There’s something to the newness of being a child, that the aggregate of suffering is cumulative. Children simply haven’t had as much shit and time to contemplate it, to question life.
Although prisoners get along about as well as other children, the fact that one group can do something under condition A, doesn’t mean every group can do something under condition A.
Then condition A is not conditional and really just a coincidental occurance, isn’t it?
-Just like the fact that deflated is not a condition for being a blue ball.
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.
As a writer once said, there really aren’t any adults at all, just children in more grown up bodies. So your analysis here on the count of children and adults per “authenticity” capacity is dubious. Much more elaboration would be needed for you to make your point, let alone defend it.
So as long as people remain extremely naive and healthy, they can live “authentically”/“honestly” (albeit childishly).
But then exactly who is going to ensure they stay that way throughout generations? Children are far from being self-governing (as anyone can see at the UN).
We can say that an “authentic human life” means a “life according to the human’s nature”, whereas an “unauthentic life” means a “life according to the human’s culture/s”.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (=>#), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.