One side says, do it our way because it is best.
The other side says, we want to do it our own way and want you to be more socially responsible.

I say, let them do it their own way, and be personally responsible for their results.

"We probably always will have families... and coined money... and churches... and public streets... and wear clothes in public, too. Old social forms do not just disappear. But changes in technology cause changes in society. A world of unregulated individualist economic enterprise could be very different from whatever we might imagine now."
I wonder if families money, churches, and streets might be so different in a few hundred years that they will be almost unrecognizable.

I think Enlightenment leads to plenty and to individual rights. I imagine hunter-gatherer tribes using socialism because they barely subsist and it feels right to our ancient human sensibilities to share with our tribe. It also feels rights to seek revenge, which served as a crude criminal justice system. It feels right to force girls of conquered tribes to become wives. These things are wrong but genes that make them feel "right" were successful. Agriculture, industry, and now automation/IT drastically increase production and allow people to produce more, making it harder to sell the idea that good people must share because means of production are finite. People in the modern world feel a natural right to go their own way, keep what they produce, and we find most practices of antiquity to be completely beyond the pale.

OTOH, plenty (i.e. high production) led to the idea of communism, and the increased production associated with automation/IT will lead to more socialism. I frequently hear the argument that automation/IT increases return on investment and decreases the price of human labor and if the trend continues the only choice will be a system of handouts to pay for everyone to live a comfortable life while machines do all the work. It's a recurrent theme in sci-fi. I think (and hope) it won't happen though. I see it as another form of "let's go back to the old ways of simpler times," which can be in the form of romanticized views of hunter-gatherer tribes and romanticized views of family at the time of the industrial revolution.

The vocal fans of Ayn Rand will tell you it's simply a case of evil Toohey-like people selling an evil philosophy. Then, like online commenters at the end of a news story about an abused child saying they certainly would never abuse children, they masturbate about how crappy the world supposedly is due to Emmanuel Goldstein's undermining the good people like themselves. Maybe this is a good way to let off steam.

I think it's dangerous, though, because we don't know if the changes from increase technology will be positive for individual liberty. As MM laconically said, "[It] has social consequences."

Yes, that was my point. It is not so much "wrong" or "unfair" that those kids have lawyers that the others do not. But, yes, juvenile diversions, counseling, etc., all prevent criminal proceedings that are tallied for others.

(You took a -1 for that. I gave you back a plus.)

That does not answer the question of why the nature of families would significantly change as a result of the computer industry. "Capitalism replaced feudalism" a long time ago and so did an industrial economy replace an agrarian economy. But farming did not mean children were raised by the "village" -- which "farmed" children? Do you expect children to be raised by Alexa?

I have found to the contrary.

Jan

..children from "good" homes with a working father and a stay-at-home mother still commit crimes.
There is another effect, these "good" homes are better at suppressing court proceedings and for getting easier sentencing. Thus interpreting stats becomes harder.

As jlc pointed out, capitalism replaced feudalism. Industrial society replaced agrarian society. In a farming community, every child is raised by the village. The word "uncle" comes from the Latin for "little father." If your father died, his brother could take on and take over the family. In "Shakespeare in the Bush" anthropologist Laura Bohannan is telling Hamlet to the elders of an African tribe. "Where is the problem?" they ask. Of course when the man dies, his brother marries his wife and takes over the family. Among ancient Germans, the "Frau" was literally the "first" woman of the home, but not the only wife or mother.

Urban society is different than that and capitalism is impossible except in an urban environment. It is literally civilizaiton.

jlc's point (and I agree) is that the post-industrial, information economy is different from the industrial one before and may bring different family structures.

The fact that the inventors are self-taught was true of the steam engine, of course. They were also unregulated. They had no guilds. Eventually, they did. The ASME, ASCE, and other engineering societies lobbied for government regulation. So, invention moved away from them - just as innovation moved off the farm. George Washington used the same kind of plow as Moses. But historically, farming was innovative and required complex legal structures. Fred Flintsone had no need for the Code of Hamurabi.

We still have people who live by hunting. (Rocky Mountain Pirate was an early participant here in the Gulch.) We still have famers. We still have factories. We probably always will have families... and coined money... and churches... and public streets... and wear clothes in public, too. Old social forms do not just disappear. But changes in technology cause changes in society. A world of unregulated individualst economic enterprise could be very different from whatever we might imagine now.'

What is the relevance to this topic of now many technical specialists have college degrees?

