08-16-2010, 03:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2010, 03:37 PM by Questioner.)
ffg, this points out something that is truly screwed up big-time in our current society.
From an evolutionary point of view, humans should live in extended families that interlock into tribes or packs. Immediate group of about a dozen, next larger network of a hundred. This works so well for hunter-gatherers, and for agricultural villages. Because it is what we need and are "wired" for, it is why we are comfortable working in departments or teams of a dozen people, in companies of a hundred. (Larger than that and a smart business leader will split off a division where people can still feel that they belong.)
In historical context, your three would join a larger group of kids from throughout the tribe or village, maybe 30 or so kids with a dozen adults taking turns watching over them together. That way, you could get your nap, the kids would still have someone aware of what's going on. When you're back up your kids and some other kids could benefit from your loving guidance, happiness at their discoveries, and wisdom... and the next mom or dad with a stay at home day can get their break. By stay at home, I mean in the village rather than out on the farms, or in camp rather than out on the hunt.
This approach worked flawlessly from caves and plains, all the way up to the senoras with the pillow on the window while they looked out over stickball on the block, or the uncles chatting on the front porch and with passers-by. It is something we have lost in both isolated rural living, and in suburbia, as well as in anonymous cities. The segmentation has economic benefit for those who can hire cheap, mobile, disposable labor, but it doesn't serve any generation's highest and best growth.
I don't think Ra specifically discusses this, but thank you for letting me get in my rant of the day.
From an evolutionary point of view, humans should live in extended families that interlock into tribes or packs. Immediate group of about a dozen, next larger network of a hundred. This works so well for hunter-gatherers, and for agricultural villages. Because it is what we need and are "wired" for, it is why we are comfortable working in departments or teams of a dozen people, in companies of a hundred. (Larger than that and a smart business leader will split off a division where people can still feel that they belong.)
In historical context, your three would join a larger group of kids from throughout the tribe or village, maybe 30 or so kids with a dozen adults taking turns watching over them together. That way, you could get your nap, the kids would still have someone aware of what's going on. When you're back up your kids and some other kids could benefit from your loving guidance, happiness at their discoveries, and wisdom... and the next mom or dad with a stay at home day can get their break. By stay at home, I mean in the village rather than out on the farms, or in camp rather than out on the hunt.
This approach worked flawlessly from caves and plains, all the way up to the senoras with the pillow on the window while they looked out over stickball on the block, or the uncles chatting on the front porch and with passers-by. It is something we have lost in both isolated rural living, and in suburbia, as well as in anonymous cities. The segmentation has economic benefit for those who can hire cheap, mobile, disposable labor, but it doesn't serve any generation's highest and best growth.
I don't think Ra specifically discusses this, but thank you for letting me get in my rant of the day.