How Universal Childcare Could Destroy a Generation | Erica Komisar

First of all, daycare is terrible for children. Absolutely terrible for

children. Absolutely terrible for children and their developing brains.

But it's a symptom of a bigger problem, which is that people are not well-versed, policy makers, educators, parents pediatricians employers

they're not wellversed in child development. So that very dangerous

development. So that very dangerous narrative that the state can raise your children better than you can is a very dangerous one indeed. They're going to distrust their governments. They're

going to distrust their parents. They're

going to distrust the adults that are around them. What would you expect?

around them. What would you expect?

There is a percentage of people with babies now, let's be blunt about this, who are born into terrible circumstances. You know, incomplete,

circumstances. You know, incomplete, shattered, broken homes, busted up relationships, violence. It should not

relationships, violence. It should not be in a country such as Australia, but it is. Is it the case that some of those

it is. Is it the case that some of those kids in child care are better off?

My guest today, Erica Commasar, is in Australia here in Sydney for Aspire, where not for the first time in Australia, she'll be addressing a large

number of people on the importance of getting it right for our children in their formative years because we aren't at the moment. We know that the research

is absolutely overwhelmingly confirming that we need to rethink. Uh, and she's the author of several books. So I'll

mention to being there why prioritizing motherhood in the first 3 years matters and the fourthcoming book which will be titled in Australia childfriendly

divorce which is a challenging concept for me but the book will be incredibly well researched. I know that Erica it's

well researched. I know that Erica it's lovely to have you here in Sydney and to be able to talk about something that is just so critically important our children.

We used to say they're our future, which was a good thing to say because they are. They're just not doing well and it

are. They're just not doing well and it matters. They're anxious. They're

matters. They're anxious. They're

depressed. They are lacking hope in the future. One young Australian has just

future. One young Australian has just said to me, "An intelligent, thoughtful person, I feel like I've been born into a nation in decline.

It's hardly isolated to Australia.

you've written courageously and very perceptively about of all of this. In a

nutshell, what's gone wrong?

Well, let's talk about hope for a minute. First of all, thank you for

minute. First of all, thank you for having me. Um, hope is something that's

having me. Um, hope is something that's internal. It's um, of course,

internal. It's um, of course, governments give their citizens hope.

They um, create a secure enough environment for their citizens geopolitically. and um defensively, but

geopolitically. and um defensively, but it's not really where hope comes from.

Hope is internal. Um and hope comes from a sense of internal security. And so

we're raising children who don't feel safe and secure inside. And so no matter what you do to reassure them on the outside, it's not going to help if they

don't feel safe and secure on the inside. So if we look at the mental

inside. So if we look at the mental health crisis in children and adolescence and think about depression and anxiety, what are those disorders?

Uh they're not genetically oriented.

That's not where they come from. They

actually um are environmentally influenced. Um so people want to believe

influenced. Um so people want to believe that there's a genetic precursor for those disorders and there really isn't.

Um what we know is that um uh children don't develop those disorders because their father had them genetically. It's

something called the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Um and they

acquired characteristics. Um and they are disorders. They're mood disorders,

are disorders. They're mood disorders, but they're really disorders of loss is how I would describe it to oversimplify it to define what depression is. It's

preoccupation with past loss. Anxiety is

preoccupation with future losses that haven't occurred and may never occur. So

what do they have in common? Loss. So

kids today have dealt with too much loss too early that inhibits their ability to feel safe and secure. And so where does

that safety and security come from?

Which is the foundation for a child's sense of security? It comes from the way we're raised in the very beginning. And

we don't want to talk about this because it implicates us as adults. It makes us responsible as governments for how we raise our children and how we support

those citizens who raise their children.

Friends, it's good to be able to announce my new Substack, which will be known as our civilizational moment. The

Substack will explore the pressing issues facing countries like ours, loosely called the West, the democratic countries, and how they're playing out

in the country that I love and hope you do, too. ours Australia. I'll offer

do, too. ours Australia. I'll offer

thoughts on the events and trends alongside contributions from some very knowledgeable friends and people I respect. Click the link in the

respect. Click the link in the description, subscribe, and share the essays with your friends and family.

Let's do everything we can to bring back the Australia that we love, but which we're losing.

A very senior journalist has just said in relation to your trip here. Turn this

into a campaign as much as you can, John. It's critical for the nation's

John. It's critical for the nation's future. No one's listening. Government

future. No one's listening. Government

doesn't seem to understand and he's very worried about what the bureaucrats who should be providing expert advice. But

we'll come back to that what they what they might be saying. uh but in conversation as we've talked a lot about these things in the last few days which has been a fantastic experience and I

wish every Australian and every parent could have part in the conversations that we've enjoyed. You said something that really jumped out at me and made me feel good. who said in some ways

feel good. who said in some ways Australia is waking up and leading the world.

The social media ban and you can argue about its effectiveness but the concept throwing it out there that screens have

done immense damage uh to our kids is an area where we're we're showing some leadership in Australia and what else can we do? The the social media ban not the whole story though is it screens.

It's not the whole story. It's a piece of a of a very big puzzle. It's a very important piece. It's an adversity. So,

important piece. It's an adversity. So,

um it's not the cause of the mental health crisis in children, but it's an adversity. And so, if you have very

adversity. And so, if you have very fragile children because of the way you've raised them, um meaning if you don't provide them with enough emotional and physical presence and care in the

beginning, if they don't have that go-to person, their primary attachment figure present enough in the first three years to provide them with a sense of safety and security, they never internalize that sense of safety and security. And

what it does is it makes them fragile and susceptible to adversity and stress in the future. Social media is a stress.

So what I want to say is that um you are not going to see first of all I do applaud Australia for what it's done um in leading the world and being courageous enough to actually create a

law that that you know prevents young children from accessing social media.

There are going to be workarounds with children. Um the point of the law is to

children. Um the point of the law is to curb as many children as possible.

You're never going to reach all the children. You're never going to reach

children. You're never going to reach all the parents. Never. But you're

trying to reach as many of them as possible. And you're not going to see

possible. And you're not going to see the full effects for a decade. So if

you're expecting to see, you know, you have to be careful when you create a law affecting children's mental health.