The entire computer field was built by people who did not major in computer technology in college because such an education did not yet exist. When there were only a few programming courses available, and not much else, there was no such thing as a degree in computer engineering or science. Bright students were able to pick it up and build and industry without using much at all of their formal education. Much of what is still taught is quickly obsolete or of little use for the latest innovations. But what does this have to do with families?

How do you know that statistics which "do not report different behaviors but only hide unequal consequences" misrepresent the essentials? How many lawyers or politicians with pull who get their delinquent offspring off the hook change the overall trend? We do not avoid bad neighborhoods out of "confirmation bias".

He's not "generally good about accuracy and sources". He echoes social/religious conservative articles, like this one. They promote conservative beliefs and may or may not be accurate in some ways, have relevant context, or be pertinent to essentials.

You are correct about having to be concerned about confirmation bias...I worry about that I am unconsciously doing that myself. One of the major downsides about the internet conforming to one's preferences is that it feeds confirmation bias and, as a result, polarizes people further.

Jan

I am still suspicious of studies that prove what people want to believe. For one thing, I know from criminology that children from "good" homes with a workling father and a stay-at-home mother still commit crimes. But their outcomes are entirely different. So, the numbers come out different. The statistics do not report different behaviors but only hide unequal consequences.

I do agree that society is changing. As you said: "It is my supposition, based on reading Ian Morris' books on the evolution of social structure (related to technology and measured by calories/day/person) is that we are now evolving out of the 'industrial' model and into something else. "

Just one factor is that the information economy allows the smartest youngsters to earn considerable incomes.

Although it is generally true that to work in IT as a professional, you need a university degree, that is not absolutely true. The greatest majority of my co-workers are college graduates -- but not all of them.

In the John Delorean biography, On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors Delorean's father was a tool and die man in Detroit in the 1920s. They were independent skilled workers whose "resumes" were in their tool boxes -- not the tools they bought, but the tools they made. IT is still like that: no unions; no government regulation. Your resume is not so much your job history (though that counts) but what you have on Github. So, despite the institutionalization of the occupation, it is still vibrant.

That has social consequences.

I popped onto the internet and used a series of key words to pull up a number of studies that reported this finding. The studies seemed adequate and had a reasonable p value. I spent all of 15 minutes on this process.

That being said, assertions of 'truth' of a particular datum (on this and other sources of information) often fail this simple test; this article did not fail that litmus test. Thus my response to this post did NOT begin with a charge of factual inaccuracy or source bias (NB blarman is generally good about his accuracy and sources).

I do not have sufficient interest in the topic to pursue its data source further. My main point is not to validate the current article's assertion (other than to check that it is not BS) but to suggest that existing statistics may not reveal an ongoing change in the basic model of society, which idea I thought would be interesting to the folks on this list.

Jan

Sorry not to be giving this the attention it begs, but when you say you "verified the data" what does that mean? Did you identify any intervening variables? Just for instance, the same kinds of claims might be made for children raised in homes that their parents own, versus children raised in apartments. The intervening variables could include age of the parents or their inherited wealth. And then there are the wonderful statistics about Mormons in Utah. SLC is nirvana compared to a lot of places. So, is the solution for us all to become LDS? Just asking: How did you "verify" the data?

Looking at a couple of failed neighbors in a bad neighborhood is not a basis for an argument leaping to general conclusions.

There are many failures by single mothers, it a matter of class, grit and income, not marriage status. Many single women (and men) do great work of parenting. You may argue that family support as well as money is important.

Why is this question asked?
1. To justify easier abortion which cuts the number of children born to single mothers.
2. to increase 'funding' to government agencies who take away (steal) children from single mothers.

Why not mention The Cleavers? Little House on the Prairie? Last Man Standing? Major Dad? Take your pick - there are plenty of Hollywood/dramatized families and all of them have parts of the real thing.

If you look in your local communities, however, I'll bet you find examples of traditional families who just go about their business. They don't hold themselves up as examples because they have their struggles just like any of us. I have a traditional family and come from a traditional family and we have enjoyed a lot of stability and success despite our challenges. I compare my family to my neighbors, however, and it is night and day: a grandmother raising twin daughters alone because the mother is a drug addict and in jail most of the time.

I have another neighbor where the parents are divorced but the father has custody because he can provide a house - even if it is really his brother's. He ignores the children, doesn't even have a full-time job, and demands that his oldest girls babysit during the day so he can shack up with his girlfriend.

