US birth rates dropped dramatically between the late 1950s and the late 1970s, resulting in this small generation. (I attribute the drop to the increasing financial independence of women and the widespread adoption of birth control.) GenX family sizes were small, with few siblings. Yet GenX kids "enjoyed" (or suffered from, depending on your perspective) the absence of supervision for large parts of their days. Helicopter parenting didn't exist at that time. GenX is the glaring counterexample to the family size theory.
The past with extended families all living together — grandparents, cousins, et al. — is more distant than people are acknowledging.
Gen-x was more independent because they were allowed to be, the family size doesn't have a lot of bearing on that, but more than that it's a non-sequitur that somehow gen-x is a counter-example to the idea that smaller families lead to higher value placed on child safety. child safety and independence are orthogonal ideas.
Correct.
> the family size doesn't have a lot of bearing on that
Correct.
> child safety and independence are orthogonal ideas.
Incorrect.
In truth, a child can grab a can of soda out of the fridge without it being a safety concern.
That's basically a nonsensical reply.
> In truth, a child can grab a can of soda out of the fridge without it being a safety concern.
Nobody is talking about children grabbing cans of soda. That's a non sequitur. The submitted article: "Children need risk, fear, and excitement in play".
we're done here.