You're not going to necessarily see it tomorrow. The effects you're going to

tomorrow. The effects you're going to see it over a decade. I mean some of our um our studies that we rely on the attachment studies that are longitudinal

um that are over 20 years long um that studied children who were insecurely attached when they were uh at 12 months and 20 years later 72% of them are still

insecurely attached. Those studies took

insecurely attached. Those studies took 20 years. So you're you're not

20 years. So you're you're not necessarily tomorrow going to see the benefits. But I can tell you your ban

benefits. But I can tell you your ban has benefits. And if anybody tells you,

has benefits. And if anybody tells you, well, Johnny had a workaround and Jane uses, you know, finds a way to use her older brothers. Yes, they're going to be

older brothers. Yes, they're going to be workarounds for some kids. And yes, some kids will not be reached by this law, but many will. So, you could always use the argument in government, I suppose,

that you're creating laws that protect most of the people. You're never going to reach everyone.

They're also educative, though. You

know, we're getting the message out.

This is serious parents. you're reaching

parents. I mean, the children aren't listening to you, John Anderson, or any lawmaker. They're not watching the news

lawmaker. They're not watching the news and listening to the prime minister at 14, you know, they're they're actually looking at social media and seeing what their friends are wearing and which kind

of makeup and um so, you know, I don't this is not for the it's for the children, but you're trying to reach and educate the parents so they parent so

they stop giving their children smartphones. I mean, the day that we

smartphones. I mean, the day that we started giving, you know, there's a wonderful woman named Gene Twangi, who you should have on your show if you can get her here. Um, she's she's the researcher that wrote the book about the

smartphone because she said it's the day that we invented but really gave our children the smartphone that really impacted them. So, as much as social

impacted them. So, as much as social media is a big piece of this, you know, there's more to technology than just social media, there's gaming, there's uh

group chats, which are vile. Group chats

can be very bullying and teasing and toxic to children. So, you know, to talk about social media alone is not exactly the whole story. But, you know, to say that you're trying to reach as many

parents as possible with the message that technology for children at too young an age. I mean, the American Pediatric Association said that um children under two should not be given

an iPhone. You know, parents do this

an iPhone. You know, parents do this thing where they give them an iPad or an iPhone, you know, just to entertain them so they can get a break. I'm like, don't do that. It affects their brains in ways

do that. It affects their brains in ways you cannot imagine. Um, and even then incrementally, you know, handing your children technology and just, you know,

as a babysitter, um, you know, it's it's in in the 70s and the 80s, parents were using television as a babysitter.

Not a good idea. But the difference is that because the technology today is so overstimulating and interactive, it stimulates dopamine in children's brains

in a way. So think think of it like this. Um

this. Um dopamine levels are supposed to remain somewhat low with children. That doesn't

mean they're not happy and they don't take joy. But if you

take joy. But if you if only they did. Yeah.

Don't talk about that. No happy kids having joy, you know, running around the place.

But once you're exposed to technology, you don't get joy. You don't produce the same levels of dopamine as technology does. Meaning, if you give, you know, we

does. Meaning, if you give, you know, we always say that that marijuana isn't a gateway drug to heroin and other, you know, more advanced drugs, but in fact, it is. And so if you start with

it is. And so if you start with marijuana when you're a teenager, um eventually marijuana doesn't do the trick and you need more and more and more and you need more stimulation and

you start doing, you know, Molly or you start then maybe you try heroin or cocaine or so the point is that you are stimulating parts of the brain and um

conditioning the brain to need a certain amount of excitement to get to the same level. And that's what you're doing when

level. And that's what you're doing when you give your children technology. So

the things that should give us joy, relationships, sports, play, no longer stimulate our brain in the same way and we start to have cravings for higher

levels of stimulation. And so that's the problem with technology. So let's say social media is is bad for many reasons.

One of the main reasons is that it sort of creates uh a comparison culture which is very dangerous because adolescence are already their brains are in a state

of hypervigilance um threat a threat state very high level of threat state and so what you're doing with that comparison is you're stimulating the

amygdala the the threat sensing part of the brain to be overly active and that means that that adolescent is always worrying being more self-conscious and worrying about what other people are

doing and feeling diminished and having very low self-esteem themselves. So,

it's it's very dangerous on many levels.

But it's not just it's not just social media, it's technology overall. It was

really the invention of the smartphone.

So, if you are going to give your kids a phone, I have no problem with giving your kids a phone. If they're taking a bus and you need to reach them, uh give them a flip phone, the old flip phone.

It's like in a way going back to a technology that was less dangerous but was still helpful. So, you know, I always use the story of um when we were going to Aspen for um a conference, you

have to go through the Denver airport.

From New York, you go Denver, Aspen, and it's a long stretch in the Denver airport to get to the smaller plane that goes to Aspen. So, we were running very late. Uh the plane landed very late. And

late. Uh the plane landed very late. And

we said to our 5-year-old, "Bryce, you've got to run because we all have to run because we're not going to make the plane." So, we're running and running

plane." So, we're running and running and running. And, you know, it was like,

and running. And, you know, it was like, "Run, Bryce, run." And we're all running. I'm holding a baby. Bryce is

running. I'm holding a baby. Bryce is

running. My husband's running. We get to the gate. My husband puts his foot in

the gate. My husband puts his foot in the door. And we're like, "Where's

the door. And we're like, "Where's Bryce?" And and Bryce kept running.

Bryce?" And and Bryce kept running.

Meaning, he overshot the gate. So what

we've done is we've taken good things and made them bad because too much of a good thing isn't a good thing. And

that's what we've done with technology.

It's not that technology doesn't have a use. It's not that it can't be

use. It's not that it can't be beneficial, but we've gone too far. And

so going back to a flip phone for children, at least until their brains are more developed, is a very good idea.

So if you can reach parents to say it's not just social media, do not give your children smartphones until they are 16 years old. They're also expensive. You

years old. They're also expensive. You

know, they're a,000 American dollars.

Why would you give your child a phone that's a,000 American dollars? So, you

know, ban the smartphone for children under the age of 16 because the smartphone also has other kinds of technology that's stimulating like gaming.

always those wonderful little things that people put on the table. You've

just done some of them. But thinking

back to um ARC in London, the Alliance of Responsible Citizens, uh Jonathan Height making the point that you just made, give your children a dumb phone,

as you might call it, flip phone rather than a smartphone so that they can call their friends up and say, "Let's go and play in the park instead of living our social lives on the phone." That's

right. Because what we've done to our kids is we've substituted uh phone time for playtime.

Yeah.

And then Michaela Michaela school uh Katherine Berbles, she told me once uh that when parents are enrolling their

children, she asks them, "Now, would you send your child to school with a machete?" And of course they say, "Of

machete?" And of course they say, "Of course not." And she says, "Well, don't

course not." And she says, "Well, don't send them with a smartphone. They're

just as dangerous. Yeah,

that's how she emphasizes it. I don't

think I'm misquing it. Give them a dumb phone if you're worried about them being safe.

The very points you're making. They're

useful little reminders. Um All right.

Well, so the thing that you're here to talk about in Australia and the reason we're so keen to have you here is that having made some progress in that area, um and

looking at the great debate that's emerging here, we have, there's no other way of putting it, a prime minister who says he wants to be remembered for the development of universal

state-f funded child care run by the unions, I might add. a narrow group of people with amazingly little choice at vast expense.

And you warned last time that you were here, if you go down that road, blunder down that road without thinking it through properly, you'll come back in 10 years time and tell us why all these problems we've got with our children and

our economic problems have actually become worse.

I see daycare as a symptom of a bigger problem.

Um, first of all, daycare is terrible for children. Absolutely terrible for

for children. Absolutely terrible for children and their developing brains.

Okay? But it's a symptom of a bigger problem, which is that people are not well-versed, policy makers, educators,

parents pediatricians employers they're not well-versed in child development. We all need to be

development. We all need to be well-versed in child development because many of us at some point in our lives will raise children. And so it's a very important thing to be educated about.

And so, you know, I often think that the the push for universal what I call warehousing children or day orphanages.

And uh you know, those are strong terms, but they're true. And so, you know, say it as it is, as they say. So, um, the problem with it is that, um, it's it's

dangerous for children, but it's out of ignorance. I'm going to use the word

ignorance. I'm going to use the word ignorance. It's a harsh word, I know,

ignorance. It's a harsh word, I know, but it is out of ignorance. Because I do believe that if policymakers knew, if parents knew uh, why daycare is so very

bad for children, they would not create these policies. that there has been a

these policies. that there has been a lot of push to uh make people believe that daycare is good for children or at

least neutral that it doesn't do harm but it does incredible harm. So from 0 to three a child's brain is incredibly

neurologically fragile. Babies are born

neurologically fragile. Babies are born neurologically fragile. They are not

neurologically fragile. They are not born resilient. They are not born

born resilient. They are not born capable of managing stress very much at all. Um, and it is what we call the

all. Um, and it is what we call the skin-to-skin contact of their primary attachment figure, usually their mother.

It is the soothing of that baby from moment to moment that helps that baby to learn emotional regulation. How to keep their feelings from going too high or

too low and to give them a deep deep sense of safety and security. That

safety and security, you know, it's I can I say I was on a farm this weekend.

I was on your right and um which was a great joy and and I was around horses and I loved horses and I'll tell you that horses have a

prey response. They have a response

prey response. They have a response which is they're very skittish around people. Um all prey are because they

people. Um all prey are because they know they're very vigilant. They know

that they could be chased and eaten by a predator. Not that there are many

predator. Not that there are many predators in Australia now, but babies are very much like that. They come into this world receptive for connection but

very very fearful. Our brains are wired to be fearful because that's a survival mode for us as humans. We're born so incredibly vulnerable. Unlike other

incredibly vulnerable. Unlike other species, I mean even horses get up and can run pretty quickly. Zebras get up and can run. Humans have to be cared for

by their mothers for a very long time before they are capable of managing the stress of a very stressful world. And so

what we've done is we have as a culture projected onto very very young human beings that they are more capable of managing stress than they than their

brains actually are. Their brains are not yet wired to manage cortisol levels that high. And so I think if

that high. And so I think if policymakers knew, Albani or any policy maker knew that what they were doing is

putting babies into situations that elevate their cortisol levels. There are

studies to show that babies who are put in daycare have very very high salivary cortisol levels. They test uh the

cortisol levels. They test uh the salivary cortisol levels and they are through the roof in babies who are separated from their mothers or primary

attachment figures under the age of three. And so when you raise those

three. And so when you raise those levels of stress hormones in the brain, it actually doesn't allow the brain to develop in a normal way. it ends up

forcing the brain to develop in a pathologically adaptive uh neurologically compromised way. And if we taught

compromised way. And if we taught parents and if we taught policy makers that in fact they are damaging those children's brains possibly forever

because there are longitudinal studies to show that uh children who are insecurely attached at 12 months are still insecurely attached 72% of them

are insecurely attached 20 years later.

That means an insecurely attached baby which is correlated with all kinds of mental illness. There are different

mental illness. There are different attachment disorders we call them which are again pathological adaptations of a baby's brain to cope with too much stress more than they can handle. Uh and

what happens with those babies is those pathological defenses are fragile.

They're weak. They're not strong. It's

not like developing organic independence organic what we say organic interdependence organic safety that gives you a feeling that you can go out into the world and manage stress in the

future. We are developing a shell of

future. We are developing a shell of defenses that helps them to cope in the moment but makes them very susceptible and fragile in the future to breakdown.

And that is what we are seeing and that is what the hopelessness is about because a child who is given a deep sense of security

um is a child who is hopeful who is optimistic who seeks the good in human beings who trusts others and trusts the world around them. So we teach children

to either trust your environment and your environment is your mother and your father or we teach them to distrust it.

And so we are teaching children to distrust their environment. And so what would you expect then when they're adolescence and adults? Of course

they're going to distrust the environment. They're going to distrust

environment. They're going to distrust their governments. They're going to

their governments. They're going to distrust their parents. They're going to distrust the adults that are around them. What would you expect

them. What would you expect at this point? What I would like to say is that you and I are both incredibly sensitized to the fact that these this is very challenging for a particularly a

lot of young moms. And we'll come back to that. We're not unsympathetic. You're

to that. We're not unsympathetic. You're

not unsympathetic. I'm not.

We're actually presenting them with pretty devastating stuff because they're living in an environment now as young one young mother said to me the other day, "I've heard what Eric has got to

say. I know instinctively that so much

say. I know instinctively that so much of it's valuable and I've got to grapple with it, but I'm also confronted with the economic realities of just surviving

in a declining economy where my wages build buys less and less every week.

