Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Perhaps the more interesting question is whether the traditional nuclear family is the "optimal" mode of human society?

Is the unhappiness that we may be observing with the decline of family a product of this transition period from traditional family structure to individualism? Is our current society just not well equipped yet to handle this mode of living? Maybe in 50 years, this will become the norm and people who choose to live alone will have alternative sources of happiness.



I really doubt the traditional nuclear family is natural and hence "optimal" although I guess that depends on your goal. I think as an extension or outcome, perhaps the purpose of civilization, nuclear families provide safety and security rather than producing the best offspring for the species as a whole. What's better, people of every level of fitness and intelligence pairing off to produce God knows what sort of mutants that will be protected on some level by society, or a handful of males who are naturally predisposed to good health, fitness, and intelligence, turbo Chads if you will, seeding large groups of females.

I'm not saying one is better for than the other overall, but one is surely better than the other for certain outcomes. Do we want an equitable society where low status individuals, but particularly males, have a better shot at reproduction and may contribute more to building a society that propagates that "culture" of safety and equity? Or do we go with what is probably more natural? I mean i can guess why and how religions of old and civilizations formed and why they were patriarchal


I don’t know if it’s optimal, but it sure is intimate and stable.

Your spouse will never move to another city for a new job w/o you. Your kids won’t leave the nucleus, at least not until they’re college ready.

Unlike family, different kinds of arrangements between people result in relationships that are less committed and less durable.

So maybe if you take stability and intimacy into account, it might as well be optimal.

I guess it begs the question, what are we optimizing for? And on what time scale?

What might seem optimal for the time being, could unleash a series of unforeseen circumstances in the future.

But I guess we can keep an open mind, allow people to choose for themselves and then report back after 2-3 generations the consequences of different paths taken.


Given the divorce rate and the number of single-parent families in the US (and much of the West?), I don't think I'd call the nuclear family "stable".


Stability rates vary over time. But in the context of this discussion, I meant stable relative to other social arrangements.

Thus relative to the current divorce rates, I would wager that “divorce” rates among friends and other social structures are even greater.


It's interesting that you consider the nuclear family as "traditional", while it's actually a fairly recent phenomenon. And in many places in the world it's still common for a family to consist of multiple generations and often aunts/uncles/cousins/etc. living in the same household.


I suspect that it is the best model we have found so far. I also wonder whether monogamy is the cause of modern society rather than a result of it.

There seems to be a pretty good correlation between which countries are most dominant today and those that encouraged monogamy in the recent past.

Maybe the differences in IQ seen between different groups are caused by how well those societies manage to mix up genes and not down to skin colour.


I'd say it is a natural way of living, but maybe you have been unlucky in not experiencing it for yourself. This debate is pretty old, Plato's Republic hinting at the disappearance of the family echoes much of the current western culture. He figured out you could not impose a totalitarian state while having people's allegiance lie on their family.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: