14
$\begingroup$

In my previous question, I brought up a hypothetical society where children aren't raised at all by their biological parents. Instead, the children are taken care of by hospital staff for the first year of their life. Then, children ages 1-5 are taken care of by daycare staff. Finally, children from the ages of 6-18 spend most of their lives in a boarding school (with opportunities to go on outdoor trips and vacations). In this type of society, there is no home life or households in the standard sense, and family units aren't really a thing. Children are entirely taken care of by either the government or private institutions.

The reason for this type of society is simple. It decouples reproduction from childcare and romance. In more conventional societies, adults are expected to marry someone they love, procreate, and raise children in a household. A society's population growth is based around people being good lovers, good parents, and having high reproductive fitness. If a lot of people fail in one of those three categories, it causes major demographic issues.

With communal raising however, people don't need a life partner to raise children with, nor does a person need to spend a lot of time and money raising offspring. There are 4 main use cases for communal raising.

  1. Hyperproductivity. With communal raising, all adults can reproduce naturally or artificially however they want, and then completely focus their lives on working and relaxing.
  2. Eugenics. Normally, two people marry and procreate based on love (or inheritance in the case of royal marriages). With communal raising, those aren't a factor. Instead, people who are determined to have good genes (either physically or mentally or biologically) can reproduce a lot and beget high-quality children. Once artificial wombs are invented, women don't even need to bear children anymore. Any donated sperm can be matched with any donated egg and any desired child could be formed.
  3. Parentless Settlement. This is pretty speculative, but I had this idea of zygotes and babies being sent to a continent/planet that is undesirable to live in. The fetuses grow in an artificial womb and all of the children are raised by robots. This idea started out as a social experiment, but it seems like an efficient way to quickly populate a location where the locals don't known any better and have no preconceptions.
  4. Promiscuity. If neither biological parent has to take care of the child after it is born, men and women can engage in a lot of casual, unprotected sex without child-rearing consequences.

Overall, communal raising seems like it could be an effective way to maintain a nation; even though no real life nation does anything like it. My question is are there any hidden downsides or complications that would make the communal raising model infeasible?

$\endgroup$
13
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ How much of the population is working taking care of the children? How high are the taxes to foot the bill? $\endgroup$
    – Mary
    Commented Oct 26, 2023 at 23:02
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ This idea would completely eliminate one of the primary drivers of current humanity, that being parents wanting something better for their own kids. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 26, 2023 at 23:56
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Historical examples at opposite ends: widespread use of boarding schools among the English upper classes; the Bolshevik idea of "the abolition of the family" in the interests of equality. $\endgroup$
    – pjc50
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 8:27
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SoronelHaetir Not all parents want that, and some people want something better for the whole next generation, and I'm not convinced that giving those people economies of scale won't work out overall. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 11:34
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I think you have just described the "residential school" for native Americans and Australians: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system. $\endgroup$
    – Faito Dayo
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 20:42

10 Answers 10

23
$\begingroup$

Here is the most benign example I can find: the kibbutz communities 1935-1980. Collective education started on the day of birth and went on until adulthood. At the time it was considered a natural outcome of the principle of equality, which was part and parcel of the kibbutz life. The education authority of the kibbutz was responsible for the rearing and well-being of all the children born on the kibbutz, taking care of their food, clothing, and medical treatment. Everybody received the same share of everything. Parents were not involved economically in the upbringing of their children.

One outcome was that when the children grew up they rarely married any of their childhood friends, as they think of them more like siblings.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The biological parents were not far away, though? That's just pooling of parental resources, which makes a lot of sense. $\endgroup$
    – gerrit
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 21:18
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ As a sidenote, all kinds of things work in small, highly religious, self-selected, voluntary collectives which reserve the right to kick out people not carrying their weight. All kinds of things that don't work at larger scales when absolutely everyone must be included. $\endgroup$
    – Jedediah
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 3:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Nolo Not a problem, just a comment that there may be unexpected side-effects even if the institution seems happy. The only kibbutznik I met was happy there (though there was no reference childhood to compare to) and much less happy as a young adult in Israel with national service. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 19:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Jedediah Note Kibbutzim were mostly a non religious thing, only celebrating major holidays (Passover, Hanukah, etc.). There were also religious ones, though, and you're right they were in general small tight-knit groups of voluntary ideologues $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 11:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jedediah also see: schools on US military bases, which perform better than any other government-run school in the country. It's easier to manage kids when you can sanction their parent if their child misbehaves. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 18:51
26
$\begingroup$

Disastrous social outcomes

"Children are entirely taken care of by either the government or private institutions." This sentence alone flags how fraught this idea is. When governments are responsible for looking after people, such as prisons, mental institutions, orphanages and aged care homes etc there are inevitably problems - it seems here in Australia that we have a Royal Commission into one or another of these areas every few years, which uncover horrific stories. Yet the bad experiences from government institutions pale to insignificance compared to what happens in privatised for-profit enterprises - look at the US prison system for some of the most well-documented examples.

