From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 22:55:30 MST
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 11:51 AM
> 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.
Yes Horowitz notion of the family is potentially quite broad. Many forms
of family he suggests can fulfill the essential functions. That children
don't
normally "select" their parents as I'm taking your meaning does not seem to
be particularly acknowledged by Horwitz as an axis of note.Yet it might be
important to the notion of understanding families and transhuman families
to recognize that voluntary membership by all can pertain more to some
family forms and than to others.
>
> > 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.
Yes and further the proportion of members of families who have volunteered
to be members is likely to increase both as birth rates decline and as it
becomes easier for individuals to abandon dysfunctional families and seek
more functional alternatives. Not all in all families are active planners
either
within the family or in determining the families relationship with the wider
world.
>
> > 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.
Whilst certain functions of the family can be taken over by the market
the function of serving as the primary source of socialisation for infants
is going to be required as long as there are infants (standard biological
variety at least). Therefore if family forms are or can be fluid as Horowitz
suggests whoever or whatever assumes the role of providing an environment
in which infants are first socialised could be seen to be a family. If too
much
of this function of the traditional family is ceded to the market the child
will
simply experience itself to be in a dysfunctional family. If the market,
however
organised, does the primary socialisation well, it will, it seems, need to
involve
some primary caregivers or the infant will "imprint" on whoever is around
anyway. So although the child can't choose its form of family its wellbeing
and early dependency will continue to dictate that certain minimal
requirements
in the area of primary socialisation will continue. Whatever environment the
infant
finds itself in, whether created by the market or otherwise, the child will
react
to that enviroment as least in some respects as if that environment is a
functional
or dysfunctional family for its needs.
> 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.)
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST