From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 17:51:28 MST
On Tuesday, January 14, 2003 11:50 AM Anders Sandberg asa@nada.kth.se
wrote:
>> What do you some of you think of the
>> family in the context of transhumanism
>> and Extropianism?
>
> If we leave out our dear ideas of weird
> forms of reproduction (cloning, polyparents,
> xoxing, random generation), child-rearing
> and an economic unit and instead look at
> the family as a social institution, it seems
> that the main property of the family is the
> strong altruist bonds that are commonly
> present. They can be explained socio-
> biologically as the result of selection for
> kin altruism. This makes the family a natural
> network of trust and security (hardly every
> family, but enough to matter).
I would not define family as such -- not as "altruist." I believe the
confounding of "altruism" with family life here comes from the cultures
we live in and not any essential trait of families. See below.
Also, "selection for kin altruism" I'm not so sure. You'd have to prove
the traits are genetically determined and variable. I mean using
Horwitz's view of family, childless couples are families as would
couples with adopting children be. Now, if they're selecting each other
because of some genetic trait they didn't directly inherit, the case
would still have to be proved.
> Transhumanism systematically problematizes
> the human condition, asking about every human
> trait: "How could it be different? Could it be
> better? Can it be changed?". In the case of the
> family it is interesting to consider what happens
> if this altruism is removed or extended.
See above. I don't see altruism as a defining feature here. People do
often live together as families for mutual benefit. The childless
couple example -- which is, according to Horwitz, the dominant form of
family -- comes to mind. You might reply that I'm extending family and
benefit beyond useful definitions, but that was Horwitz's example in the
former and I would point out that benefits can be long ranged and
non-monetary -- both of which I'm sure you'd agree on. (I'm merely
explicating these for others to consider. Others might point out that
for the egoist, family might be a very important value because she or he
has internalized the value of family. That is, the good life for such
an egoistic family person would include family and many of its attendant
demands -- just as the dude who loves his rare stamp collection might
make _provisional_ sacrifices for it.:)
Still, your questions are good. I would add to this, since families
spontaneously evolved, under newer conditions, while I might expect
planning to play a role, the spontaneous ordering might continue along
different lines.
> Non-altruistic families would be essentially
> the kind of economic units described in the
> paper, producers of children, socialization
> and economic interfaces. It doesn't sound
> very fun, and these functions could likely be
> implemented by other market actors.
See above. I thought of the market absorbing family while I was reading
the paper. It would be interesting to see if this were possible and it
would no longer be a family then, but a market order. Also, even with
the market, there are institutions, as Horwitz points out, that exist in
the market yet are somehow not exactly the same as a market, such as
firms. Firms exist despite the fact that many economists believe they
shouldn't. (Frederic Sautet, on the other hand, argues that firms arise
through entrepreneurial action in his _The Entrepreneurial Theory of the
Firm_. But my point is not so much to labor this particular example,
but to point out that the market might not absorb all social
institutions -- even ones specifically emerging from it.)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "Macroeconomics for the Real World" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Macro.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST