Ok, let me sift through the bits and bobs and see what I can do to clarify my meanin's a bit. Thanks Analog for the opportunity to refine my thoughts. And they do need some refinement, be assured of this.
1. When I write about a "generation" (little g) of kids in the Amish community, I do not mean a whole blanket Generation (big G). Meaning, I'm not talking about the 3 billion plus folks under 18 in the world, I'm talking about a specific group of Amish young girls at a certain age range. I reckon "generation" is a bit to broad a term. Let's call them a "segment". So this segment of this Amish community has been cut in half. (I exclude all the other 1.5 billion of potential young wives and mothers because, for the most part, Amish marry within their own community. In such a closed society, the aforementioned segment is important for this group.)
My frame of reference in developing this "segment" thingy is this: remember the bursting of the economic bubble in Southeast Asia in 1997? Well, I had just moved to Thailand and began reading everything I could get my hands on about SEA and the various cultures. A couple years later I read an article in AsiaWeek magazine about the effects of what amounted to instant poverty that millions of people were thrust into after the crisis hit in '97, particularly with warnings about the effects of poor nutrition in kids under six, and how it would show up later in their schooling in poor attention spans, low ability to process logic, and also increased learning disabilities. The country most mentioned in this area was Indonesia.
If millions of kids in Indonesia under six were effectively malnourished (quite a large percentage of this segment, if I remember the article correctly) for most if not all of that important formative time, then a whole segment of Indonesian society will be educationally (is that a word? hmmmm.) handicapped. And as this segment moves through life, this impact would be felt in many areas of society.
Now the ripple effect this would have on that whole country could be massive.* I'd like to see a followup study, but AsiaWeek merged with a solely Economic mag, and since as a rule I usually do not jump up and down and shout "Woo hoo, another about Economic magazine!", I'll just do without.
Anyway, that's where the whole segment thought came from. Hope I made sense.
2. I agree with you about the equality of the value of human lives. It wasn't my intent to say kids count for more than adults because they're kids. I was trying to convey the different sense of horror many people feel when they hear a kid was shot as opposed to hearing that an adult was shot. I mean, come on, doesn't your heart jump a bit more when you see a news report about a little two-year old killed by ricochet fire in a drive-by shooting, as opposed to seeing a report about an 18 year old? Doesn't it? Just a little bit? Both are aweful, but for some reason, in my heart, the tot rates a bit more of a bump.
3. A room full of adult hostages might include an ex-Navy Seal with a serious caffeine buzz who incidentally has a six inch knife in his boot, and a danged good chance to use it when yon gun-toter is turned away. All I can think of when I think of a room full of kid hostages is that they'll probably all pee in their pants and cry. I'll repeat what I said - Adults have a chance at fighting back, mostly because they can think abstractly and plan and use subterfuge. Kids do what they're told. Period. At least until it comes to actually going to bed when they're told. That makes the parents feel like the hostage.
Just because adults are reasonably able to fight back if so inclined and kids can't, does not mean that one is more important. That's not what I meant, and I didn't intend to imply it.
4. No, you're right, a room full of dead folk don't need protection anymore. I must have misunderstood something, or made some other wacky mistake, as I am often want to do. I think what I meant was that kids need protection, since they cannot protect themselves. (ad nauseum, sorry)
5. Don't get where the "lineage and reproduction" thing came from, but as you said not to pick at it, I'll let it scab over and heal nicely.
6. The whole "losing a whole generation because some kids die" thing was answered above - I'm not talking about a whole "G"eneration, I'm talking about a segment in a small community of people, not humanity in its glorious totality. And again, never said kids were more important, just more in need of protecting (yes they're dead, don't need protection.....yada yada)
7. Re: SOME animals not protecting their young: You know, the very minute after I hit "Submit Reply" on that previous post, I immediately thought of Guppies. Dang. Missed that one. But if you want to go and stick your hand in a dug out hole in the desert to see if you can pull out a lion cub and take it hostage, be my guest. I'll be in the Range Rover, windows pulled up.
'Kay, that's it. Oh, gotta do the asterisk.
* Such an impact of having a whole segment of kids who were born around '97 would be as follows:
1. Schools would need more tutors for slower students
2. Higher drop out rates
3. Medical needs greater
4. Funding for all of the above
5. Lots more that I can't write out right now, cause my mind is a bit whoppyjawed.
3.