What would make things so much worse in the proposed society is that no individual has a personal stake in any of the children going through this system. What often blows the lid off abuses today is when the family of a person caught in a bad institutional situation goes to the media - this could not happen in the proposed society. The kind of situation experienced by the Romanian orphans would probably become the norm as costs were cut, as per the first objective (use case) listed of "Hyperproductivity".

Unfortunately, history has shown that people who grow up with bad experiences as children often justify it as "toughening them up" and feel that the next generation "deserve" to go through it. (The name for this psychological effect of post hoc justification escapes me.) So we have seen institutionalised "hazing" in military academies and boarding schools continue for generations. When the majority of the society is made up of maladjusted people with a general lack of empathy and various antisocial behaviours. Look at the real, historical Spartans for the kind of outcomes that are likely, rather than the glorified Hollywood version. (Then read the rest of the series for how Sparta measured up as a society and a state, quite apart from the experience of being an individual.)

On a final note, the question seems to float between two different situations, one in which there artificial wombs are possible and exist, and one in which conception, gestation and birth happen the old-fashioned way but the newborn babies are immediately whisked away. I cannot comment on how the former for the obvious reason that it does not exist, but I have yet to meet a woman who was not emotionally invested in the life growing inside her. Deciding on possible termination or adoption are amongs the most heart-wrenching decisions that people make. Some men might be OK with the "Promiscuity" use case, but making women go through the physical and emotional burden of carrying a baby to term just to take them away - I guarantee that 99% of women will not be on board with that idea! If they are forced then it will add more mental traumas to those inflicted on them by their institutionalised upbringing.

$\endgroup$
13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "but making women go through the physical and emotional burden of carrying a baby to term just to take them away - I guarantee that 99% of women will not be on board with that idea!". Considering how many mothers in the past and present not only freely give up their children for adoption, but have also threw unwanted babies away, far more women than you think would be fine birthing a child they won't raise. Don't even get me started on surrogate mothers or female infanticide. There are issues with communal raising, but I doubt indoctrinated women would be innately opposed to it. $\endgroup$
    – Rhymehouse
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 16:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ [Citation needed] perhaps. Surrogates are self-selected, screened, and extremely well compensated. If you want to assume sufficient indoctrination as part of the story that's your prerogative, but it probably would beg an explanation. $\endgroup$
    – Cireo
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 17:54
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @Rhymehouse RE: "far more women than you think would be fine birthing a child they won't raise." Yes, but will it be zero women? Even with indoctrination? Maybe the indoctrination really is that effective (à la Brave New World) ...but I think it's worth thinking about if "rebels" who want to have their own children could exist in your society, and if so, how they would be treated. $\endgroup$
    – MJ713
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 0:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @fredsbend That is because most children are not in institutions. The question is whether children are proportionately more likely to be abused in institutions. $\endgroup$
    – Mary
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 2:45
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Rhymehouse Those are the exceptions, not the rule. They do exist, yes, but you try stewing in hormones for nine months and not developing an attachment to the new life growing in your belly. It takes a special kind of woman that you have to select for, and natural selection tends to weed them out. $\endgroup$
    – No Name
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 14:00
10
$\begingroup$

We already have this with orphanages. Unfortunately orphans have a much higher rate of being dysfunctional adults than normal people. They're also sometimes abused or uncared for properly as the people looking after them have no biological vested interest in them.

Lots of societies like the Zulu and Spartans took over rearing the children at a young age, but none we know of did it at birth. There is just too much necessary interaction between a child and mother (dad not so important) to make a sustainable society with this method of child rearing, or it would have happened already.

At it's most basic, once you take away the nuclear family bonds, it's no longer 'human'.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 21
    $\begingroup$ I'm not going to downvote... But saying 'Dad not so important' - Whoah Boy do I have a bone to pick with this statement - there's a whole host of literature as to what happens to Children who grow up without a father figure - and yeah - most of those are really detrimental to Sustainable Societies. Increase in Criminality, violence, Addiction risk etc. etc. Otherwise, great answer - but yeah - on that point 10,000,000% disagree. Dads are critically important. Perhaps even moreso than mothers. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 3:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TheDemonLord a father figure perhaps.... but plenty of societies even today dispense with the father bit just fine. In Sparta and Zulu societies back in the day the father was barely around let alone heavily involved in child rearing. We would call those whole societies dysfunctional, yet they were sustained for hundreds of years in Spartas case. You're a kiwi the land of solo mums back in the 80's unsure about now. Many of those kids grew up better than they would have if the fathers were around. $\endgroup$
    – Kilisi
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 3:21
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I've gotta agree with @TheDemonLord, there's a lot of literature supporting the need for fathers. e.g. [1] You're conflating child rearing with influence. In a practical sense, a father figure is more difficult than being a father [2] and both depend on strong familial relationships with the mother/mother-figure and child [ibid]. You're making some unfounded assumptions. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 4:24
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ The Spartans definitely should be brought up as an example of how disastrous this type of policy is. (Although it only applied to a really small percentage of people - males in the ruling class - who were only a few % of the total population of Sparta.) Sparta was a society of mostly slaves ruled by indoctrinated child soldiers with a lower literacy rate than any of their contemporaries, who were not particularly successful in the long run. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 4:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Kilisi Plenty of families also dispense with the mother too. Women regularly died (and still do die) in childbirth without proper medical help. Apart from the ability to produce milk in the first month of a baby's life (which is proven to have major beneficial effects), there's nothing a mother does which can't be matched by a father or any adoptive caregiver. The overriding requirement is to have at least one loving caregiver; with a secondary requirement to have one or more other people in the child's life to present different role models and caregiving methods. That's literally all. $\endgroup$
    – Graham
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 8:07
7
$\begingroup$

Not with today's concept of boarding school. Boarding schools are not meant to 'parent' children. It's assumed that the child has a certain maturity level that allows them to thrive without their parents, but with supervision, authority figures, friendships, mentorships, etc. (And children who do not have that level of maturity do not do well at boarding school.)

To attempt this from birth would require the boarding school to literally become the child's parents, and would require a quite different approach to the concept of schooling. Children need parental love, not just parental guidance and discipline, and not just friendship, in order to thrive. That would be a great challenge for boarding schools to provide effectively. I would say impossible.

Also, in your scenario children are raised by hospital staff for the first year of life and then transferred to boarding school. This would be traumatic in every case. Children who lose a parent in the second year of life are known to be at elevated risk of Reactive Attachment Disorder in later childhood - essentially an inability to form emotional bonds with others. The effects of separation from parents in infancy is an active (and challenging) area of study. But it would be a mistake to assume that just because older children and adults do not have articulable memories of 'what happened' during their first year of life, that taking an infant out of the care of the only people they have ever known carries no consequence for them.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

This society is unsustainable because it provides no incentives to have children. There is just no way for the children to contribute to the parents' lives, and even growing babies in artificial wombs or some other technological gimmick cannot overcome this.

They can't participate in the parents' household economy, not even by doing some chores, because they do not live in the same household. (And yes, there will be households; even if everyone lives on their own, that's a household of one.) (And no, your old age pension does not depend on you having children; you will receive the same amount regardless of how many children you had and how well or poorly they do in life.)

You won't get an emotional payoff of seeing your offspring grow and develop if you don't actually see them regularly.

You can't use your children's good manners or achievements to show off within your community, because you could not have contributed anything to make these happen.

And then the children grow up to be adults and compete for your jobs and sexual partners, and will tend to win because they do not need to hold back. Why would they? They owe you nothing. And you had to pay taxes to make it happen, which mostly went to children that aren't even notionally yours. That alone would create a powerful incentive to defund the child rearing programs, which if successful would mean that your society did not sustain the institutional raising of children.

And lastly, I'm sorry to say that the hyperproductivity argument is stood firmly on its head: if you don't have children to take care of, you have every incentive to kick back and relax. (And you do not need to buy things for your children, thus reducing overall demand in the economy, which then allows others to be less productive too.)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you really think there would be no children if they couldn't be used for household labour? People like to have sex. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 11:36
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ user253751 is correct. Humans sexually reproduce for all sorts of reasons. Showing off your children and having an extra pair of hands is only one of them. People reproduce just because it feels good. Half of the pregnancies in the USA are unplanned. People also reproduce because they want their genes to live on in future generations; even if they aren't the ones raising the child. Just think of all the warlords who impregnated slaves, or the men/women who donate their sperm and egg cells. As long as sexual urges exist, humans will procreate. $\endgroup$
    – Rhymehouse
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 16:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Rhymehouse the USA is not a good example of family planning. Having sex because it feels good is not the same as wanting to have kids $\endgroup$
    – njzk2
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 17:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Rhymehouse, thank you. Unfortunately, you are confusing desire (what people want) with demand (what people actually spend their money and resources on). You will note that the warrior rapists did not then pay for some institution to raise the resulting children, and neither did the women, who were instead left to raise the children on their own as best they could. And as much as people may want to spread their genes, there are ever fewer countries left which manage to achieve reproduction at replacement rate even now, when raising of children is only somewhat institutionalised. $\endgroup$
    – ihaveideas
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 21:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ihaveideas "I do not respond to thoughtstoppers" is a thoughtstopper, so I won't respond to it. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 31, 2023 at 21:00
3
$\begingroup$

TL;DR: If this were a society of humans as we know us today, this would be rife for failure and abuse

Private Inequity

The abuse starts in with this line in the first paragraph:

Children are entirely taken care of by either the government or private institutions.

While I will give your hypothetical government the benefit of the doubt and say they have the best of intentions when it comes to raising the next generation of their subjects for now, private institutions will have no such altruistic motives.

A private institution is out for profit -- In this case through child rearing. The people that run these private institutions won't truly care about the children or their welfare unless and until it affects their bottom line. They will cut as many corners and skirt as many regulations as they can get away with in order to squeeze a bit more profit out of the task of raising children. This goes double if shareholders are involved as they will want ever-increasing profits to take their dividends from.

And this does not count said companies lobbying/bribing the government for less regulation

The alternative is that the rich elites set up their own private institution for raising children that given them the best of everything and the most opportunities to get ahead in society. Eventually, they will use this social child rearing system to gatekeep their socioeconomic class and keep the elites at the top of the social food chain.

But government or Board of Directors, it will likely be that people that have little qualifications in child rearing that will make the decisions on the system that raises the children. Actual professionals are likely only advisory at best.

Think of the Children!

As for the children, under the proposed system, they will be effectively abandoned by their caretakers at 1 and 5. This is going on the presumption that the three age groups have three entirely separate sets of workers.

The children will very likely be affected adversely with a society that won't care about that trauma because it happened to them. Plus, the people that care too much probably can't have a job in this field precisely because they care too much which would run counter to the more detached rearing in the question.

And this does not even get into the issues that may come up later due to these kids not getting the attention and love that they need in their earliest formative years. A friend of mine was at a parent/baby thing at their local library and they had a little earworm song about four hugs a day at a minimum. They needed a song ... to remind parents to hug their babies.

And now, boarding school. Great for people that might learn and thrive that way, and terrible for those that don't. While the school will have teachers and educators, they will almost certainly lack in parental substitutes. While the boarding school may become their home, children are vicious little turds and there probably won't be enough adults to enforce discipline. This will almost certainly lead to a situation of bullies and victims institutionalized within the school system -- even more than it might be now.

For reference, look at how siblings can sometimes treat each other -- and there may only be two of them and two parents to (try to) keep them in line.

This does not get into any child that, for whatever reason, doesn't fit nicely enough into this system -- regardless of the cause.

Economics

People will have to pay money to raise children -- it will now be in the form of taxes to the government's communal child-rearing system and not be an optional cost (by having said kids). Everybody will be paying to raise everybody's children -- not unlike healthcare and public pensions in our society.

People will still have to raise children -- it is just now in the hands of either those that want to do the job, or can do it and are detached enough to be able to let go.

Also, as above, people will cost-cut either to increase profits (corporations) or to give out tax cuts (government). Cut funds will affect the level of care that is given to these children -- which may be the actual point.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ "A private institution is out for profit" ─ that is a very narrow view. Private institutions obviously include for-profit companies, but they are also churches, book clubs, political campaigns, swap meets, biker gangs, basically any organisation of private citizens which could have any mission. I'm not saying you'll get good results if all children in society are raised by biker gangs, but the point is that even in contemporary capitalist economies there are many private institutions not driven by a profit motive. $\endgroup$
    – kaya3
    Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ In hindsight, it is perhaps a narrow view of things. I will say that the vibe I got that influenced the answer was a more ... sterile ... upbringing. Like the means to grow up productive should be there, but there is a decided lack of caring and personal time. That lead to the more profit driven private institutions. That typed, I will concede that I had not thought of churches as institutions to raise kids, even though it's been done at various points in history. $\endgroup$
    – Haylen
    Commented Oct 30, 2023 at 8:55
2
$\begingroup$

That's a common feature of SciFi books. I've read a dozen -- published "for real" (either in the library or a chain bookstore) where society handles raising children: creches, very complete day&night care, group marriages where some parents prefer to take care of everyone's kids, pods of small clone-groups; you name it. Readers aren't going to write nasty reviews about how your child-rearing is too unrealistic, since they already don't for all the other books that do it.

And it's just basic "Arc of Progress" SciFi. 150 years ago we decided society should educate children for 6 hours a day, complete with non-parental role-models. 50 years ago women didn't need to be full-time mothers -- they could work and use day-care. We've also had HeadStart for 50 years (which starts at around 3 years old) and are now pushing for pre-K for everyone. Baby formula. So why wouldn't that keep going to where a professional staff takes care of your crying 6-month-old, and so on?

But those reasons ... I don't know, man. Eugenics? Really? Google it and you get "racists", "immoral", "what went wrong?" and "Nazis". Only mention eugenics if your civilization is evil. Likewise efficiency. That makes your government sound Fascist. The sex stuff just seems pointless since the future already has near-perfect birth control (even Star Trek!) no matter how children are raised. Just have the 8-year-old main character talk about how her house-mate Ann is so embarrassed her crazy mom comes by every day, and not once-a-week like a normal parent.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ That last paragraph, you're right and you should say it $\endgroup$
    – No Name
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ Efficiency is not fascist at all. If the goal of "efficiency" was tied to any ideology, it would be hardcore Capitalism (like in the USA), not Fascism. Don't use Fascism to describe any bossy viewpoint you don't like. $\endgroup$
    – Rhymehouse
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Rhymehouse "We need to raise babies more efficiently" was an actual thing in Fascist Italy. Googling "fascist child rearing" got me daily.jstor.org/mussolinis-motherhood-factories. The idea isn't the problem -- we can assume the future people liked it and voted for it. But if you emphasize efficiency then it sounds like the some totalitarian government made the change. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 22:33
2
$\begingroup$

Hmm, the question in a way highlights something fundamental about how we view society in general.

School Age Children

Lets assume:

  1. the success of each new generation is an overall benefit to all of society
  2. we have a basic template for this in public education, which isn't boarding school, but rather readily a sort of sandbox or window for prototyping such a system

Since the question provides virtually no indication of the flexibility of this kind of system we can go two ways. Virtually unlimited resources or highly constrained resources. This is a large determining factor for how much can be accomplished. But for this purpose, we'll aim down the middle and see what it may look like.

Considering that this is a space colony, this suggests type I or close to type II, so functionally it would have technology that is on par with or better than planet Earth currently. That implies that we have some lessons to learn from our current systems. As for the technology, we can basically assume it will greatly facilitate this process. I would assume that in a few years we will have very good systems for guiding children on how to learn if we focus on creating such systems ( big iff ). We already understand quite a lot about human attention because we've done an incredible job at hijacking it with apps on smart phones and social media. This can be taken to the other end of the spectrum without a terrible lot of effort or advancement aside from considering it a little bit and reframing the problem of human attention around utilizing it to help people learn and grow, rather than how to suck profit out of them. It won't be perfect, nothing ever is. But it's squarely on the table and I think highly likely to unroll that way.

So the question then becomes about how to manage that many kids. And the answer from this perspective looks less like a teacher with a ridiculous ton of responsibilities and more like someone responsible for making sure the kids don't cause chaos if their devices aren't holding their attention well enough. In other words, someone who is trained, but not necessarily to teach one or more subjects. Probably more like a guardian and counsellor than necessarily a mentor. The whole system can be quite efficient. And without worrying about how the children are educated, it looks like it can be quite sustainable. Furthermore, with software that recommends educational content based on the interests of the children, we can easily escape one size fits all education and simply allow children to thrive and flourish in a way that they are naturally motivated to do.

Basically the answer to the question is I think that effectively educating children, regardless of how it is done, will tend to solve more problems than it creates. So the downsides are something that we can probably worry less about if we get the important stuff right. Because if we can do that, the kids will happily let us know what we're doing wrong and they'll be in a much better position to help us fix it.

Infant Care

This one is going to be more difficult and requires a higher ratio of adult to child. I won't pretend to know anything about infant care and I will give a fairly safe estimate of one-to-one. This is going to cost a lot of time and resources and a significant portion of society and of this system will revolve around ages ~0-4. For good measure, lets assume we can't trust children to not make terrible mistakes and die prematurely or incur considerable medical expenses for the society before the age of about 4 without close supervision.

Normally parents do this. But the idea here is that those who are naturally effective at infant care would be recognized and encouraged to engage in this activity by the software which manages human education. That's a critical factor. But it isn't to say that this is the only thing these folks will be expected to do. They may have other interests, do other kinds of work or plan their lives in any conceivable way. However, given that we are talking about a space colony where we can probably assume things are scoped and limited to a smaller scale than a planet, it may be that the emphasis on participation and utilizing human capacity receives more focus.

Presumably, folks who are identified as potential infant care workers and who are encouraged to participate in that way would not be aversive or otherwise opposed to infants. And ignoring other detractors, assuming everything else is copacetic, if they were effectively educated on the process to give them the confidence to do it, then they wouldn't be opposed to contributing to society in that way.

Conclusion

There are always light and dark ways to accomplish things. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey. If that's not your cup of tea, then you don't have to explain anything and can just as easily make people miserable and kill them and recycle their bodies if they really have a problem with your methods. That will help to keep the others in line. ;-)

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For the record, a space colony is a potential situation to use communal raising; but I didn't come up with the idea with a space colony in mind. I came up with the idea for a hypothetical modern society that valued promiscuity and eugenics. $\endgroup$
    – Rhymehouse
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 17:16
1
$\begingroup$

There are no "good genes" per se. Well, at least outside of groups thinking in term of "pure" or "master" race.

Lucky combinations of genes pretty much do exist and particular genotypes are pretty much advantageous in one situation or another, but for a group/society/species as a whole, the most important thing is the diversity of the gene pool.

In this sense, what we call "love" is in fact a hard-earned evolutionary adaptation.

Another important thing is the cultural diversity. This is important as well - esp. when the conditions change.

You do have a standard for an institutional child care, don't you?

If you don't, you don't get much of a viable offspring anyway. This is how industrial farms fail sometimes. If you do, ... well, you have a single culture.

Short term, human farming could work to some extent, but at a rather high price in competitive terms.

Institutional childcare spanning the whole childhood is not something that is not tried and tested. Even the best results are rather disappointing.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ There are no good genes? Do you really think that everybody on Earth is equally capable of being an olympic athlete or beauty queen or Chess grandmaster, and there was no biological component for why people excel at certain fields? Conversely, do you really think it would be "fine" for babies to be born with Down's syndrome or paraplegia or cerebral palsy if there was a way to prevent it? Just because everyone is equal under the law doesn't mean everybody is biologically equal. $\endgroup$
    – Rhymehouse
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 17:12
-1
$\begingroup$

The communists tried it. In Israel there was this, in the kibbutzim. It fell apart completely... Many children carry with them very negative experiences... If you want a company of evil monsters - try it...

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Those might be good examples, but it will improve your answer if you could point out why they failed. $\endgroup$
    – Joachim
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 21:37
  • $\begingroup$ Why, this is an interpretation. A fact, is an answer. Isn't it? If, however, you are interested in interpretation, I will answer that it is impossible to detach emotion from the mind. And the emotion is transmitted first and foremost by the parents. If you're interested in creating machines - maybe Elon Musk will give it to you... Humans you raise them this way will raise monsters. $\endgroup$
    – י. פל.
    Commented Oct 28, 2023 at 22:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not disputing the content; my comment was merely based on form. Answers this short to questions that are much longer usually will benefit from commentary on how this relates to the OP's situation, &c. $\endgroup$
    – Joachim
    Commented Oct 29, 2023 at 9:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .