Family

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family
I was looking at the criticisms of family, do you think there is any validity to them?

Please be more specific with your posts. What criticisms? What do you think?

Well that it is essentially servitude. That we do things for family for the simple reason that they are family and nothing else. Or that how some people suffer at their families (because we can’t choose them), and that they need therapy to get over it.
Personally I just don’t see what else they could possibly put instead, or if that alternative is even a good thing.

“suffer” and “serve” are barely mentioned on the wiki page. You may be suffering from ethno-centrism. The nuclear family in the US is fairly recent phenomenon and limited geographically. There are cultures where the natural father is more like an uncle and the child’s primary male role model is the brother of the natural mother. So, there are lots of “alternatives”. The drive to care about people that are blood related is strong though, and probably not something you can override with a government directive.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family I was looking at the criticisms of family, do you think there is any validity to them?
You can always avoid it.
"suffer" and "serve" are barely mentioned on the wiki page. You may be suffering from ethno-centrism. The nuclear family in the US is fairly recent phenomenon and limited geographically. There are cultures where the natural father is more like an uncle and the child's primary male role model is the brother of the natural mother. So, there are lots of "alternatives". The drive to care about people that are blood related is strong though, and probably not something you can override with a government directive.
But isn't it irrational to prefer family simply because they are family and nothing else?
Well that it is essentially servitude. That we do things for family for the simple reason that they are family and nothing else. Or that how some people suffer at their families (because we can't choose them), and that they need therapy to get over it. Personally I just don't see what else they could possibly put instead, or if that alternative is even a good thing.
Family is the building block of society as well as something we're genetically programmed to take part in so any theories about dissolving the institution of family are just bunk. I'd say the few people who advocate that stuff are probably mentally ill.
"suffer" and "serve" are barely mentioned on the wiki page. You may be suffering from ethno-centrism. The nuclear family in the US is fairly recent phenomenon and limited geographically. There are cultures where the natural father is more like an uncle and the child's primary male role model is the brother of the natural mother. So, there are lots of "alternatives". The drive to care about people that are blood related is strong though, and probably not something you can override with a government directive.
But isn't it irrational to prefer family simply because they are family and nothing else? Why? Do you understand that it takes almost 30 years for the human brain to completely form? Have you ever seen what it takes to take care of a baby? They require constant care for the first few years. Do you know what happens if they don't get that kind of attention?]
"suffer" and "serve" are barely mentioned on the wiki page. You may be suffering from ethno-centrism. The nuclear family in the US is fairly recent phenomenon and limited geographically. There are cultures where the natural father is more like an uncle and the child's primary male role model is the brother of the natural mother. So, there are lots of "alternatives". The drive to care about people that are blood related is strong though, and probably not something you can override with a government directive.
But isn't it irrational to prefer family simply because they are family and nothing else? Why? Do you understand that it takes almost 30 years for the human brain to completely form? Have you ever seen what it takes to take care of a baby? They require constant care for the first few years. Do you know what happens if they don't get that kind of attention?] So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
Its impossible to replace familial love, even the best orphanage can't compete with nature.
"suffer" and "serve" are barely mentioned on the wiki page. You may be suffering from ethno-centrism. The nuclear family in the US is fairly recent phenomenon and limited geographically. There are cultures where the natural father is more like an uncle and the child's primary male role model is the brother of the natural mother. So, there are lots of "alternatives". The drive to care about people that are blood related is strong though, and probably not something you can override with a government directive.
But isn't it irrational to prefer family simply because they are family and nothing else? Why? Do you understand that it takes almost 30 years for the human brain to completely form? Have you ever seen what it takes to take care of a baby? They require constant care for the first few years. Do you know what happens if they don't get that kind of attention?] If you don't like it, don't have kids. They are easy enough to avoid if you are motivated to not have them. I assumed the word "family" meant all family, not just one's own kids--mother, father, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins. You can't avoid them so easily.
So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
Its impossible to replace familial love, even the best orphanage can't compete with nature. What about those who are adopted? Also how can you know having society take responsibility for raising kids won't solve it.
So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
Its impossible to replace familial love, even the best orphanage can't compete with nature. What about those who are adopted? Also how can you know having society take responsibility for raising kids won't solve it. Because it's been tried and it always ended in disaster for the kids and for society. If you had a choice would you choose "society" to raise you? How would that work, anyway? Can you give some details on the procedure?
So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
Its impossible to replace familial love, even the best orphanage can't compete with nature. What about those who are adopted? Also how can you know having society take responsibility for raising kids won't solve it. Because it's been tried and it always ended in disaster for the kids and for society. If you had a choice would you choose "society" to raise you? How would that work, anyway? Can you give some details on the procedure? Like giving kids the chance to change their parents once they are eight. Or having orphanages have improved care to equal private homes. Having everyone to take responsibility for raising children.
So why not make orphanages have the same level of care as that of private homes?
Its impossible to replace familial love, even the best orphanage can't compete with nature. What about those who are adopted? Also how can you know having society take responsibility for raising kids won't solve it. Because it's been tried and it always ended in disaster for the kids and for society. If you had a choice would you choose "society" to raise you? How would that work, anyway? Can you give some details on the procedure? Like giving kids the chance to change their parents once they are eight. Or having orphanages have improved care to equal private homes. Having everyone to take responsibility for raising children. Assuming such a thing is even possible, where would the money come from to fund such an operation? Would you raise taxes to the point where nobody has anything left after putting in a year's work? Would you have this become law? How would you get that through Congress and get a President to sign it? Or are you assuming we'd have thrown out the Constitution and have a dictatorship first?