Hacker News Reader

Comment by FD3SA | Hacker News Reader

It's astounding that we have come so far that this needs to be defended. Throughout history, civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world. This is due to simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species, favor fewer offspring which have much longer weaning periods. As a result, parents who invested more in providing their offspring with education and sustenance did substantially better as a society than their competitors.

It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portions of their lives. That being said, singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable and fuelled by emotional insecurity which, as mentioned in the article, inevitably lead to burnout.

Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

View on HN

> civilizations which held the nuclear family as their most important asset have absolutely dominated the world

I'm not aware of any civilization that "held the nuclear family as their most important asset" (whatever that means). Ancient Greek literature does not wax poetic about the paramount importance of the nuclear family, neither does Renaissance Florence. Confucian ancestor worship is the only system of ethics that comes close to that (and it's about the extended family) - but I doubt that's what you meant.

> simple evolutionary forces, which for K-selected species [...]

Anyone who threw even a cursory glance at the Lotka-Volterra equations [1] would not talk of evolutionary forces as being "simple".

> singles are very productive in short bursts, but these are unstable

And yet some of the most creative / productive people in history did not also create nuclear families (Michelangelo, Kant, Turing etc.).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation

Ancient Greece did not genetically survive. We have remnants of their culture NOT by virtue of their genetic fitness nor the continuance of their civilization, merely because we discovered their artifacts and the people whom they enslaved had children who fancy themselves as the children of the masters of their ancestors. Don't be fooled, Ancient Greece's failure to mention the importance of the nuclear family should be evidence as to what happens to cultures that lay aside such. Namely they are wiped out and their heritage is merely whatever is picked up by those near by after their society dies and goes through the throughs of civil and social collapse. The fact that Florence had a Renaissance to go through, thanks to discoveries of artifacts of the long dead Greeks and Romans.

And as per some of the most 'creative'/'productive' people being single presumes that their accomplishments sprung out of their heads like Athena. None of them would have the very culture they played off of that enabled their greatness without the existence of nuclear families.

The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years, but I've never seen anything suggesting that they lionised the nuclear family. "Lay aside the concept of nuclear family" didn't seem to stop them, and few cultures have lasted as long as they have.

The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age. It is specific to the modern age. Trying to retrofit it to historical civilisations is only going to end up in trying to explain away why this one or that one doesn't fit.

Strangely, you dismiss Ancient Greek culture as not being up to the task, but then grant that Florentine success was only because they copied old Greek culture. It's also worth mentioning that the Renaissance wasn't just central Europeans rediscovering archaic artifacts, as there was a host of new ideas and technologies being founded at the time, eventually accelerating into the Enlightenment period.

"The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age."

That's not my understanding at all. It refers to the "nucleus" of parents and children, as opposed to extended family.

It seems I am wrong with the definition, or rather am using an uncommon variant of the term. Still, living with extended family has been pretty common before the age of pensions.

Agreed, though it's never been absurdly uncommon.

A nitpick that has caused much confusion in the comments below:

The nuclear family is the most basic form of family, and is certainly not opposed to an extended family. An extended family is a superset of a nuclear family. All families by definition must include the subset of the nuclear family, and thus it is the minimum requirement to fall into the set of "All possible families".

For the set of all families F, there exists an element N = "nuclear family" such that N is a subset of F.

This is not true. If the children don't live with the parents, it's not a nuclear family. If one parent is dead or the parents don't live together, it's not a nuclear family.

If dad's abusive and mum can't cope, and the grandparents are taking care of the kids at their place, it's not a nuclear family - the supposed 'nucleus' is not there.

If there are no children, but adult siblings live together, they are a family, but not a nuclear one.

My old boss took in a couple of teenagers from up the road when their mother was caught cheating and fled, never to be seen again, and the father was a pilot, always away, and utterly useless with kids. So here you have a situation where there is a sort of stepmother (no formal adoption) taking care of two kids (who come to see her as mum), a separate father who's not really in their lives, and a biological mother who has never been seen since. It's hard to see how terming that fractured family as a 'nuclear family' allows the phrase to have any useful meaning whatsoever.

About 30 years ago, some wise-guy cartoonist came up with the expression "tactical nuclear family."

You are speaking of time variance. At some point in time, by definition, the nuclear family was present. It takes a male and a female to produce an embryo. At this point, the nuclear family is created. What happens afterwards is of course a combination of choice and probability, as your plethora of examples indicate.

The only thing that is important in my assertion is whether the nuclear family unit is purposefully maintained by the parents, or not. The many reasons outside of the parents' control which may contribute to its dissolution are not part of this discussion (accidental death, dislocation, disease, etc.).

As with any problem, we must be careful in defining our variables and assumptions, and minimize both in order to reduce the complexity of the problem, but not so much that the problem being solved becomes trivial.

In principle, the father could have died before the embryo was created - either during the time between intercourse and conception, or further decoupled with sperm banks &c.

That does not mean that all families are supersets of a nuclear family. A stepfamily years down the track is not a superset of an earlier nuclear family. It's like saying that the cars on our roads are supersets of aluminium ore, there just happens to be time variance. Or that synthetic clothing is actually made from trees (via swamps -> oil) and therefore a superset of natural clothing, there just happens to be time variance.

And, strictly speaking, an embryo is not always created at the time of intercourse. Even if your definition was correct, it is possible for the father and mother to be together, the father to leave, and then for the egg and sperm to meet. This can be be up to 3 to 5 days later.

Your definition of family has become so vague as to be meaningless. In genetics, adoptive parents are not considered family. I recommend you look into the evolutionary foundations of human mating systems, and their consequences (e.g. kin selection).

When did we specify we were solely talking about genetics? Do you really declare that the stepfamily down the road isn't actually a family? That's just nonsense from a political, social, or philosophical standpoint, and doubly so when you consider that the term we're using - nuclear family - is most often used in these contexts. I'm a biologist by training (though not a geneticist) and I've never seen the term 'nuclear family' used when talking genetics, but I've seen it a great many times in political and social commentary.

In any case, what society considers a family has more impact on how humans treat each other than what genetics considers a family, so I don't see how you can so casually discard non-genetic definitions. If you go to a court that deals in family law, they certainly don't limit their definition of family to pure genetic strains.

evolutionary foundations of human mating systems

What exactly are you referring to here?

I didn't mean "opposed to" in the sense that "extended family" excluded the nuclear family (if present) but just "opposed to" in that they are not the same concept. That said, as vacri suggests, it's possible for there to be family that does not have a nuclear subset (orphaned children live with grandparents, or what have you).

> Ancient Greece did not genetically survive

I'm not sure if that's true (considering just Hellenism and the descendants that Alexander the Great's people must have left between Thrace and India), but to address this more generally: of course if you don't have children you won't "genetically survive". The question was whether it would preclude you from great work. In this regard, Ancient Greece is an example of work that did survive - and even, for many centuries, served as a model.

> It is quite ironic that the vast wealth accumulated by the western world, which was built upon the nuclear family as its foundation, has now allowed the next generation such freedom that they can dally as singles for significant portion of their lives.

Freedom? More like not being able to afford the expenses of having a family.

I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles, but I can't afford a house and can't fathom trying to raise a family on my income. It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement. If this is freedom, I hope I don't get any more liberated than I already am.

How did this rule come about, that you need to own a house before you can have a child?

You don't. However, having a house, a family, and a retirement fund was a realistic goal in generations past, and it's not really a 'middle class' option anymore.

It's not an achievable goal in San Francisco, but not everyone lives in San Francisco.

It's semi-achievable in San Francisco. It takes two incomes, and you have to make sacrifices.

In SF, applications developers, dental hygienists, and registered nurses all earn, on average, around 100k a year. Two of them together would together earn about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.

>...about $220k a year in SF. That's workable.

That's depressing. Sure, it might be workable too. But depressing. That's a little over a million dollars in FIVE YEARS. Ok ok, one or two more for final take-home pay.

And that's still merely "workable" rather than "Oh boy we've got it made!"

If the goal is "Buy and own a house", pulling in $220/year pre-tax probably isn't enough to get the job done. Unless you're living extremely scarcely in the meantime.

I think the meat of the issue is right here:

>It would basically be a choice between having children or having a retirement.

It isn't a "rule" per se. It is a "nice to have".

Not necessarily owning a house, but a person at least needs to live in a neighborhood with good schools, which tends to mean paying more for housing.

It's very easy to fall into the notion that you need to have ALL of your ducks in a row before having (planned) children. My wife and I called it "the tyranny of the ducks" and eventually learned to push back a bit. In our case, it was not freaking out over putting a car seat in the back of a small 2-door car instead of a big 4-door car.

Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P

However, ensuring that you can still afford to pay all the bills for months --or years, preferably-- on end in the event that your source of income disappears... that seems to be the most important of the ducks. Whether it's a home you own or six months' mortgage/rent is just details.

Of all the ducks, I think the number of doors on the car isn't that high on the priority list :P

Have you ever tried to put an infant car seat in the back of a 1994 Mazda MX-6 coupe? It might change your priority list.

I find it to be one of the most horrible misconceptions about life that you have to be securely "settled" before having kids. Many older new parents (aruound 35-40) I observe struggle a lot more than we (30) do with raising small children.

People tend to underestimate both the amount of stress that small children are and the gradual reduction of stress capacity that comes with age. You are good at pushing yourself to the limit? That's great. How do you cope with 24/7 low-level stress for months without _any_ break?

My wife and I decided to do the kids thing early in life (relative to other academics) and now are finished with our family planning while yet having to reach any sort of "steady career-path".

Best choice ever.

But I must add that I do this with the strong social safety net of Germany in my back. I'll never be homeless, I'll never go hungry and my children will get an excellent education, _no matter what_.

At least you responsibly considered this. Having a family is a big deal in Utah, and we have too many people who just go for it in their early 20s, no college, no career path. It doesn't end well. I'm not anti-family, but I resent the attitude here that it's something you have to do, or even some sort of god-given right. Families should be well-planned. Quality over quantity of life.

Just my thoughts. Idk.

That's one way of looking at things. Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore. Quantity of life matters, too.

But I agree that people should be wiser about planning their lives out. I'm not sure that's a solvable problem, though.

>Another is that countries like Japan are having huge issues because nobody is having kids anymore.

Eh, I think Japan's problem is more that they have a very narrow idea (ethnically speaking) as to what they want Japanese people to look like. If they were willing to loosen up a bit on that, there are plenty of people who would be willing to come, become Japanese, and if it's anything like immigration here in the US, probably have a fair number of children.

Or maybe being a heavily populated island nation is the root of their problems, both in terms of what kind of person they find acceptable and how many people can be tolerated in the limited space they have.

Japan will not survive in any real way, demographic numbers are such that whatever might survive will not look very much like Japan does now. They simply are not having enough kids, and have been on that path for a very long time with no sign of the dramatic change they would need to survive.

> Quality over quantity of life.

There's a certain level of elitism in this thinking, namely in the fact that educated, wealthier people tend to underestimate how happy poor people are. To a point, wealthier people are happier and worry less, but I don't think it's in practice so much more that say one wealthy, well-educated person has more total happiness than two poor people.

It circles back to kids. There are a lot of things in my life, in terms of education and career path that make me happy. I worked very hard in grad school for several years and got exactly the job I wanted, and that accomplishment makes me happy. But my daughter makes me much happier than that, and she was the product of five minutes and something it takes no education or intelligence to do...

Also, childless people, on average, will cost more to society than they contribute. To be conservative, pension programs (including social security) rely on there being at least as many people around in the future to pay the bills. If you don't have any kids, someone else's kids are paying the bills.

In a vacuum, if a couple has only one child, that child had better grow up to support those two people in retirement. If four grandparents only have one grandchild, it's even worse.

The current answers to that problem are immigration (in which case someone else is still paying for benefits) or incredibly low take-home pay for workers (lots of withholding for personal or public retirement funds).

On the other hand, the most significant way you can reduce your environmental impact (short of ending your own life) is to not have children. In that regard, it's the most responsible decision anyone can make.

By that logic, suicide is the most responsible decision anyone can make.

There are enough people on earth, and the global population is increasing. You don't need to personally replace yourself; immigration can handle that task. It's only when you don't allow much immigration that you have to start getting worried (such as with Japan)

I'm skeptical that encouraging all the thoughtful, responsible people to stop breeding will turn out to be a good decision in the long run.

My opinion is not that everyone who has kids is screwed. My observations are that many people don't plan it well. This is possibly not the same issue in the tech centers where the salaries are middle-rich class and people are generally more educated and rational in their decisions.

This was more of an opinion coming from my hometown, where we have an epidemic of twenty-somethings divorced with three kids because they took on too much too fast.

edit: also, when you're at a bar and the first questions are: - are you divorced? - how many kids do you have?

Wouldn't your theoretical spouse have an income too?

In this bizarre Leave It To Beaver right-wing fantasy world where the "traditional family" is so critical, that would be an unforgivable violation of the rules.

Generally even if the theoretical spouse doesn't have an income, if they can provide primary child-care support it is significant in increasing the affordability of having a child.

Hopefully, though probably with her own debts and burdens.

I have 3 kids and a stay at home wife.

> I'm 36 and make above the average income for a person in Los Angeles

Location, location, location. My dad moved his family to a place he could afford so he could take care of them.

I could make the same salary in San Francisco that I make in Austin, TX, but the same salary goes a /lot/ farther in Texas than it does in California.

But if the choice, then, is to live in California and not have kids versus living in Texas and being about to have kids, than I guess I'll never be a father.

Natural selection at work.

That's fine, as long as you recognize that is your choice. "mullingitover" had the thesis that freedom doesn't really have anything to do with not having a family, that it's entirely related to expenses. But not having a family /is/ related to freedom: he values the freedom to live in California more than being able to afford a family while living somewhere else.

Opportunity is also a function of location.

I am sure I could live well in texas - but the companies and sector I want to work in, for me personally, only exists in SF.

I recently moved from SF to Austin, quite liking it here. Doesn't feel like a sacrifice at all and knowing I have the option of starting a family, owning a home, starting a business, or just living large is quite freeing.

Welcome! If you want to grab a beer, I'm @thenthj on twitter.

Children are not too expensive as long as they don't go to a private school. I am 39 my kids are 17 and 18 now. I have never made more than $55,000 (one income family). The kids are about off to college.

The average cost of raising a kid in America is $241,080. http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/

It would be pretty awesome to spend that amount. Spending far less my kids are fine. I traded out website work for flight training for son who has 55 flight hours and is going to the University of North Dakota to becomes flight controller. For my daughter she has had Russian language training for about five years now (one lesson a week). I wish I could spend more but at l think the key thing is to give kids a special skill for a career.

> families earning less than $61,590 a year in rural areas will spend the least, at $144k

Amazingly, rich people spend more than poorer people.

$55k is an above-average household income. Kids cost a lot more in time, energy, and flexibility than cash.

Among all the "Yeah, the 100,000+ salary doesn't quite cut it, I cannot afford kids" you're my hero. You started much earlier than I did (something I regret at times, when my eldest is 17 I'll be past 50..) and I love your trading skills further down this thread (website -> flight hours).

From one dad to another: I'm trying to provide the same. You're inspiring.

Perhaps you should move then. You are free to do that after all.

Move or learn to live frugally. Many people cannot afford a house/family until they get married and combine incomes.

