Ills of the Nuclear Family

The nuclear family is a very recent development and a comparatively isolated model of child rearing. The rise in single parent households, lessened extended family involvement, and increased mobility have compounded this deficiency, leading to some unfortunate consequences. This post examines the shortcomings of the stereotypical nuclear family paradigm, as that is overwhelmingly what is held up as desirable in this country. Note I am not asserting that family structure alone is responsible for the following issues, merely that it is often a contributing factor. Of course in practice there are an almost unlimited number of variations on the nuclear family ideal, but delving into them all would be a massive undertaking. Similarly, I will not attempt to suggest possible remedies, nor explore how existing structures might, and often do, mitigate some of the limitations. Those will be possible subjects for the future.

• Crowded childbearing window: The best years for bearing children are also critical ones for obtaining an education and beginning a career. The demanding nuclear family system makes balancing these three difficult and has contributed to the drastic increase in maternal age and associated health problems, as well as declining birth rates amongst the better educated. The fact that having a child in your teens is such a huge barrier to success when biologically it is an entirely suitable time frame highlights the current disconnect.
   

• Identity loss:
  At the moment it can be hard, especially for women, to both have a family and achieve. Many adults are forced to abandon much of their own pursuits and ability to make new social contacts, which can result in feelings of isolation and frustration. Even when their children are grown, the effects are still felt, such as the popularized "empty nest syndrome" and lost opportunities generally. By sharing the burden of child rearing, these issues could be lessened.
   

• Little diversification of parental failings: Children are exposed a great deal to the flaws of their parents. Greater care redundancy softens the impact of personality disorders, income inequality, and more reliably brings neglect or abuse to light. This is the same principle behind the common practice of diversification when investing, so that a single bad stock won't ruin your portfolio.
   
• Personality conflicts:
  Our media drives us to expect an almost magical closeness with our progeny. If that fails to materialize, disappointment and parental attempts to foist unreasonable expectations on their children can occur. Significant exposure to a greater number of adults would allow them more opportunity to find those they have things in common with. It would also help diminish the practice of infantilizing young adults.
  
• Reduced stability:
  
  The narrow scope of the modern family unit exaggerates issues surrounding parental rights, divorce (or marriage for that matter), death of a parent, or adoption. A broader base would ensure greater continuity, softening the impacts of these disruptions.
• Inefficiency:
  The nuclear family often neglects gains that can be made through economies of scale, increasing use of resources and labor. Housing costs, electricity, transportation, child care, cleaning, maintenance, food (both purchasing cost and effort of preparation), and clothing are some areas affected, with young parents being the most impacted. Health care also bears mentioning, as our employer based models currently focus on the nuclear family as their basic unit of coverage. Some of this waste is also impacted by our cultural trend towards sole ownership of items even if they are infrequently used; a practice reinforced by the isolated model the nuclear family ideal espouses.
   
• Marginalization of the elderly: The mobile nature of individuals today can often result in parents being isolated later in life if their children relocate. A less punishing, more interconnected system would allow more personal development during parenthood as well as providing more opportunities for cross generational bonds (not necessarily just with relatives) to be made. The simultaneous problems of marginalized seniors and a lack of affordable day care are especially telling.

Firearm Misconception

This picture illustrates well the classic human difficulty properly framing dramatic, but rare, events. For example, public perception is that airplane crashes kill more than car accidents, when the reverse is true by a vast margin. Similarly, crowd shootings are very uncommon relative to criminally motivated ones, and both are dwarfed individual unwarranted shootings or accidental ones. Please don't misunderstand me: I am not in favor of outlawing firearms; I own several myself and consider an outright ban to be essentially unenforceable in any event. I am, however, very much a proponent of reasonable requirements both on who is allowed to legally obtain them and also the training and equipment they must have in order to be able to do so safely. This is especially true if your intent is defense, for reacting appropriately in a stressful situation, especially in a crowded area, is far harder than sporting firearm use. Well intentioned incompetents are not a boon when firearms are involved.

Choose Your Taxes

Research where subjects reported greater feelings of happiness if they gave money away rather than spent it on themselves, combined with that about how we respond to the perceived fairness of transactions, got me thinking that the impersonal nature of our social systems squanders the good feelings that come from our evolved altruistic tendencies. One idea to try and take advantage of this would be to allow a taxpayer to choose which part of the government his money goes to support. He can't choose the amount, just to what areas the funds go. To support unpopular government functions, a multiplier can be set so that money counts for more towards the amount you must give when you donate to them. Obviously the overall tax rate would need to account for this, but the popularity of the various departments will be fairly well established quickly. This approach would also require government departments to do a better job justifying their existence, which would help with taxpayer education and encourage transparency. If it could be made to work, the resentment taxes cause might be considerably reduced, being much more similar to the experience of donating to charity. It makes me think of the old system of police patrolling where cops would have a beat and they'd get to know the people living along it, which seems like a good example of a more personal approach to government services.

Violence Should be Violent

I think that sanitized violence is much worse than accurate violence. It trivializes a horrible event and for less sophisticated viewers gives the impression that somehow violence is much less serious than it is. I want to see video games and movies have injuries more like that of Mr. Orange from Reservoir Dogs: someone gets shot and bleeds like a stuck pig and is scared out of their mind, screaming with pain. People who would find this unwatchable should try avoiding content with violence in it. Someone getting mortally injured should be disturbing!

Addiction Versus Choice Analogy

Today I listened to a podcast discussion about the view that addictive behaviour is a free choice versus the consequence of a disorder. I have known a few people who simplistically assert that one always has a free choice in such matters. Without going into that argument and its ramifications as it's been covered extensively elsewhere, I came up with the following analogy to illustrate the associated fallacy: imagine you are being tortured for information; it is your own choice as to whether or not to divulge any. I feel this hypothetical scenario clearly illustrates the basic point that pressure (in the case of addiction it is changes in brain chemistry) can significantly influence the character of the decision making process.