are us reaping what we collectively sowed.

 

[Aral]

Alright, I see. Do those kids actually comprise such a large population? I suppose pollutants and older age of parents play a part in more kids with defects/disorders, but don't the majority of "special needs" children fall into the category I described in my post?
I've got a retired defectologist in my family so I had a bit of an insight into the situation, the increase in the special school in question was in part due to a high rate of mentally retarded kids among the immigrant families and in part due to a general inflow of kids diagnosed with ADHD and similar stuff. Not that the latter were so very significant; most parents don't want their kids to be in the special school so they leave their rascals in the regular schools where they disrupt class and act as a general nuisance.

They may not be a very large population, but I noticed the numbers are rising and it's kind of worrying me. Of course, it might just be something due to population increasing. The more people, the more potential for disorders.

Now to wonder which "ADHD" kids are actually badly raised and which actually suffer from a disorder, I think it should be seen case by case.

 

[Michaellaneous]

Could it be that the number isn't going up because of some mythical reason, but because we are 1. better at actually recognizing such disorders and just 2. generally just have more people on this earth than just a dew decades ago.

 

[Vaporsleep]

Could it be that the number isn't going up because of some mythical reason, but because we are 1. better at actually recognizing such disorders and just 2. generally just have more people on this earth than just a dew decades ago.

This feels like the most reasonable answer, imo (occam's and all that).

Earth's population has nearly doubled since 1990, and in that space you also have better categorization and diagnosis, and possibly also the stigma of having a child with a disorder has been less... stigmatized, so people are more open about it.

Not to say that certain chemicals don't have an effect, because of course they do (microplastics might become a nightmare in the next century).

 

[Michaellaneous]

Of course there are a lof of factors that are responsible for societal changes, but to go off the literal wild end and blame something that's very easily explained by "we just didn't fucking know 50 years ago" feels somewhat silly.

Also, nuclear families have only been the standard for maybe 2 or 3 generations. Don't be sad if that falls apart because lmao has that ever been forced onto society as a whole.

e: that being said, plastics are shit and we should stop putting those into the ocean.

 

[ignika98]

Could it be that the number isn't going up because of some mythical reason, but because we are 1. better at actually recognizing such disorders and just 2. generally just have more people on this earth than just a dew decades ago.

I think it's also important to recognize that a lot of children nowadays come from broken homes to the point where having both a mother and father figure present and not divorced is the exception rather than the rule. Children need that functioning family environment in order to develop properly, and so depriving our youth of that is definitely a major contributing factor as to why so many people have mental disorders these days.

That being said, it is true that society as a whole has come to accept and recognize mental illnesses more than it ever did in the past. However, I'd say that we've actually gone a bit too far in the opposite direction now. Rather than dismissing mental disorders, I think many doctors are too quick to diagnose people with mental disorders. Since we've started recognizing mental health as a real problem, it's become sort of taboo to tell people that they just need to work on themselves to feel better. And so nowadays if someone has any sort of mental issue, the first thing they are told is that they must have some sort of disorder. It's gotten to the point where people who are just sad due to shitty life circumstances are prescribed antidepressants, as if being sad at all is unreasonable and cause for treatment.

Another problem is the assumption that all mental disorders require some form of medication as treatment. I myself have been diagnosed with Tourette's plus when I was a child, and have been taking medication for most of my life. However, these past few years I've stopped taking any and all medication I used to be on, and found that I am able to function perfectly without them. I don't mean to say that medication is useless, I just think people are often too quick to jump to medication as a silver bullet to solve all their problems. When in reality a simple lifestyle change could be all that's needed, and medication could actually end up making things worse for them. The reason I stopped taking my medication in the first place, was because I felt mentally exhausted 24/7 while I was on them. To the point where it was heavily affecting my job as a writer. Ever since I stopped taking them, I've been ten times more productive with my work and in general.

 

[mydadiscar]

Slightly related note, here where I live there are tons of autists simply because psychiatrists do not want to do their job and misdiagnose mentally ill children as a cop-out. I was told this by an autism expert.

 

[Slinger]

Social media it's social media that's why

 

[και ο λογος σαρξ εγενετο]

Social media it's social media that's why

Wait—are you saying that Snapchat, TikTok, and Instagram are making kids retarded???