First-Borns

Who has an oldest brother or son or friend who is the oldest son of a family and who is doing very well? Who has a younger brother or sister or friend who is the younger sibling of the family and who is doing fine?

In this rather competitive world of which money and power can be decided just by the order of things, it would appear that there is a cultural bias against the oldest sibling of a family. This is especially so where societies are more structured and the bias is calculated to prevent the concentration of power and means which might upset the popular imagery of society.

There was a story I heard that a king ordered the killing of all the first born's of a kingdom he was ruling- the reason being was that he felt insecure about his position and therefore felt threatened by the authority and power a first born have over his family. It was not religious or out of anger but rather a calculated strategic move to consolidate his position. A family without a head is easier to manage.

And of course, in today's world- this is draconian; and with or without a head, somebody is going to protest against the taking of innocent lives by a despot. But in today's context, the political move is much more sophisticated.

Concentration of power normally resides in the economic in this world and skills and knowledge are rather important in ensuring that the economic instrument is correctly purchased. Therefore I have begun to noticed that- as society's structures becomes hardened- the first-born of many families have begun to pick up "soft" skills as compared with "hard skills of yesteryears.

Nonetheless, the world of today- in constant competition with each other- seems to subtly shifting the division of labour of "hard" skills towards the younger siblings. This I do not believe is happening spontaneously but rather in a contrived manner- aimed primarily at diffusing the power of each unit of society, mainly the family.

Ultimately in such manner, a family unit becomes relatively inert in it's orientation. Because the order cancels out the supposed "higher" economic value of the younger sibling. This is as good as removing the head of a family since the positivity generated from a strong figure head is negated from a supposed "younger" challenger. Ultimately the family as a whole becomes less united and much more fragmented. This makes management of a society much more simpler because the people are busy fighting among themselves. Such a move as the same effect of removing the first born of a family altogether in the first place.

Now there are more divorces and there are fathers who are more like play-mates than paternalistic figures of yester-years. It might have positive familial effect of being more approachable but I suspect the latent utility is much more calculated and strategic and beyond it's the positive emotional connection.