Describing the traditional Chinese or Roman family structure as "the nuclear family" really seems to be stretching things. From all I have read, they were very little like the 1950s ideal that the phrase evokes. I haven't done a complicated study or anything, but if I were to guess, just from reading about various cultures throughout history, I would figure that clannish extended families were more successful historically than the "two adults form a unit, have N kids and raise them until they leave to find mates and then goto 1" model of the nuclear family. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Indeed, the modern Western "nuclear family" is quite the oddity, historically, with clan-like arrangements dominating history. There are a number of downsides to the modern nuclear family, including inability to spread risk sufficiently, familial alienation, and strong dependency on a single romantic coupling.

The nuclear family is a massive undertaking of concentrated risk that few are properly equipped to deal with. As society continues to globalize, it provides fewer benefits over its alternatives. Visit any nursing home with its abandoned elders to see the fruits of the nuclear family. Is it truly a sustainable model for the future?

Perhaps morbid and cruel, but nursing homes of abandomed elders are certainly sustainable.

>Moral of the story: don't be so quick to condemn the old ways of family life. They have survived for millenia, and will continue to do so long after we're gone.

Humans existed for tens of thousands of years without doing anything interesting. Humans did lots of things then. Most of them haven't survived into modernity; if you want an idea of what humans used to do before agriculture, there are still some cultures existing now that exist at that stage.

The wealth of the West was maybe built on nuclear families; it was also built on colonialism, slavery, white supremacy, patriarchy, and corporatism. Plenty of things have existed in the brief infancy of humanity. Very few of them are worth taking with us into the future.

Starting a family is sometimes the right thing to do. Remaining free of children is also sometimes the right thing to do, just like it's sometimes right to stay single and sometimes right to have a partner, or more than one partner.

Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life, not because of any societal diktat or because of pressure from other people.

> Whatever you do, be intentional and do it because it's the right thing for you to do in your life

I'm not going to morally judge someone for benign lifestyle decisions, but it's baldly not true that someone can just live whatever life one wants without affecting the people around them.

Keeping your kids out of school, verbal abuse, avoiding vaccinations, trapping people into relationships with pregnancies, running out on child support, substance abuse during pregnancy, unprotected sex with strangers ... there are clearly things that are intentional and (ignorantly) someone's right to do. And they are clearly the wrong thing to do, for the individuals involved and for society at large.

I realize that you probably didn't mean to include all those decisions as valid in your sweeping case for non-judgemental social norms, but the fact is that norms are incredibly important because, especially when it comes to family, decisions do affect other people. If we can agree that some norms are important, the only discussion is about which are important, why, and how much.

I'll go one further and defend social diktat since it's probably not something most people consider. Given that norms are important, I'd rather people enforce these norms outside of the laws. The norm used to be that gay sex was a bad idea. People were (and are) thrown into prison and legally executed because people decided to turn social norms into laws. Since norms are greatly affected by technology and culture, keeping enforcement confined to social pressure provides a level of protection to people who decide to try something outside-the-box.

It might surprise you to hear that there are single people who have children. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who are not single and no not have or want children.

Due to advances in human rights and standard of living, having or not having children is now decoupled from being or not being single. A reversal of this would be a major regression in society.

How do you think the average quality of upbringing with a single parent compares to average quality of upbringing with two parents?

How do you think the average quality of upbringing is for a child who's parents are separated? How do you think the average quality of upbringing is for children who's parents should be separated, but are not?

Relationships turning sour is a fact of life. If a relationship between two adults sours, I assert that it is almost always better for the child in the long run for the parents to realize this and separate. Of course if we could live in a utopia where every child gets two loving parents who get along with each other, that would be great, but that will never happen and it has never happened in the past. Increased separation rates are an improvement over the alternative.

Wishing that there were fewer single parents is like wishing that fewer people had to experience life-saving surgery when the alternative is needing that surgery but not getting it. Yeah, it would be great if nobody received life-saving surgery because nobody fell ill in the first place... but that's not happening anytime soon.

Edit: @ChuckMcM: I am aware of what he was alluding to. I believe that he has drawn the wrong conclusions from those statistics. Two parents being better than one does not imply that it is better for all of those children with one parent to have their parents still together. Many/most of those children are better off with one parent than with two parents in a shitty relationship.