We'll come back to that.

I wanted to ask you about another response I've had that says, "Oh, that's just not true. What Erica says is not true of all babies because so many of them now come from destructive and unhappy home

environments. they're better off out of

environments. they're better off out of it in child care. So there is a percentage of people with babies now uh let's be blunt about this who were born into terrible circumstances

you know incomplete shattered broken homes busted up relationships yelling horrifically violence

um it should not be in a country such as Australia but it is it some of those kids are better off in you are not going to save a baby who is

in such a a traumatic situation by sending them away for a few hours a day or eight hours a day, you're not going to save a

baby with those eight hours a day. Um,

if a baby is in such a terrible circumstance, then well, in America, we have um a social welfare net that will come in and rescue that baby and find

foster care for that baby. So, a baby, you'd say, who's in such dire straits probably shouldn't be living with parents. Um, but I'm a social worker and

parents. Um, but I'm a social worker and I believe in keeping as many families together as possible. So, what does that mean? Instead of sending the baby away

mean? Instead of sending the baby away for someone to care for the baby, the UK and I maybe you do it here too has a home visitor program and we're starting to do it in America and I advocate

strongly for it because it's so very good which is that uh nurses and social workers go into the home of new mothers.

doesn't matter the socioeconomic status of the mothers and monitor the mothers and give them support. Help them to learn to breastfeed and listen to their conflicts with their spouses and assess

postpartum depression in the mother and assess whether the baby is thriving and um and so those women, they're usually women, they could also be men, but those

women uh do a very good job of assessing those situations. And so what I would do

those situations. And so what I would do is amp up the home visitors program rather than thinking of um sending a child away to one of these day

orphanages where they may or may not get some love and support from uh a daycare worker who is going to be transient. You

know, daycare workers are so and this is the truth of it. They're they're

completely overwhelmed and so they're often out sick and there's almost a rotating door of of daycare workers. So

the baby isn't necessarily even getting the same workers. Um they're getting often strangers and trans there's a great transients and dropout rate in daycare workers. Um and the reason is if

daycare workers. Um and the reason is if I handed you and the ratios of daycare are so abysmal no less than 5:1 and

usually 8:1 uh in Sweden it can be 12:1 caregiver when when a daycare worker is out which is frequently it can be 12 to one. So, if you're a daycare worker and

one. So, if you're a daycare worker and I hand you eight babies who are 12 months old and say, "I want you to soo those babies, emotionally regulate them

and be there for them emotionally and provide them with a sense of safety and security, which involves skin-to-skin contact. Can you carry eight babies and

contact. Can you carry eight babies and soo them from moment to moment?" So I think if parents actually were a fly on the wall in those daycare centers, I

would even say I'm very optimistic if those policy makers like Albani were a fly on the wall in a daycare center when the daycare workers didn't know they

were watching. They would be horrified

were watching. They would be horrified at what they see. Crying babies. babies

who cry and scream until they vomit and are not picked up because there is no way, even if you think of a daycare worker as whack-a-ole. I'm going to pick up this baby and then this crying baby

and this, there is no way you can soothe eight babies at the same time. And when

one baby cries, another baby cries and another baby. So mothers are running and

another baby. So mothers are running and fathers are running away from child care, too. It's not just that some. So

care, too. It's not just that some. So

in the UK, 66% of mothers would stay home with their babies if given the opportunity. In America, I think it's

opportunity. In America, I think it's 60%. That means in the UK, you know, 34%

60%. That means in the UK, you know, 34% of mothers would rather go to work. Why

would they rather go to work? Because

it's damn hard to be a mother and it's damn hard to meet the needs of a baby emotionally. So now imagine if the

emotionally. So now imagine if the mother can't handle it, now imagine a daycare worker handling eight children at once who are crying and in distress and imagine all of those babies have

heightened uh cortisol levels in their brain. Um and so if you saw what

brain. Um and so if you saw what actually happens in a daycare center when nobody is watching, when no authorities are watching, uh you would be appalled.

It's worse than that in Australia. We

now know there's been serious abuse in these centers and I think that is resetting the debate here and it darn well should reset it.

It should reset it. I mean, you you never want to say that those babies, you know, in a way have highlighted for your country how

just how dangerous it is to hand a tiny infant over to strangers and have them care for your baby in an institutional setting where you have no control, no oversight and can't see what's

happening.

There's another aspect to this before we come to the practical realities because you've been very helpful there and and so are thinkers and writers in this country like Virginia Tapscot and others. I don't want to single out

others. I don't want to single out heroes. There are lots of them saying

heroes. There are lots of them saying we've got to rethink the whole sort of structure of how we do our economics that's forcing people to make decisions

about short-term survival. By the way, and I'm always been fascinated in economic outcomes. We want to prosper in

economic outcomes. We want to prosper in ways that act.

You want a healthy population, don't you? You need a healthy population as a

you? You need a healthy population as a government.

Bit of happiness helps as well.

Yes. But happiness and health go together. I mean, I've never known a

together. I mean, I've never known a parent who's happy if their child is not doing well. We say you're only as happy

doing well. We say you're only as happy as your least happy and healthy child.

And this is the point I wanted to get to. We have created a society where

to. We have created a society where we're I find this amazing. Increasingly,

we see people as economic units rather than as primarily relational beings.

Mhm.

Because the heart of what you're saying in the end is satisfaction in life, joy in life, meaning in life is not tied to your

occupation. That's the message we're

occupation. That's the message we're sending people. And I'll be blunt here.

sending people. And I'll be blunt here.

I think a lot of um third wave wave feminists have have encouraged people to if you like identify by what they do.

You have to have this rank. You have to have you know certain pay levels. have

to be represented in equal numbers on boards and what have you at the expense of saying we're actually relational beings and we're setting up a model where we

compete with one another all the time rather than develop a word I think the word you used last night when we're in a separate function was interdepend that's right the you know yes you could say the

feminists have had something to do with this but you know they're offering a narrative and then the question is why are we accepting that narrative? Um, so

not everybody needs to have children. I

mean, I don't believe that everybody is suited to having children and that may be a radical thing to say, but I think there are some people, women and men, that probably would do better not having

children. Um, either because they are

children. Um, either because they are have suffered great damage as children.

