(September 15, 2016 at 6:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:59 am)paulpablo Wrote: The traditional family model works fairly well.

Parents have a high level of motivation to look after their own contribution to the gene pool, children are benefited psychologically by contact and bonding in general with the parents.  

I don't understand why there shouldn't be any bond with the parents like you're suggesting.

I've never felt any bond with my parents or other of my family after a certain age. Pretending otherwise has been a drag.

That's you then, a personal anecdote. Nothing one necessarily needs to model all of society after. But having said that, I'm all for keeping it flexible, in most cases the usual family model (and I include same sex couples etc. in my picture of "traditional family" where you have two main caregivers acting as parents) works out great, in many, it just doesn't at all, and other arrangements should be made possible.
In a sense, we are taking steps towards such a "decentralized" model already, e.g. our kid also lives in such an extended tribe because she goes to an excellent daycare facility where she has relationships with multiple adults and children who are, for all intents and purposes, acting as her extended family.

(September 15, 2016 at 5:59 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:29 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Nor should there be any. Personally, I would've prefered growing up in a society where the family model was non-existent. Don't just stop at births, remove the "parents" altogether. And that's regardless of how happy I would've been otherwise.

The traditional family model works fairly well.

Parents have a high level of motivation to look after their own contribution to the gene pool, children are benefited psychologically by contact and bonding in general with the parents.  

I don't understand why there shouldn't be any bond with the parents like you're suggesting.

People can be motivated to look after kids, in general. Everyone can be a parent in the society I envision. Responsibly, even. Kids could be very well taken care of as far as their physical needs are concerned and get their role models and everything else from Janes and Joes Doe.

If this sort of thing concerns you, I also see us heading into a society where surveillance becomes so ubiquitous that it becomes a natural part of our lives instead of a thing of concern. Society will undergo extreme changes because of radical new technologies, anyway. All I can do is guess at what those changes might be, I can't say which will turn out to be right, though, if any, just that change itself will happen no matter what.

I feel like absent of two absolute figures a child can grow up much faster and become a much more responsible and liberated individual.

(September 15, 2016 at 5:58 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:53 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Nice utopia but took a look a today's commercial reality. You would be a product of the literal Nanny State and products that don't preform correctly can simply be replaced.

You're jumping to conclusions. Today's world is nothing. It can be changed. Anything can be improved. Everything should be improved. Especially idiocy.

Todays world is the accumulation of all the inertia of past human endeavors....it tends to continue to go in the direction it's headed unless acted upon by a stronger force. You are going to have to some up with a stronger force than money....good luck.

I know the trends of history and the power of money over altruism. What you are talking about is a complete paradigm shift of human endeavors. A change of the human soul/heart....and when does that happen? When we are riding high on our "we are the best" horse? Or only after near destruction of the old paradigm and way of doing things? Most people turn around at rock bottom...if they do.

You just might get part of your wish, this system has sown the seeds of it's own destruction and they have grown large enough to crack the foundation.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:04 am)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:57 am)Alex K Wrote: Indeed, I expect that, yes. Parents will regularly visit and speak to their developing fetuses, they will leave recordings of their voice and heartbeats or even send them remotely when they are travelling. There will be a phone number, (or rather, IPv6 ) you can call to talk to your fetus any time. There will probably still be some disadvantages, though I expect many objections to be soon seen as mere nostalgia, just as some today have emotional objections to giving birth in hospitals rather than a home environment despite the medical risks, and remember the initial huge objections against in vitro fertilization which today simply noone wastes any time thinking about any more  - the benefits of safety and always optimal sustenance (after all, a machine can at all points in time ensure at least an optimal nourishment and oxygenation etc., the fetus will be shielded from stress hormones if the mother is under severe duress) will at some point be judged to outweigh the deficits. Last but not least, mothers will at all times be able to undergo any medical treatments that they might need without the fear that the child might be affected.

All good points Alex, thanks.

Your point in favour of having babies develop in a mother's womb is not lost on me, I'm half describing what I find desirable, and half the direction I expect society to take. Where the line runs between those two for me personally, I'm not completely certain myself.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:11 am)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 5:58 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: You're jumping to conclusions. Today's world is nothing. It can be changed. Anything can be improved. Everything should be improved. Especially idiocy.

Todays world is the accumulation of all the inertia of past human endeavors....it tends to continue to go in the direction it's headed unless acted upon by a stronger force. You are going to have to some up with a stronger force than money....good luck.

I know the trends of history and the power of money over altruism.  What you are talking about is a complete paradigm shift of human endeavors. A change of the human soul/heart....and when does that happen?  When we are riding high on our "we are the best" horse? Or only after near destruction of the old paradigm and way of doing things?  Most people turn around at rock bottom...if they do.

You just might get part of your wish, this system has sown the seeds of it's own destruction and they have grown large enough to crack the foundation.

Emphasized bit is a bit melodramatic, I think.

All it takes to change the world is an idealistic mindset and a persistent attitude.

I would never dream of fighting any old regime. The old regime can go fuck itself for all I care. It's beneath me and it's beneath any new generation. It will be overtaken and forgotten. This will always be the case, for as long as we live in a patently imperfect world.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:12 am)Alex K Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:04 am)Arkilogue Wrote: All good points Alex, thanks.