Crudely:

  1 parent < 2 parents (in general)

  but more specifically I assert:

  2 parents (in a bad relationship) < 1 parent < 2 parents (in a good relationship)

The more children we can shift from the first situation into the second, the better. Moving them into the third would be great, but there is little way to enact public policy to encourage or facilitate that.

What rthomas was alluding to was fairly extensive research into the success outcomes of children of zero (orphans), one (single parent), two (dual parenting), and more than two (village parenting). Those studies suggest that two or more adults sharing parental responsibility for a child increase the child's success outcome significantly.

You can go from

    2 parents (in a bad relationship)

    2 parents (in a good relationship)

But you cannot go from

    1 parent

    2 parents (in a good relationship)

Even if the 1 parent remarries. It just doesn't work like that, it's not and never will be the same, even if it's somewhat better than having only 1 parent.

Please don't advocate for moving from the first situation into the second.

Coming from someone who's lived it.

    2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent

You can fix it by removing no-fault divorce, and raise the age a man can marry without parent approval to 25. That'll make sure future potential parents pick their partners more carefully.

Yes, sometimes parents in a bad relationships can fix their relationship. Marriage counselling is a great idea for couples who's relationships are on the rocks.

Very often however the situation is well beyond repair. Sometimes the relationships were built on a foundation of abuse in the first place, so there isn't even anything positive to restore. In those situations, we should provide all the encouragement and assistance to single parents as we can muster.

> "Coming from someone who's lived it. 2 parents (in a bad relationship) > 1 parent"

Your experience, while valuable, should be taken for what it is: your experience.

(In the interest of disclosure, I feel that I should mention that my parents have never been separated. I was lucky.)

> I was lucky.

Or you don't give your parents enough credit.

My parents would still have been married under your brilliant system, and if they'd remained married, it is extremely likely that both my mother and I would have taken our own lives by now, so I'm going to go with "take your ideas and fuck right off".

My father already taken his life. With those laws your parents might not have gotten together to begin with.

The very first part of my comment explains that they would have. Keep your ideas of how people should live their lives out of my goddamn life. You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.

If marrying cannot be undone, people would make the choice more carefully.

I'm not saying it should be applied to existing marriages.

'You can make decisions for yourself, DO NOT make them for others.'

Your statement makes no sense. Decisions are made for you by others by the congress, senate, and other government institutions everyday. And how do these congressmen get into office? By promoting their views on what everyone should be doing. You can try to avoid discussing ideas you don't like but it only means decisions will be made for you without your input.

Good luck.

I can't believe how evil you are. You are handing a death sentence to people you've never met for mistakes millions of people make and will continue to make regardless of your proposed rules. It violates basic human rights.

Man writes a few sentences on Hacker News = "Handing out a death sentence". Man writes he is favorable to religious and cultural norms in place for two thousand years except for the last fifty = "evil" and "violating human rights".

Removing No-fault divorce doesn't mean you're not allowed to divorce if there is e.g. domestic violence / abuse. It just means you're not allowed to divorce for no reason. Removing it is hardly a death sentence.

Millions of people gamble on the stock market and lose, are you suggesting instead of punishing people who make mistakes on the stock market via economic losses, they should be compensated? Because it is a basic human right to make investments?

You're also saying that it is a basic human right for one to renege on a vow that is meant to last for life. Then what about the human right to have one's agreements with others respected? Does it not violate your human rights if your wife reneges on the vow she took to be with you until death?

If you aren't willing or aren't able to fulfill the terms of a contract, it is morally wrong for you to agree to it. And once agreed, even if it has become difficult to fulfill the attached obligations, it is morally right to fulfill it nonetheless.

What about you, where are your morals, and what are they?

I would suggest it is you who is evil. By removing consequences to actions you subvert the relationship of society where the virtuous are rewarded. The likes of you leads a society down a path of hedonism where only the self is worshipped, and morals are ignored and culture is destroyed.

