Risk Averse

The term "the Lost Generation" used to refer to the generation that came of age after World War 1 or, perhaps, those who died in World War 1. A new meaning has been suggested. Today it might refer to Gen Y, the latest generation. Why? Because their prospects look so dim.

Why is that? Well, aspects include a "very inflated sense of self", "unrealistic expectation", increased cynicism, a dislike for hard work, decreased empathy, and fragile egos. They are described as "a pampered and nurtured generation ... with a very high sense of self-worth." Statistics include the fact that 34% of 25 to 29-year-olds have moved back home with Mom and Dad and the fact that only 12% of 18 to 34-year-olds think that owning a home is one of the most important things in life. Statistically this generation is putting off adulthood until much, much later.

Assuming all this is true, what, do they say, is the cause? Well, there is the whole "Generation Me" sense given to them. There is the "self-esteem" emphasis in which they've lived. Everyone knows that this generation is coming out of college loaded with debt but without a lot of employment opportunities. There is the rift that technology has offered between individuals and actual, personal interaction and the damage that technology has wrought by separating them from basic learning like math and spelling by doing it for them.

One of the main factors, they say, is the "risk-averse" concept they've grown up with. They've been protected from imagined kidnappers that may or may not have been there, defended from "harsh treatment from teachers" that might include things like discipline or "too much homework" ... that sort of thing. They've been the wards of "helicopter parents." They're 3rd and 4th generation "I want my kids to have a better life" folk who have been given much without being required to do much. "Risk averse."

Let's face it. We all tend to be risk-averse. "Burn me once; shame on you. Burn me twice; shame on me." And we've been burned. So we try to avoid it and that's somewhat rational. The error occurs when we think it is mandatory, compulsory, always "the best". Today's kids shouldn't only be protected from physical harm; they should also be protected from "bad feelings." It is becoming the right of every individual (at least, every individual that is approved for this right) to not have their feelings hurt or threatened. The notion that they might need to toughen up is horrendous. In the realm of physical fitness we grasp the idea of "no pain, no gain", but can't seem to carry it over to other areas of life. And it's not helping our kids.

We have some optional approaches here. We could take a hands-off approach and hope they don't crash and burn. We could take a hands-on approach and hope against hope that, having never actually stood on their own two feet before, they actually will in a reasonable amount of time. Two extremes that would appear, at least to me, to be bad choices. Common, perhaps, but bad. Or we could take the biblical route where we train our kids, with Scripture and loving, godly discipline with a variety of methods, and trust, in the end, to a Sovereign God to actually do what's best for our kids. But I suppose a prerequisite for that option would require ... you know ... an actually Sovereign God.