Day 393 - The Unspoken Law of the Jungle

If you look at the 'family-construct' as a social system, one would expect that it solves the problem of 'responsibility' and 'everyone being taken care of'. Because: ideally, every child is born within a family (of at least one parent) - and that is not even taking into account the amount of orphan children in this world. 

Then, because every child is ideally born within a family of at least one parent - there is an unspoken 'law of the jungle'  that every child is taken care of in this world, as the child stands under the protection and care of (at least) one adult. The 'family-construct' as a social system is then really presented as the basic foundation of society, without which children would be lost. Looking at the world superficially then, one would expect that most children in the world are taken care of as they are lodged within one or more 'family-constructs'. And, as was said, the unspoken law of the jungle dictates that since the child is in the care of a family, it is consequently 'taken care of'.

The unspoken law of the jungle does however not take into account the money-system and how it functions on a global scale. The underlying assumtion of the law of the jungle is that every family in the world will have the means to take care of a child appropriately. The only way to do that in today's world, is by having access to money. Without money, one cannot actually survive. Yet, more than half of all the human beings in todays world officially live under the poverty line. They do not have sufficient access to money and consequently they cannot actually give the care to the children that the children require. Hence roughly half the children in this world are in effect not adequately taken care of. 

Some years ago it was reported in South Africa that a pregnant woman had thrown herself off the stairs with the deliberate intent to permanently damage her unborn child, so as to later qualify for specific government support. This is the law of the jungle in full action, because it did not consider the global economic system. 

If we assume (law of the jungle) that children are to be taken care of within a family, then why would we restrict access to money for families? Why would we not want families to have guaranteed access to money so that they can adequately raise, support and take care of their children? When we resolve this contradiction, we will resolve the problem of poverty and then we will finally be able to say that families are the foundation of society, which currently they are not.