I mean usually I find in my practice that the the young adults who really say I don't want children have suffered great pain in their childhood um have

had parents who are divorced who are mentally ill uh who are physically and emotionally absent abusive um and so you

know trauma and not having the model or example of two parents who really love each other and love their children and are more interested in their children

than anything else in their lives, including their work, including material things. Um, you know, that's the model

things. Um, you know, that's the model that makes children want to have children. I mean, there's a rabbi who

children. I mean, there's a rabbi who who talks about this and I love his sort of uh the quote is, you know, why should our children want to have children if we don't model a joy of parenting? If we

don't really love being with them and love parenting more than anything else in our lives, why should they want to become parents? So many young adults are

become parents? So many young adults are not suited today. And so you know there is a linear life for women where they can just like men have a more linear

career because for most women who want children it's not linear. You say women have more seasons in life than men do.

Men can have men have seasons too, you know, they have work and then retirement and but they have fewer seasons than women. Meaning women who want to have

women. Meaning women who want to have children um can have a very fulfilling work life before they have children, be very successful, you know, be leaders in

their fields. But then when they have

their fields. But then when they have children, if they think that nothing is going to change and they can continue to do exactly what they're doing when they have children, then the children are going to get sacrificed. And so

something has to give because you can't have two full-time jobs at the same time and do them well. So something is going to get sacrificed. Usually it's both their career and their children, but

more more often than not now it's the children that get sacrificed. Um, and

so, you know, but you can have a linear life and not have children and be be like a man and be a woman. And I have no problem with that. I respect those women's choices. You know, the women's

women's choices. You know, the women's movement gave us choices. That's what it was meant to do. It wasn't meant to dictate which choices you should choose.

It wasn't meant to bully and intimidate women who want to nurture or who want to have seasons to life, meaning have a great career, have a fabulous career, take some time off or titrate down your

career in the years that you have young children. And then as your children get

children. And then as your children get older and they need you a little bit less, you can, you know, ramp it up again. You know, sort of get get your

again. You know, sort of get get your career back going. And you know what we don't talk about is that women who are permenopausal and menopausal after their children are are grown and flown, they

have lots of energy because their testosterone levels go up. When men's

testosterone is going down, women's testosterone is going up. We have a great amount of energy to do something career-wise. So women in their 40s and

career-wise. So women in their 40s and 50s and 60s and 70s are incredibly productive. Those are the years to be a

productive. Those are the years to be a CEO. Before you have children, after

CEO. Before you have children, after your children are gone, those are the years to be CEO. But if you think you're going to be a CEO while you have children, you're going to have children who struggle because those children are

going to be neglected. It is impossible to do two more than full-time jobs.

Mothering is more than a full-time job.

And so we really have created this impossible narrative for parents. But

but the idea that um that mothers can choose not to have children and follow the third wave of feminism narrative, I have no problem with that. The problem

is when they start to have children and and believe that nothing in their lives will change and they don't have to shift

seasons as they go. And that's really um that's a lie that we tell mothers and fathers because what ends up happening is you're going to have very seriously mentally compromised children if you do

that.

And we need to remember this is very important. A lot of the debate here

important. A lot of the debate here centers on are there enough women on corporate boards? We're talking about a

corporate boards? We're talking about a minuscule proportion of the population that sit on corporate boards as though that's some measure of the worth and the

acceptance of equality in our society.

the vast majority of of of women that I meet and I meet a lot of people, always have because I've always been involved in public life, they're not operating at that level. It's more about how do I

that level. It's more about how do I juggle a job as a school teacher or as a nurse or as a retailer or what have you have you? They're not aspiring to those

have you? They're not aspiring to those sorts of things anyway. But the cost of living and the way we've set our economy up and our tax systems mean that they

really deeply struggle with how to make this work. And superficially the idea of

this work. And superficially the idea of state funded child care is appealing I suppose until they understand and instinctively as you've

said many of them do they want options.

You've talked quite a bit about options and what governments should be thinking of. So I' I'd be interested in you just

of. So I' I'd be interested in you just sort of working through what you think some of the options might look like. But

before we do, there's a you've touched on this too. This is very important.

There's a profound ignorance and they shouldn't be about what newborn human beings actually need.

And a very senior Australian asked me as a result of having heard you, do you think the public service in Canberra, this is

a pointed local comment as much as a question are actually providing the government with sound information based on research as to what our children who

are our future actually need. That in

turn raises the question uh you're a you know respected researcher there must be a lot of work out there that's confirming what you're saying but there seems to be a disconnect between that

research and the courage needed to put it out into the arena so that policy makers and indeed the people who vote for them can respond to reality

not the moment of the day.

Well, I am I suppose I am both an optimist and someone who sees the good in people and so I don't want to believe that policy makers really do know how

dangerous what they're doing is and do it anyway. Um they may have an

it anyway. Um they may have an ideological perspective that more people in the workforce is better for a country. Um, and the truth about that is

country. Um, and the truth about that is that, um, if you're getting everybody into the workforce, um, then daycare is a necessity. And the problem with that

a necessity. And the problem with that is you end up with generations of really ill children who become really ill adults. You know, governments want

adults. You know, governments want healthy citizens because healthy citizens don't lean on the government for support. Um, but unhealthy citizens

for support. Um, but unhealthy citizens do. um depression, anxiety,

do. um depression, anxiety, um these are disorders which um you know personality disorders these are disorders which disabled people and so

it's very shortsighted to say I want to get people into the I mean I find politics very shortsighted in general today in my country very shortsighted

no different here yeah not thinking of the ark of not only your own lifetime which is also quite selfish but the ark of your children and your grandchildren's lifetime. Who are you

grandchildren's lifetime. Who are you putting out into this world? So, you

know, from my perspective, success is not defined by how successful you are in your career, how much money you make,

how powerful you are. It's defined by if you do have children, did you raise emotionally healthy human beings who can

love and be loved and give something back give more back to this world than they take? And so that's a definition of

they take? And so that's a definition of success that we don't teach our children, we don't talk about. We we

think of success in economic terms. And it's very shortsighted to think of success only in e of course we have to think of the economy. Of course we have to think of uh you know what we're doing

now. But if you don't think of the arc

now. But if you don't think of the arc of your children and grandchildren's life and who are you putting out into the world? Are you putting out

the world? Are you putting out emotionally secure, securely attached um children who become adults who then become emotionally healthy or are you

putting out um disabled, incapacitated, dysfunctional and distrusting human beings who will never be successful? Um

and and that's really that that's the problem.

very good friend of mine, Professor Bruce Robinson, uh, wrote a book called uh, Fathering from the Fast Lane: Tips for Busy Dads because we're all so flat

out, how do we do it well with our kids?

