PDA

View Full Version : Why are Jupiter & Saturn “generational” planets?


JUPITERASC
06-07-2012, 07:43 PM
This thread is intended as a focus for discussion on the topic of why Jupiter and Saturn may both be regarded as generational planets and is inspired as a direct result of a brief discussion on another thread which was on a different topic.

My ephemeris confirms that Jupiter takes 12 years to orbit the Sun and Saturn takes 30 years to orbit the Sun - additionally, during their respective orbits of the Sun Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction only approximately every 20 years.

These specific spans of time are interesting because those figures IMO chime well with the accepted idea of “a generation” being the span of time necessary before human beings are physically able to produce a child of their own
JupiterAsc, you're using a different definition of "generational planet" than I am used to. Not that either is wrong, but definitely different!

What I have read about generational planets would specify, for instance, the "Pluto in Scorpio 'generation'", relating to an age cohort of people born while Pluto transited Scorpio. Or "GenX". Or the "Me Generation", which pretty much defies definition IMO.

Most of the uses of generation in astrology pop-psych shorthand bear little relation to the way a human generation is commonly defined: roughly 20 years, a not very specific average for the time it takes for a baby to grow up and produce offspring.
Why is it then that "astrology pop-psych shorthand bear little relation to the way a human generation is generally defined"?

After all, 12 is an age at which many humans are capable of reproduction and therefore IMO Jupiter's 12 year orbit around the sun places Jupiter firmly in the category of a “generational” planet. 12 year old parents are not considered unusual in many eastern countries BUT in western countries it is considered child abuse/a criminal offence. However, the worldwide reality is that children aged twelve frequently do become parents – perhaps more so in eastern rather than western countries.

Jupiter conjuncts Saturn only every 20 years and it is not unusual on a worldwide scale to find that many become parents at that age. Thus Jupiter-Saturn counjunctions are IMO linked in "generational" terms

Saturn's 30 years orbit of the Sun is more representative of those who choose to be parents at what IMO westerners in general consider a more appropriate age for the mature responsibility of parenthood.

The foregoing considerations confirm IMO why Jupiter & Saturn are indeed “generational” planets because their respective orbits of the Sun as well are their conjunctions are in tune with the "generational aspects" of human reproductive behavior :smile:

I agree that, in human terms, 'a generation' can be a variable - that's because some produce offspring very early, and in many 'eastern' countries before their teens. However, in 'the west' there is a tendency to initially focus on 'career' before then producing offspring later in the 30's. The middle ground would be those producing offspring in their 20's.

Based on those rather "rough and ready" spans of time then:

IMO
(1) A twelve year Jupiter orbit of the sun represents those who are parents at an age considered in 'the west' very young - i.e. 12

(2) A thirty year Saturn orbit of the sun represents those who are parents at what is considered in 'the west' to be a 'more responsible age' - i.e. 30

(3) A neat combination of the two planets in regular 20 year Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions then would IMO nicely represent the 'middle-ground' - i.e. 20

However, as I have said the particular thread I originally made that comment on was not intended specifically for a discussion of whether Jupiter and Saturn may or may not be regarded as “generational” planets and so in order to continue the discussion, I have commenced this thread :smile:

JUPITERASC
07-06-2012, 05:57 AM
Mid-October 2011 I posted the following observation that is related to the topic of this thread
But what is meant by 'a generation'?
In general, a generation averages about 25 years from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child - although it varies case by case, it is generally accepted that the length of a generation was closer to 20 years in earlier times when humans mated younger and life expectancies were shorter.

Among present-day members of a contemporary hunter-gatherer people of Botswana and Namibia whose lifestyle is relatively similar to that of our Western pre-agricultural ancestors, the average age of mothers at the birth of their first child was 20 years and at the last birth 31, giving a mean of 25.5 years per female generation which is considerably above the 20 years commonly attributed to 'primitive cultures'. Fathers were six to 13 years older than mothers, giving a male generational interval of 31 to 38 years. (source: sociologist Nancy Howell)

Alternatively, population geneticists Marc Tremblay and Hélène Vézina found a generational interval, based on the years between parents’ and children’s marriages, to average 31.7 years, and they determined that male generations averaged 35.0 years while female generations averaged 28.7 years. (source: 100 ascending Quebec genealogies)

A separate study by Biological anthropologist Agnar Helgason and colleagues who used the Icelandic deCODE genetics database to arrive at a female line interval of 28.12 years for the most recent generations and 28.72 years for the whole lineage length. Male line lineages showed a similar difference—31.13 years for the recent generations and 31.93 years overall.

For a more mathematically appealing average then, Helagason and fellow researchers recommended estimating female generational line intervals at 30 years and male generational intervals at 35 years - based on the Quebec and Iceland studies.

We need to remember that current understandings in physical and biological sciences are subject to change as more data becomes available and that data’s interpretation becomes more certain. So, for now, when genealogists want to convert generations to years and create probable date ranges, using an evidence-based generational interval such as Helagason’s 30 and 35 years - or even one developed based on your own family history research may be the best solution.