Yeah, agreed entirely with comments so far albeit with one minor asterisk and I hope he gets confronted on it hard. The criticism buckets include:
- "Childhood is a time of innocent happiness", even to the extent that it's true, is actually quite a modern product of both specific morality, enormous effort, and resource expenditure that we're still finding out the real cost of. For most of human history children were expected to start taking on supporting work of some kind about as soon as they were physically/mentally capable of handling it. A high percentage of children also died well before adulthood, in fact (and this surprised me when I first learned it) life expectancy at young age didn't turn into a smooth line until last century or so. Seriously it's worth perusing the history of longevity a bit. It wasn't that long ago when only 50-75% of children even survived to adolescence at all which is why final average age rose a lot vs life expectancy at birth for those who lasted that long. A lot of women would already be having children by highschool age. And there are still significant geographic variations. So there's some interesting privilege and historical blindness at play (though asterisk will get back to it).
- Making all this happen has been done using massive amounts of synthetic resources beyond humans themselves, in particular fossil fuels and synthetic materials, and it's been done by effectively (or literally) just dumping the consequences on future generations or others who serve underneath. It hasn't been sustainable, there's been a lot of externalities. We only now truly seem to be starting to face the full picture of the true price. And even now lots of people want to just keep kicking the can down the road and piling up the debt onto the shoulders of others or the future.
- Of course to "even to the extent that it's true", well obviously for many it wasn't and adulthood is a blessed relief. Children can face plenty of hardships based both on their raw luck of the draw as well as themselves, and have far fewer tools and powers to respond. They have less responsibilities in turn true, but whether that makes up for it or not is going to be a big "ymmv" situation!
The one aspect that adds a bit of an asterisk and serves as a proxy to IRL technology is magic. IRL, an idyllic life for kids or anyone else requires others actually working on the basics of life, and dealing with limited resource allocation problems and so on. If something offered a chance to genuinely do away with that ("magic", or "
sustainable automation can handle all the basics of sustaining a human") it'd be a genuinely tough debate around how to use it. But that's only if it's actually true, and here there clearly are real questions around whether this is free will, whether it's actually sustainable, etc.