I said to him, why are you writing, asked him, why are you writing this book? And he said, I am in the sad

book? And he said, I am in the sad business of quite frequently having to tell men there's nothing more we can do.

They're going to die. And he said, I think at that point in time, I've probably had to tell 300 men that.

That's just the area of medicine he's in.

Yeah.

Uh and um he said not one of them's ever said, "I wish I'd worked harder at my career. They've all gone straight to

career. They've all gone straight to their families and their children. I

wish I'd spent more time with them."

Well, that's Aristotle's deathbed question, right? Um it's uh when you're

question, right? Um it's uh when you're lying, dying in bed, are you going to be, you know, worrying about should you have made more money or spent more hours

in your office or been more powerful?

What is your legacy? Or are you are you sitting beside the people who you've loved and attended to and given your attention to and they're holding your

hand loving you as you leave this earth.

So yeah, that's Aristotle. I mean that's that's an important question. What is

your legacy? Do you want to leave emotionally disabled, dysfunctional human beings who hate you and don't want to sit by your bed when you're dying? Or

do you want to leave this earth knowing you were loved and you loved them and you gave them a foundation, not just them but future generations, a

foundation of mental health and emotional stability. That's the platform

emotional stability. That's the platform on which to build a good life.

Switching gears a little, uh we have um and this universal child care I believe will do exactly the same thing if the current model that's being proposed is ever actually carried forward. A thing

in Australia called the National Disability Insurance Scheme and it's designed to help the disabled and their carers cope with difficult circumstances. We'd all agree with that

circumstances. We'd all agree with that in principle.

It has absolutely eaten eaten its head off financially. It is exploding in

off financially. It is exploding in costs. It's obvious that there are many,

costs. It's obvious that there are many, many problems with them. But I've been absolutely staggered to discover that

11% of our boys who have are on an NDIS packet of some sort because of ADHD, right? So

right? So 11%.

Yes. That's that's not actually that high compared to America.

Well, a lot of people would say the actual number is higher.

Even higher than in America. I mean in America it's much higher. Um so ADHD is not a a disorder. It's a stress

condition.

It's uh it's the brain's response to stress. So once you trigger the HPA

stress. So once you trigger the HPA access, which is the stress regulating part of the brain, you know, the amygdala is sort of the the the red flag warning, and then it passes that message

to the HPA access, and then it it raises cortisol levels, and here we go. And so

it sets the the brain into what we call fight or flight, which is a survival mode. And you know, you can be in fight

mode. And you know, you can be in fight orflight temporarily. you'd say our

orflight temporarily. you'd say our fightor-flight response is a is a healthy thing. If it's acute, if we're

healthy thing. If it's acute, if we're being chased by a bear or whatever is the equivalent here, um a dingo is chasing you, uh then you want to go into

fight or flight. You're going to run or you're going to fight, right? To protect

yourself. But what's happening is that by raising those cortisol levels and stimulating that part of the brain so early in children, what we've done is we've we've gotten the HPA access going

and activated the amydala much too early. So we know that the stress

early. So we know that the stress regulating part of a baby's brain is not supposed to be activated very much at all for the first year. It's supposed to remain offline for the first year. And

the way you do that is by mothers buffering children from stress, carrying them on their bodies. Babies who are worn on their mother's bodies don't cry very much because they're soothed right

away by their mother's warmth, her heartbeat, her soothing tone of voice.

Um, and so that keeps that part of the brain very dimminionative and then it slowly over the next two years until the baby's three comes online with little bits of frustration. Um, and when they

become two and you start to say no and set limits, there's little bits of frustration that kind of bring it online slowly, right? And develop a kind of

slowly, right? And develop a kind of foundation of, oh, I can handle that little bit of stress. Maybe I can next time handle a little bit more of stress.

And you build uh their ability to cope with stress and adversity. Um, but

what's really happening is that by throwing them into daycare, by leaving them with strangers, by by by mothers leaving them with even nannies for 8 10

hours a day, um they are activating that part of the brain, that stress regulating part of the brain. And think

about the um flight part of fight or flight as being distractability, which is what ADHD is. Think of the aggressive behavior we see in very young children

in daycare and preschool and ongoing school as the fight part. So what we're seeing is very young children in massive

numbers either highly aggressive or highly distractable.

So you can alternate between the two too. You can bite a child and then be

too. You can bite a child and then be distracted or you can pick a lane. But

in any case, think about turning a light switch on in your kitchen and not turning it off. If you leave it on all night long and for days, which is what

we're doing, where it it's chronic stress to a baby's brain when you put them in daycare, think about leaving that light switch on. Eventually, what

happens to that light switch? It burns

out. And that's what's happening when the amygdala is prematurely activated.

That stress regulating system is prematurely activated. it goes into a

prematurely activated. it goes into a hypervigilant mode and what ends up happening is that part of the brain gets very very very active too active

precociously active and then shrivels up and ceases to function for that child going forward for the rest of their lives. So we say we have to be very

lives. So we say we have to be very careful with that part of our brain and nurture it so it comes online slowly so it functions for us for the rest of our

lives. And that's not what we're doing.

lives. And that's not what we're doing.

We are throwing the baby into the cold swimming pool and saying sink or swim.

And that baby goes into a survival mode, what we call learned helplessness. And

they are chronically in a state of flight. And that is what ADHD is. So

flight. And that is what ADHD is. So

you'd say again, it's a sign and a symptom of a bigger problem that we have. It is not a disorder. It is not.

have. It is not a disorder. It is not.

There is no genetic precursor to ADHD.

There's no genetic precursor to depression and anxiety. These are

disorders of what we call inheritance of acquired characteristics.

One would have thought this would have been a very real interest to public policy makers and bureaucrats because the cost of it is absolutely breaking out.