Or there's the two girls whose grandparents do more to try to raise them than their actual parents - who live just down the street. The grandparents try to take them to church and be a positive source of influence and love. The parents would rather not be bothered by the two girls.

Having seen the black and white difference between the traditional nuclear family and the options society attempts to provide and there is zero doubt in my mind which one is better for everyone.

The state should not be involved in marriage; unless the couple getting married wants it to be. There should be no policies about marriage and no 'state' advantages or disadvantages. It is not the state's responsibility to ensure a marriage works out or meets certain specifications. Those who would get married, agree to have a functioning relationship based on certain rules are those who would be likely to instill better principles in their children. I don't know that having two irresponsible people get married would produce well-balanced children. I have known thieves who had families and taught their children to be thieves.

barman: "... the traditional nuclear family. "

So, the Waltons would be an example of a failed family?

The article is the stock conservative "faith and family" bromdies ignoring Enlightenment concepts of reason and individualism. It's not that families are necessarily bad or good families are of no value, especially for children, but they are not the foundation of civilization.

Families that stay together despite irrational behavior and lack of shared values are not a value. The article's vague reliance on 'statistcs' ignores cause and effect and the differences between the kinds of different individuals.

Past frowning on divorce, to say nothing of religious proscriptions, did enormous damage in discouraging or preventing more rational behavior correcting mistakes. That it is easier and acceptable today to obtain a divorce is good.

Here are 2 examples of my own experiences...

1. Several decades ago, a lady friend of mine was divorced, with 2 children (not mine). The government stepped in and gave her a year old house for around $150/month in house payments (I paid $500/month for my first house). There was one stipulation...as long as she was single, she paid $150...if she remarried, her payments went to $450/month. If this wasn't a government incentive to remain single...I don't know what was.

2. Concerning marriage...there are definite differences in being married and merely co-habitating. After living with my future wife, for a period, we made the move and got married. For those of you who've never married...there IS a big difference. Overnight, I became a "responsible" partner in our relationship. I stopped hanging around with my pot smoking friends and became a dedicated supporter of my new bride. Nobody will ever convince me that we did not undergo a major shift in our relationship, once that ring was slipped on her finger.

When you simply "live with" another person, you have no "official" ties to that person. When you marry, you actually enter into a partnership, of sorts (unless you're into one of those "open" marriages, which only seeks to legitimize merely living together). Yes, it is a societal kind of thing that makes people frown if you step out on your wife, but look the other way if you step out on your girlfriend. That's just the kind of society we live in and I'm good with that.

I agree we don’t need marriage certificate to be married. Although in the best of all worlds, children would be born and raised by natural parents, I think the most important thing is for whoever raises them should be loving and rationally thinking people, whether a single male or female gay or straight

I have verified the data in the article and can confirm that it is accurate, but I think it is also retrospective.

I would like to add to the observation made by Mike Marotta: Having stable family units does not cause a civilized society. That being said, given that the culture is already a civilized society, having young males get married is the best way of reducing violence in that most violent subset of our society.

It is my supposition, based on reading Ian Morris' books on the evolution of social structure (related to technology and measured by calories/day/person) is that we are now evolving out of the 'industrial' model and into something else. The 'agricultural' model of society (which lasted till about 1850 in the US) evolved into the 'industrial model by 1950 (more egalitarian; less tolerance of violence). Each 'type' of society has its own set of characteristics, and I think that the type of society into which we are evolving may not have traditional families.

Jan

Oh Boy, I can't wait to hear the labels I get for responding here. Marriage IMO is a government run regulation with numerous tentacles. I do believe children should have both a male and female presence in their home and upbringing. For most it is a matter of balance that serves many useful purposes. No real need for any sort of Marriage Certificate but two parents of the opposite sex certainly is highly beneficial as long as both adults are stable. I am NOT homophobic but I do not agree with having 2 mommies or two daddies which IMO causes an imbalance that is hard for children to comprehend.

Humans are social animals, not collective hive creatures like bees or mole rats, and not solitary creatures like tigers. We evolved in a world built on the nuclear family at the core of an extended family structure that preceded tribes.

It is rare that a child who grows up without positive male and female role models survives emotionally and intellectually stable. A one parent family takes extra effort to give children a healthy social environment. Substituting the state in a collective social structure is void of the example of parents to help a child develop a healthy character. A child without parental or state support is in a precarious situation, preyed upon for sex or labor, unable to develop meaningful relationships, devoid of trust for anyone.