It’s worth pointing out that a lot of people who have children are not actually emotionally mature enough to take care of them properly even if they had the knowledge. Also, the nuclear family is absurd and unnatural, and we evolved to be raised by entire communities, not just by one mother and maybe one father. With too few adult caretakers, of course outcomes will be far worse.
That said, I wonder if a market-based method would work better here? Expecting the government to do anything right is a losing proposition most of the time, but the market sometimes works!
One dumb idea that comes to mind: give parents the ability to sell shares in their children’s future income like a kind of corporation (up to a certain number of years in the future, after which they will revert back to the child). Then, whoever buys those shares has a vested interest in making sure the child ends up earning a lot of money in the future, which implies making sure they are well taken care of and educated and so on.
This can’t possibly turn into a new form of slavery, no sirree! /s
Yeah, that’s a dreadful idea. But still, something very, very vaguely like that might be reasonable. The crux is that people other than the parents ought to be accountable for the welfare of children. The more people, the better the likely outcome.
Also, the nuclear family is absurd and unnatural, and we evolved to be raised by entire communities, not just by one mother and maybe one father. With too few adult caretakers, of course outcomes will be far worse.
Citation needed. Parents are biologically related to their children. Entire communities are not. Is there any evidence that humans have any evolved characteristics which make the nuclear family worse than community upbringing?
Parents are biologically related to their children. Entire communities are not.
Historically, the “community” did not refer to strangers who by accident live on the same street, but to people of the same village or tribe, which typically included cousins, aunts, uncles.
It’s worth pointing out that a lot of people who have children are not actually emotionally mature enough to take care of them properly even if they had the knowledge. Also, the nuclear family is absurd and unnatural, and we evolved to be raised by entire communities, not just by one mother and maybe one father. With too few adult caretakers, of course outcomes will be far worse.
That said, I wonder if a market-based method would work better here? Expecting the government to do anything right is a losing proposition most of the time, but the market sometimes works!
One dumb idea that comes to mind: give parents the ability to sell shares in their children’s future income like a kind of corporation (up to a certain number of years in the future, after which they will revert back to the child). Then, whoever buys those shares has a vested interest in making sure the child ends up earning a lot of money in the future, which implies making sure they are well taken care of and educated and so on.
This can’t possibly turn into a new form of slavery, no sirree! /s
Yeah, that’s a dreadful idea. But still, something very, very vaguely like that might be reasonable. The crux is that people other than the parents ought to be accountable for the welfare of children. The more people, the better the likely outcome.
Citation needed. Parents are biologically related to their children. Entire communities are not. Is there any evidence that humans have any evolved characteristics which make the nuclear family worse than community upbringing?
Historically, the “community” did not refer to strangers who by accident live on the same street, but to people of the same village or tribe, which typically included cousins, aunts, uncles.
tribes and clans...