Absolutely. and it will continue.

I was with uh without mentioning any names at all an educator who knows her stuff and we interacted recently with a

mother who was plainly very stressed.

She had four boys, all of them on packages for this problem. The father

was nowhere to be seen. He couldn't

cope. He just split the scene.

And the educator said to me, "Not one of those boys is really in enough of a mess to need a package. They need to be nurtured at

package. They need to be nurtured at home and looked after at school. They'd

be all right."

If she if the educator's right, and I believe she knows her staff, that's a matter of public policy and it should be worrying legislators. We've

got this wrong. So, you know, I don't want to say what I do is magic because it's not. People think it's magic what

it's not. People think it's magic what therapists do, you know, when they treat children. There's no magic to it. What

children. There's no magic to it. What

it is is it's it's practical. There's

something very practical to it. You

know, when parents come to me because their children are in this survival mode. Um, what I like to call a PTSD

mode. Um, what I like to call a PTSD state. So, think of soldiers who come

state. So, think of soldiers who come back from war. They're also in that chronic state of hypervigilance uh with stress. Um, so if we know that

children are in this hypervigilant state and we take the stressor off the table, we stop putting them in daycare, we get a primary attachment figure to stay home and be sensitive and empathic and

nurturing to them. I mean, it can be days, sometimes weeks before that child's behavior changes and months before that child is a completely different child and parents will come in

and say, "Oh my god, my child is a completely different child." So, it's not magic. It's quite practical.

not magic. It's quite practical.

Interestingly, pure research in America apparently indicates that um uh amongst young women 18 to mid30s

uh some 18% you know that's getting on for one in five say that they consciously do not want to have children. There always been some people

children. There always been some people who don't want to have children but that would be a massive increase. I would

have thought over recent decades only around 45% say they absolutely do want to.

We know that it also varies. So, um, in in in families where a faith is taken seriously, they're far more likely to have children. We also know that if you

have children. We also know that if you go to Israel, uh, Jewish people, uh, secular Jews and religious Jews um, have many more children as well. There's a

lot going on here to unpack. You know,

some want children as much as ever. Many

do not.

Well, again, why should young people want to have children if they come from any kind of trauma? And that's what I'm going to say. It's a harsh word, but it

is a true word. When we neglect our children, we traumatize them. So, one

might say that the worst kind of abuse is not physical abuse. Um, because

physical abuse, the parents actually there to touch them. And I'm not suggesting anybody physically abuse their children, but the worst kind of abuse can be the most nuanced one which

people don't necessarily even recognize as abuse, which is neglect.

When we neglect our children, either because of, as I said, mentally ill parents or physically and emotionally absent parents or divorce situations

that are horrendous. What ends up happening to those children is that they grow up not trusting relationships, not feeling safe in them, um not

desiring them, there's no positive modeling of what safety and security and love looks like. You know, I always say that if you don't prioritize your

children above everything else, and I mean men and women, um, if you are so either preoccupied

with your own career or ego or vanity or need for power or need for money, and that's different than providing for your family because fathers have this hormone

called basopressin. It's called the

called basopressin. It's called the protective aggressive hormone. And when

they have a baby, uh, it makes them want to protect their children and financially support their children. At

least that's the way it used to be. Uh,

men, young men are so depressed now. It

doesn't get turned on in really.

Mhm. There's a lot of depression in young men and young fathers and but that is evolutionarily what men that that's the hormone that turns on in men. So

they say, I want to support my children, their children.

Yes. which is one of the problems to be blunt about it with blended families, right?

We know that from the research, it's a hard thing to say, but often an introduced male figure, it's more complicated. It is definitely more complicated. Um, but what I will

more complicated. Um, but what I will say is um that you take a traumatized child and then you ask that child why they don't want to have children. And

for me it seems quite obvious that yes, you know, I suppose you could say they don't want to have children because of they can't buy a house or economic reasons or you know the world is gone to

pot or those aren't the reasons. Again,

there has always been financial instability. Maybe it's harder than ever

instability. Maybe it's harder than ever to live the life of your parents, but it's not for financial reasons that the majority of them are not having children. I mean I do believe

children. I mean I do believe governments have to make it easier for them to have a good life and have a home and you know provide for their families but in the end what makes you not want to have children because if you look at

the rest of the world most people in the rest of the world outside of the western world are very poor and they love their children and they love having children.

In fact for poor families having children is the main joy in their life.

You know you could say that with economic prosperity come choices and selfishness.

And that's the truth. So

doesn't make us any happier though.

No, it doesn't make us happier. It makes

us much less happy. So in many cases being poor and having children is the main joy in your life because you don't have so much ego invested in a career or

being powerful or being rich or right.

So that it's not a good argument to say that it's all economic. There's a piece of it, but that's not why children are not wanting children. They're not

wanting children because their parents were selfish and never really gave to them in a way that put their own needs aside. And so what was modeled for them

aside. And so what was modeled for them of the joy of having children? You know,

parents today, I find them to be kind of very belleaguered and partly because of this narrative that we've sort of projected onto them that they have to do

everything, you know, be work and be at home and do it all, you know. So that's

a very dangerous narrative for women.

But you know I think there is something to be understood about um you know the idea that if we don't model the joy more

than the resentment more than the fatigue and being belleaguered then why should our children want to follow in our footsteps? I mean I wanted to have

our footsteps? I mean I wanted to have children because my parents greatest joy was their children. They weren't that. I

mean they had a social life and they you know had friends but really in the end of the day my parents really wanted to be with us. It was every free moment they had they wanted to be with us and

they wanted to be with each other and they loved each other and they wanted to be with family and that was their greatest joy. So of course when I became

greatest joy. So of course when I became an adult I wanted to have family. It

wasn't even a I didn't really have to give it a second thought. It was it was always part of my life plan. It's not

part of kids' life plan because they don't see their parents joyful.

Uh well, from my I relate to what you're saying because as you know and many of our listeners will know um uh my family was uh somewhat blown apart by death, by

loss.

Yeah. Uh, and when I met my wife Julia, one of the things that immediately drew me towards her was that she was one of four kids and she bubbled over in her

conversations all the time about the joy of growing up with mom, dad, and her two brothers and her sister. It just oozed out of every every sort of conversation.

And I found that unbelievably attractive and thought, I want that.

