Hacker News Reader

Have you read Plato's "Republic"? He had some ideas along your lines. Copied here from a dubious online summary:

"""

In the first of several radical claims that he makes in this section Socrates declares that females will be reared and trained alongside males, receiving the same education and taking on the same political roles. Though he acknowledges that in many respects men and women have different natures, he believes that in the relevant respect—the division among appetitive, spirited, and rational people—women fall along the same natural lines as men. Some are naturally appetitive, some naturally spirited, and some naturally rational. The ideal city will treat and make use of them as such.

Socrates then discusses the requirement that all spouses and children be held in common. For guardians, sexual intercourse will only take place during certain fixed times of year, designated as festivals. Males and females will be made husband and wife at these festivals for roughly the duration of sexual intercourse. The pairings will be determined by lot. Some of these people, those who are most admirable and thus whom we most wish to reproduce, might have up to four or five spouses in a single one of these festivals. All the children produced by these mating festivals will be taken from their parents and reared together, so that no one knows which children descend from which adults. At no other time in the year is sex permitted. If guardians have sex at an undesignated time and a child results, the understanding is that this child must be killed.

To avoid rampant unintentional incest, guardians must consider every child born between seven and ten months after their copulation as their own. These children, in turn, must consider that same group of adults as their parents, and each other as brothers and sisters. Sexual relations between these groups is forbidden.

"""

We don't have a strong alternative. You are tasked with providing for your progeny in no small part simply because no one else will.

The nuclear family is born in industrial modern society. In city in fact. Remember the one to be jailed - it takes a village.

No. Not sure in western society but in the old village (even to this day all those chinese has a village in their passport marked), you have a place where the punishment to be held.

Come on. Treating kid well is a modern concept. Whilst I think parent could be and should be lovely. It is not so in history and around the world. So is not your social environment.

If a minor deed like Friday the best no report card, please do.

Just to clarify a bit here, when it reads "all those chinese has a village in their passport marked", you are probably talking about the Hukou system. Well, everyone in the world has his place of birth in his passport, but, ok, the Hukou system is more then that, but is at risk of being misunderstood here, It's primary reason of existence has nothing to do with punishments, note that physical punishment at schools is currently forbidden, hated and smashed and scorched by social media and news and by the majority of parents in China. The very Hukou system itself has it's Demise "announced" by the Chinese lawmakers for years now, they are handling the update of a huge Legacy society organization and citizen identification System update and this system has already suffered many minor cuts and shut-downs of collateral ancient, obsolete regulations. To add some anedacta: I was a guest of a certain facility for a couple months in China. Any kind of physical punishment by the enforcement or the crew or the guests themselves was impossible. dozen cameras 24 h a day, no milimeter out of the Written Law. And the law doesn't predict physical punishment there, besides of the Death Penalty, that is exactly the top of the scale of Ancient physical punishment, off course. :edit adding some bit to the anedacta, I was the only non-chinese there, among hundreds.

> The nuclear family is born in industrial modern society. In city in fact. Remember the one to be jailed - it takes a village.

This isn't true. The nuclear family was well established in Western Europe by the 1500s and it was known though uncommon in Eastern Europe. The clan or extended family is clearly older and more common in human history but the nuclear family was not born in cities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_patt...

> The Western European marriage pattern is a family and demographic pattern that is marked by comparatively late marriage (in the middle twenties), especially for women, with a generally small age difference between the spouses, a significant proportion of women who remain unmarried, and the establishment of a neolocal household after the couple has married. In 1965, John Hajnal discovered that Europe is divided into two areas characterized by a different patterns of nuptiality. To the west of the line, marriage rates and thus fertility were comparatively low and a significant minority of women married late or remained single and most families were nuclear; to the east of the line and in the Mediterranean and particular regions of Northwestern Europe, early marriage and extended family homes were the norm and high fertility was countered by high mortality.

What kind of crazy leap of logic does it take to go from we can't assume everyone can be a good parent to nuclear families don't make sense?

There is a world of things society and government could do, beyond what is done today, to try to ensure the well-being of children -- everything from better education programs to drastic things like requiring parents to be licensed -- before one gets to the idea of dissolving the concept of families completely.

If logical arguments exist that supposedly support such an exotic and questionable idea, you should probably not leave it to the rest of us to guess at them.

> If you look at the much bigger picture—children who are gay or trans, children who date outside their race, children born into cults or to antivaxxers, children born with disabilities that expect particularly uncommon levels of support from parents, etc. etc.

I'm confused about what you are saying is the connection between these four groups?

I think the point is probably "children who's experience ends up being very different from their parent's". Parenting is (relatively) easy when it's problems you faced as a child and teaching things you already know.

When you don't understand what your child is going through, helping them through it is a lot harder, and in some cases, parents simply won't be capable of it.

The abuse that they are subjected to by their parents.

Those children are quite often mistreated or abused by their parents in often quiet ways, and offering resources to the parents to learn how to parent better is unlikely to help.

Got it. Makes sense.

If parents aren't expected to cope (with appropriate support), life is a lost cause.