Your point in favour of having babies develop in a mother's womb is not lost on me, I'm half describing what I find desirable, and half the direction I expect society to take. Where the line runs between those two for me personally, I'm not completely certain myself.

I think the external development and delivery of the child would be highly detrimental to the bond a mother has with the child. The woman's body goes through massive hormonal change, nesting instincts kick in, and the moment of birth for all it's pain, is a major bonding moment as a cocktail flood of hormones rush in stimulating love and empathy as well as prepare the mothers body for breast feeding.

But I suppose they'll have a pill for all that.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:05 am)Alex K Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:02 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I've never felt any bond with my parents or other of my family after a certain age. Pretending otherwise has been a drag.

That's you then, a personal anecdote. Nothing one necessarily needs to model all of society after. But having said that, I'm all for keeping it flexible, in most cases the usual family model (and I include same sex couples etc. in my picture of "traditional family" where you have two main caregivers acting as parents) works out great, in many, it just doesn't at all, and other arrangements should be made possible.
In a sense, we are taking steps towards such a "decentralized" model already, e.g. our kid also lives in such an extended tribe because she goes to an excellent daycare facility where she has relationships with multiple adults and children who are, for all intents and purposes, acting as her extended family.

It's not simply personal anecdote. I never made my case based on my personal experiences. I can easily draw from them in imagining how a different model might be better, though.

I am not a psychologist however, I can only talk out of my ass here. Apologies if that bothers you.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:20 am)Arkilogue Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:12 am)Alex K Wrote: Your point in favour of having babies develop in a mother's womb is not lost on me, I'm half describing what I find desirable, and half the direction I expect society to take. Where the line runs between those two for me personally, I'm not completely certain myself.

I think the external development and delivery of the child would be highly detrimental to the bond a mother has with the child. The woman's body goes through massive hormonal change, nesting instincts kick in, and the moment of birth for all it's pain, is a major bonding moment as a cocktail flood of hormones rush in stimulating love and empathy as well as prepare the mothers body for breast feeding.

But I suppose they'll have a pill for all that.

Science will have to tell how many of these things can be overcome by technical means. Many children are already born via C-Section (as was ours, for urgent medical reasons, not as a choice), and indeed they do have a pill for what you mention, namely the above-mentioned oxytocin infusion. I myself, in my role of having been a mere onlooker, wasn't lacking any love and empathy either - our brains do that hormone stuff even without the direct physical contact, and how.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:18 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:11 am)Arkilogue Wrote: Todays world is the accumulation of all the inertia of past human endeavors....it tends to continue to go in the direction it's headed unless acted upon by a stronger force. You are going to have to some up with a stronger force than money....good luck.

I know the trends of history and the power of money over altruism.  What you are talking about is a complete paradigm shift of human endeavors. A change of the human soul/heart....and when does that happen?  When we are riding high on our "we are the best" horse? Or only after near destruction of the old paradigm and way of doing things?  Most people turn around at rock bottom...if they do.

You just might get part of your wish, this system has sown the seeds of it's own destruction and they have grown large enough to crack the foundation.

Emphasized bit is a bit melodramatic, I think.

All it takes to change the world is an idealistic mindset and a persistent attitude.

I would never dream of fighting any old regime. The old regime can go fuck itself for all I care. It's beneath me and it's beneath any new generation. It will be overtaken and forgotten. This will always be the case, for as long as we live in a patently imperfect world.

I'm sure they're gonna just wave 20 trillion in debt and you kids can frolic and play freely. And it's not like we are well into the 6th great extinction of life on earth causes by man's pollution...gotta buy that plastic crap!. It's all good because we're idealistic! No you're being bamboozled by propaganda spoon fed to you by the "old regime". As it happens with the youth of EVERY GENERATION. You are the fools the system is designed to exploit.


How did that work out for the hippies? Oh right it didn't. And they had a hell of a lot more reasons, motivation and less distractions to get in their way than your generation.

(September 15, 2016 at 6:22 am)Alex K Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 6:20 am)Arkilogue Wrote: I think the external development and delivery of the child would be highly detrimental to the bond a mother has with the child. The woman's body goes through massive hormonal change, nesting instincts kick in, and the moment of birth for all it's pain, is a major bonding moment as a cocktail flood of hormones rush in stimulating love and empathy as well as prepare the mothers body for breast feeding.

But I suppose they'll have a pill for all that.

Science will have to tell how many of these things can be overcome by technical means. Many children are already born via C-Section (as was ours, for urgent medical reasons, not as a choice), and indeed they do have a pill for what you mention, namely the above-mentioned oxytocin infusion. I myself, in my role of having been a mere onlooker, wasn't lacking any love and empathy either - our brains do that hormone stuff even without the direct physical contact, and how.

I was with my wife when she delivered as well and it was incredible, I was crying with joy.

But my point is the mothers body is pushed through this directly/hormonally throughout the pregnancy the father's is not. The mother is more prepared by nature, the father is more by will. That has been my experience and observation. Unless the father wills himself into the role, the males natural DNA impulse is to father another child with another woman. The woman's impulse is to take care of the child she birthed.

Hell, they should make a pill for the father!
It might help, but it would also be cheating.