> religious

I was even giving you the benefit of the doubt that your position wasn't based on religion. But now you've explicitly admitted that you want to inject your religion into law. Your evil knows no bounds.

Rather, law has inserted itself into religion.

"raise the age a man can marry without parent approval to 25"

Now they just won't register their relations.

Pushing on those ideas will make you reinvent GULAG.

I would assert it depends on the situation.

1 bad parent < 2 parents in a bad relationship (such that it negatively affects the child) < 1 good parent < 2+ good parents/parental figures

So I think in general multiple adults putting real effort toward raising a child is the best scenario. You can say what you like about specific circumstances, but as a whole, multiple adults are clearly better.

I'm curious how it compares to the average quality of upbringing with three parents.

> Due to advances in human rights and standard of living, having or not having children is now decoupled from being or not being single.

But standard of living is not decoupled from being single or not, especially when kids are in the picture.

Even more, the classic concept of married couples having kids is now in the minority.

At least for me, local statistics show that the majority of children are born to unmarried parents; and only ~65% of school-age children are raised by both parents. So it's not even a case for exceptions, but a socially accepted, very common phenomenon.

In the UK, based on an ONS report:

"Although unmarried couples are now more likely statistically to have children than married couples – a reflection of the fact that they tend to be younger overall – most children are still being brought up by married couples, as they tend to have larger families."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9953364/The-family-is...

To question a different part of your argument to other commenters: I am very much under the impression that the nuclear family is a fairly unusual mode of societal organisation, historically speaking, because it doesn't provide enough security to protect one's small family from the unpredictability of life. Instead most cultures have, when unable to provide large scale welfare programmes, adopted a range of other measures for spreading risk throughout kinship and other groups, such as extended families, where success and failure is spread across family members.

edit: I should have also mentioned that I firmly support the greater social freedom, such as the ability to choose the nature of one's family, afforded by our more integrated and (in my view) enlightened states.

What evidence is there that the nuclear family is some sort of evolutionary trait? If anything it's a cultural/religious thing. I believe what would be our "natural" tendency would be for one male to mate with multiple females and impregnate them as often as possible. There is no evidence that "Traditional family values" are the key to a successful economy. The term "nuclear family" is also something that came right around the time of the second world war, an anyone who has taken American History can tell you that the reason our economy thrived in that time was because of the war effort. We also had an extraordinary amount of optimism because at the time we were almost un-arguably the most powerful country in the world.

The insinuations that:

A) People that don't have kids are single B) Being single for extended amounts of time leads to some sort of emotional insecurity and "inevitable" burn out

Are, frankly, far more insulting to me than the totally mathematically sound thesis that somebody with 4 kids may have less time in their life for other things, like work.

As for myself, I'm soon to be married, with no plans for kids in the future.

The "old ways of family life" are NOT nuclear family, and are incompatible with that concept. Throughout history, most civilizations have lived and raised their children in extended families (or other community/group arrangements), not nuclear families. The switch from extended family to nuclear family become viable only during/after industrial revolution.

A separate couple rising their kids is not 'traditional family' - a traditional family would delegate significant parts of the childcare effort away from the young adults/parents, so they'd focus on their work; a nuclear family doesn't do that.

Why do you seem to have the idea that "no kids" implies "single"?

Nuclear family is a rather right-wing, conservative word. Its followers do not usually support gay families, for example. Did you mean to use that term?

I can tell you for certain we are NOT heading back that way. Society will only become more acceptable to alternative families.

The word itself isn't right-wing or conservative in any way, it simply describes a particular family structure.

Followers of nuclear family as the center of society are called familialists, typically. Yes, they tend to be conservatives.

>Society will inevitably return to its nuclear family origins, as the fun loving singles will not provide offspring in quality and quantity to compete with these traditional families.

On two conditions only. Much of our false wealth must be shed (which will happen within the next 10-20 years) and we must stop enabling/encouraging non-nuclear family population growth. There has to be real consequences to fatherless children and women with 5 kids from 5 daddies. Now we just give unwed mothers money, free stuff and moral permission to do it again and again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com