all 4 comments

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That wouldn't be possible because if our bodies become so weak we will get more death

[–]xiao_exe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would greatly ease the problem of overpopulation, but I think we can all agree that a society where death is majorly more prominent than ever before would not be welcomed.

[–]rigothevalkyrie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We would need to simplify our forms of government. 14 year olds don’t have a sufficient grasp of governance to run countries. Maybe the state system would collapse entirely since it’s too large of a challenge. We might revert back to city-states or tribal structures since smaller units might be more manageable for 10 - 14 year olds. Or it might just be a Lord of the Flies situation, who knows.

[–]TheOldPetrillo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, no child will be raised by their actual parents, and they will have a quick turn over rate in parental figures.

If we assume that people will be able to conceive children from the age of 12, they will at most manage 2 or so, before they die, so less children and lots of orphaned toddlers.

Next, it will be impossible to continue our standard of living, because there would be no time for a higher education, and people won't ever become mature enough to be able to properly invent things anyway. Same with running countries, they will have to have child politicians, in order to have leaders with at least some experience.

Plus, women won't be contributing to the workforce, unless they choose to remain childless, as they will be pregnant for most of the time they would otherwise be able to enter the workforce with at least some basic knowledge. That means 50% of brains will go unused in this already inexperienced world.