Yeah.

That's a priority for me.

Yeah.

So, that's a very human moment since we're sharing human moments.

Yeah. Um, but you've just said something and I've only just, it's only just occurred to me. I've been mystified by the fact that the so-called depopulation bomb that we're all starting to talk about. You know,

overpopulation is almost yesterday's question now.

Yeah.

Um, uh, we know that in China the population is in freef fall. There are

10 countries now experiencing what's called the depopulation bomb. Uh but AC and Australia joins we're told with another 15 countries or so on their current trajectory over the next decade.

Yeah.

Um and without going into all the details as to what that might mean uh economically and in terms of societies that are aging and people moving to be guest workers in Europe because there

won't be any young tax. All of those sorts of things are they're going to be big public policy issues. But one of the things that interests me is that it's hard to we're talking about the reasons in in

our experience and you've just thrown a lot of light on it why a lot of young people don't want children but it crosses economic and political systems. Mhm.

So you've got a demographic depopulation bomb happening in China which is hardly democ democratic and and and and free enterprise. Well, it's fairly good at

enterprise. Well, it's fairly good at free enterprise, but it's it's a very different culture to ours and their women are not wanting children. Um,

you're seeing it across South America, different political systems there.

You're seeing it in the West. It's tied

up much more the question of um of what happens to you in your own early years.

You're suggesting.

Mhm. Mhm. And of course we know those cultural things spread a lot now and have done since the advent of the movies and you know in the old language now social media

the contagions go everywhere. I mean

there is a problem that with wealth um economic prosperity brings um individualism and self-centeredness and that is just I think you could say that

across the board that if you have too many choices sometimes you don't make the right choice right and so there is an expectable

kind of movement away from family towards self-interests and freedom and individualism which I think we have to look at as a society. The narrative we

created is that's the goal. The goal is me and mine and I and and uh my desires

and you know so parents really today if they choose to have children believe that their interests and desires should always come first

because that's what they've been told.

That's what they've been taught by their parents now generationally by their grandparents that selfishness is the goal, not selflessness. Um, so you know, we I

not selflessness. Um, so you know, we I guess we also have to bring in the idea of religion and how we've lost faith and faith-based communities which really

advocated for the idea of giving to others versus giving to yourself. That

it was more important to give to others than it was to take for yourself.

Obviously, we all have a basic need to have something for ourselves, but you know what was emphasized in faith was giving to others. And the joy in life and the pleasure you get from giving to

others is far greater than, you know, I always use the analogy of on Christmas day, I mean, I'm Jewish, but I'll use this anyway because probably most listeners are not. And to say that on Christmas day is the joy in opening your

own presents or is the joy in bringing your present to your mommy and daddy and waiting for them to open it and see if they love it. Right. And so today the

joy is much more for young people in opening presence. And so and that's a

opening presence. And so and that's a problem and that's something that we have modeled. It's a it's a modern

have modeled. It's a it's a modern societal narrative that we really have to look at carefully. This rise in narcissistic tendencies in um in in a a

socioeconomically prosperous environment. Um the fact that

prosperous environment. Um the fact that kids will move away from their extended families and their parents and uh leave them to age alone in isolation in

nursing homes and move to other parts of the world and um because they can.

Mhm.

Because it's supported because uh it's it's even idealized you know be your best self. Um, so yeah, we have we have

best self. Um, so yeah, we have we have some I I think we have some societal issues that we really have to address if we want to understand this crisis of why

people don't want children and seem to resent having children and resent the children that they do have. And yeah,

actually if legislators and policy makers stop to think for a moment, we have from history the proof that removing children from loving home

environments is an economic and social disaster.

Yeah, we have Romania is definitely a a very good example of a government saying that they can raise children better than you can. Um and in fact it's it's quite

you can. Um and in fact it's it's quite um should I say it's sort of a communist ideal um to say that you know that that

children are better raised by states than parents. Um and we know that for

than parents. Um and we know that for instance um the kabutz was also a failed experiment in Israel. the idea that parents and children were separated and that the children were raised by someone

else, you know, essentially by the governing body of the kabutz, that they would be better off than being raised by the parents. So, and we know in Romania

the parents. So, and we know in Romania that the Romanian orphans um were were literally children that parents gave over to the state because they believed

that the state could do a better job of raising their children, their children would be healthier in these orphanages.

And the result of that was devastating that these orphanages were um were places of great trauma and sadness.

These children did not develop in the same way. Um they were neglected. They

same way. Um they were neglected. They

were um basically mentally compromised for the rest of their lives. Now, we're

not talking about putting your children into orphanages, but we are talking about putting them into day orphanages, which are um you know, eight, sometimes

10 hours a day of of you know, strangers caring for your children and overstimulating overwhelming oversubscribed systems, um bureaucratic

systems. And so, yeah, it's it's different, but not very different. So

that very dangerous narrative that the state can raise your children better than you can uh is a very dangerous one indeed.

Erica, you've been very generous with your time. It's been fantastic. Uh and I

your time. It's been fantastic. Uh and I think and hope will be valuable for many people. I think you and I would both

people. I think you and I would both say, okay, now many people looking at us and say it's easy for them. You know,

they're well off, they've worked hard.

Hope they'd can see that, you know, and they they plainly they're very comfortable and all the rest of it. But

the key to all of us is to understand that in fact that's not where real joy and happiness and purpose have come from.

And it won't for anybody else that it's tied up in relationships. And

there's nothing more remarkable, I'm going to say it, than the bond between a man and a woman who love each other and then bring children into the world who are genetically,

if you like, the two flesh becoming one.

They're half and half. I look at my kids and think this is amazing. They are half my wife and half me.

And that's an unbelievably bonding thing. We need to get swept up again in

thing. We need to get swept up again in the magic of it all.

It is magical. having children can be incredibly magical. And so, yeah, I

incredibly magical. And so, yeah, I think the magic has gone out of the world. I suppose you could say that.

world. I suppose you could say that.

Thanks for your courage because to do hard research and put it out there in a zeitgeist when somehow or other in the age of

relativism, if your truth, even if it's true, doesn't match up with my feelings, then I'll attack it. And that in itself

is immensely destruction destructive. So

so here's to sound research. Here's to

it actually shaping public policy.

Again, thank you for having me, John.