Through the advent neuroscience, people can now understand that childhood is so important because the brain physiologically develops during this crucial time period.
As the brain develops, it’s vital that exogenous factors such as physical abuse, neglect, separation from parents, mentally ill parents and inadequate parenting does not hinder the child’s neurodevelopment.
There is an array of reasons why taking care of those children should be a paramount issue for the United States government and the rest of the world. Governments should intervene to protect children, and the pertinent factor of helping those children is to get to them fast before any major psychological problems develop because of their fragile maturing brain.
There are political and ethical problems that exist and impede those children from getting help. When looking at this issue from a political point of view, law makers, corporations and social institutions might come to believe that the government and businesses can’t ethically take children from their parents because of evidential, moral, economic and political factors. There are political factors such as State leaders could believe fundamentally that the government helping every child is a socialistic approach to economics and government and should not be approached. Analogously to that is the economic variable.
Because those very institutions don’t want to pay the expenditure of helping all those children, it would take a vast government effort and funds to correct this problem in America, and the more people educated and helped would redistribute the money to all people, taking it away from the few.
Then there is the flip side approach, to this problem, which is Keynesian in nature and democratic. Those institutions would say that helping children should be a government priority, and it’s not socialism. It is equality, good economics and democracy. It’s very important for those institutions to understand that investing in children is the key to making the future better, in all aspects.
Economically it might initially cost governments and corporations, but the positive economic implications in the future would surpass and easily account for the initial costs. There would be less strain on the economy and the future federal budget, because consequently, there will be fewer social programs needed for the issue. There will also be a decrease in crime, due to fewer people being on the streets, which will ultimately help the poverty issue.
Those people off the street and working will contribute to the economy now, which will stimulate and innovate it through new ideas; therefore, that will raise the GDP in America, stimulating the economy.
Posted to the web by Tim Hague
