The claim that, if you're under 25, your brain isn't fully developed, so you can't be trusted to make mature decisions, or held responsible for actions, is very common. But also very wrong.
I think what I find most interesting about this post is that it indicates that the neurological basis for these arguments is post-hoc rationalization (assuming what you say is true that there's no neurological basis, which I'll trust as I've heard it elsewhere too) and that we haven't quite put our finger on the real issue yet, and we're instead focusing on just one aspect. That said, I don't think what you've said here totally defeats the proponents of the idea. For example, when you talk about the historical 25-year lifespan, there is a reasonable concern here that we shouldn't take historical precedent as an argument for future conduct.
One could argue that women (children, in this case) used to get married and have children at very young ages, and society continued to function, therefore they were indeed capable and child marriage should be accepted. But I don't think a reasonable person would accept this conclusion.
You touch on this by saying that there is a distinction between should and can, but you seem to gloss over that a bit, when I think that's really the heart of the issue. I think that when people talk about someone under 25 being incapable of something, they're not necessarily saying they absolutely *can't* navigate that situation, but rather that it isn't *ideal* for them to do so given that we (putatively) know that they'll be *more* capable of navigating it in a few years. It's easier to think in the black-and-white schema of incapable vs capable, so we tend to frame it that way, but I think it's really an argument for "less-than-ideal-now-and-will-be-more-later-capable".
Of course, there are indeed people who are using these arguments in bad faith to further their problematic pet projects. But there doesn't seem to be an inherent problem in stratifying capability and adjusting society accordingly. As I said in the first paragraph, it seems that the issue is more that we should be adjusting for that capability variance in more ways, and we've just happened to latch onto this 25-year-old thing. We're seeing that start to crop up in having age limits for political office and driver's licenses. So I think you're right that 25 is too simplistic, especially given the reality of cognitive decline, but I think the idea that everyone is equally capable and should be treated as such as soon as they turn 18 is also too simplistic, and that's what I think the intent of a lot of the 25-year-old brain stuff is.
Of course, with an AVERAGE age of death of 25, and given a very high rate of death perinatally and at about weaning (say 1 year to five years) you are, in fact, looking at most who DO make it to adulthood living to be much older than 25. But, yes, countries were run, wars fought, by men and women in their teens and twenties, and usually run very efficiently.
I think what I find most interesting about this post is that it indicates that the neurological basis for these arguments is post-hoc rationalization (assuming what you say is true that there's no neurological basis, which I'll trust as I've heard it elsewhere too) and that we haven't quite put our finger on the real issue yet, and we're instead focusing on just one aspect. That said, I don't think what you've said here totally defeats the proponents of the idea. For example, when you talk about the historical 25-year lifespan, there is a reasonable concern here that we shouldn't take historical precedent as an argument for future conduct.
One could argue that women (children, in this case) used to get married and have children at very young ages, and society continued to function, therefore they were indeed capable and child marriage should be accepted. But I don't think a reasonable person would accept this conclusion.
You touch on this by saying that there is a distinction between should and can, but you seem to gloss over that a bit, when I think that's really the heart of the issue. I think that when people talk about someone under 25 being incapable of something, they're not necessarily saying they absolutely *can't* navigate that situation, but rather that it isn't *ideal* for them to do so given that we (putatively) know that they'll be *more* capable of navigating it in a few years. It's easier to think in the black-and-white schema of incapable vs capable, so we tend to frame it that way, but I think it's really an argument for "less-than-ideal-now-and-will-be-more-later-capable".
Of course, there are indeed people who are using these arguments in bad faith to further their problematic pet projects. But there doesn't seem to be an inherent problem in stratifying capability and adjusting society accordingly. As I said in the first paragraph, it seems that the issue is more that we should be adjusting for that capability variance in more ways, and we've just happened to latch onto this 25-year-old thing. We're seeing that start to crop up in having age limits for political office and driver's licenses. So I think you're right that 25 is too simplistic, especially given the reality of cognitive decline, but I think the idea that everyone is equally capable and should be treated as such as soon as they turn 18 is also too simplistic, and that's what I think the intent of a lot of the 25-year-old brain stuff is.
Of course, with an AVERAGE age of death of 25, and given a very high rate of death perinatally and at about weaning (say 1 year to five years) you are, in fact, looking at most who DO make it to adulthood living to be much older than 25. But, yes, countries were run, wars fought, by men and women in their teens and twenties, and usually run very efficiently.