My theory about future households. - Page 3

**Rain Man** · 05-03-2006, 05:14 PM

We all know the trends. People have higher and higher expectations over time for material goods, which leads to more households where both husbands and wives work. We have bigger houses now, and big screen TVs and motor homes and robotic dogs and toothbrushes with built-in DVD players and stuff, but at the same time, we're working more, we're stressed and harried, our children are latchkey kids, and our savings rates for retirement are negligible.

I have a new model, and I think it would work.

Old model: Man marries woman, they have kids, and all of the above occurs.

New model: Two couples "marry" or perhaps three or four individuals "marry". All household finances and duties are pooled. All children are legally the custody of all adults.

The advantages of this system are many:

1. You get the advantages of more incomes, but can also get a stay-at-home parent if that works for everybody. You get June Cleaver and someone to be there for the kids, but you also get Rosie the Riveter and Ward Cleaver.

2. With artificial insemination, we may be at the point technologically where a child can be conceived who has a mixed soup of DNA from all of the adults in the household. Therefore, the child(ren) will belong to all of the adults equally (and will probably be genetically more robust to boot). You can truly create a family, as opposed to a commune.

3. Much more disposable income. Imagine a three-income household or a five-income household. There are lots of efficiencies in costs, too: You can buy a larger home more cost-effectively than two smaller homes, you would probably need fewer cars per capita, etc.

4. You have more support capacity for situations such as illness or incapacitation.

Now, I know that you're all immediately moving toward the sex thing. That would depend on the structure. You could conceivably have a model where you've got two couples with no physical interaction, though a stronger model might have a group of males and females with no natural coupling who can all interact at will (except the males, of course).

There's no physiological reason why a familial relationship couldn't develop between multiple people. And of course, it doesn't have to be an even number of people in boy/girl fashion, either. It could be a household that consists of one man and two women, or three men and two women, or even five women. Who cares? Move past the sex part and think about the family/household part.

And no, it's not polygamy. Polygamy means that one person marries many people. This is many people marrying each other on equal terms, without a cult of personality at the center of it.

The summary: if you had a household that consisted of multiple people, and their children were a genetic stew of all of those people, you would end up with a lot of affluent, healthy, stable, strong households. Defining a family as two adults is arbitrary and timeworn; defining a family as a consortium of adults who form a clan for mutual benefit is a superior approach, in which the old system still fits as a subset for those who prefer it.

Mark my words. It's the wave of the future.

**Rain Man** · 05-04-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talisman

Where does a robot vacuum fit into the picture?

The Roomba is actually in retirement at the moment, living underneath a table in our living room. We have some cleaning ladies who don't speak English.

I need to break the Roomba out just for old times' sake, though. What a fun machine.

**Rain Man** · 05-04-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozer

Aren't there something like 26 (hopefully) chromosome pairs in a human embryo? Theoretically, couldn't you go 13 from one father, 13 from another father, 13 from one mother, 13 from another?

EDIT* Looks like there are 46 chromosomes in a person, so 23 pairs. I'm guessing any embryo with 52 chromosomes wouldn't last long. Either that or we'd have MegaCorky.

Yeah, I figure there's some way to make this work. We need to get some of our lab boys on it.

I think it'd be cool to have a kid with four parents. It'd be much less strain on the parents and they'd get to go out more (in groups of two or three), and the kid would be much more likely to have someone to play ball with, or go to the zoo with. It's a win-win situation.

joesomebody · 05-04-2006, 08:27 AM

This is sort of the roomate thing for poor young people...

I have two roomates, and together we are living in a 150 thousand dollar house, with a very nice fenced in back yard, nice propane barbaque grill, we have a good sized tv in the den, surround sound, 5 disc dvd player, Play Station 2, Xbox, pool table, tv's in each bedroom, complete digital cable package, wireless cable internet through the house, new appliances, etc.

It works out well, as long as you can get along. Without having roomates I could probably barely afford a 1 bedroom studio apartment and would be eating nothing but top ramen.

I make about 30 grand a year, the other two make around 22 thousand a year each. Pool our money and we make 74 grand a year.

This only works I think because it's a split level house, I rent the whole basement which is like a studio apartment without a kitchen... so it provides enough personal space for everyone. Otherwise we'd have killed one another within a month.

05-03-2006, 05:14 PM
Rain Man NFL's #1 Ermines Fan Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $3348491 VARSITY	My theory about future households. We all know the trends. People have higher and higher expectations over time for material goods, which leads to more households where both husbands and wives work. We have bigger houses now, and big screen TVs and motor homes and robotic dogs and toothbrushes with built-in DVD players and stuff, but at the same time, we're working more, we're stressed and harried, our children are latchkey kids, and our savings rates for retirement are negligible. I have a new model, and I think it would work. Old model: Man marries woman, they have kids, and all of the above occurs. New model: Two couples "marry" or perhaps three or four individuals "marry". All household finances and duties are pooled. All children are legally the custody of all adults. The advantages of this system are many: 1. You get the advantages of more incomes, but can also get a stay-at-home parent if that works for everybody. You get June Cleaver and someone to be there for the kids, but you also get Rosie the Riveter and Ward Cleaver. 2. With artificial insemination, we may be at the point technologically where a child can be conceived who has a mixed soup of DNA from all of the adults in the household. Therefore, the child(ren) will belong to all of the adults equally (and will probably be genetically more robust to boot). You can truly create a family, as opposed to a commune. 3. Much more disposable income. Imagine a three-income household or a five-income household. There are lots of efficiencies in costs, too: You can buy a larger home more cost-effectively than two smaller homes, you would probably need fewer cars per capita, etc. 4. You have more support capacity for situations such as illness or incapacitation. Now, I know that you're all immediately moving toward the sex thing. That would depend on the structure. You could conceivably have a model where you've got two couples with no physical interaction, though a stronger model might have a group of males and females with no natural coupling who can all interact at will (except the males, of course). There's no physiological reason why a familial relationship couldn't develop between multiple people. And of course, it doesn't have to be an even number of people in boy/girl fashion, either. It could be a household that consists of one man and two women, or three men and two women, or even five women. Who cares? Move past the sex part and think about the family/household part. And no, it's not polygamy. Polygamy means that one person marries many people. This is many people marrying each other on equal terms, without a cult of personality at the center of it. The summary: if you had a household that consisted of multiple people, and their children were a genetic stew of all of those people, you would end up with a lot of affluent, healthy, stable, strong households. Defining a family as two adults is arbitrary and timeworn; defining a family as a consortium of adults who form a clan for mutual benefit is a superior approach, in which the old system still fits as a subset for those who prefer it. Mark my words. It's the wave of the future.
Posts: 141,251

05-04-2006, 08:27 AM	#33
joesomebody Waiting to be voted off Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Baltimore, MD Casino cash: $9994900	This is sort of the roomate thing for poor young people... I have two roomates, and together we are living in a 150 thousand dollar house, with a very nice fenced in back yard, nice propane barbaque grill, we have a good sized tv in the den, surround sound, 5 disc dvd player, Play Station 2, Xbox, pool table, tv's in each bedroom, complete digital cable package, wireless cable internet through the house, new appliances, etc. It works out well, as long as you can get along. Without having roomates I could probably barely afford a 1 bedroom studio apartment and would be eating nothing but top ramen. I make about 30 grand a year, the other two make around 22 thousand a year each. Pool our money and we make 74 grand a year. This only works I think because it's a split level house, I rent the whole basement which is like a studio apartment without a kitchen... so it provides enough personal space for everyone. Otherwise we'd have killed one another within a month.
Posts: 2,584