I see a couple things at work here. One is the idea that the nuclear family is a kind of holdover from the past, and that the state ought to subsidize people ch

I see a couple things at work here. One is the idea that the nuclear family is a kind of holdover from the past, and that the state ought to subsidize people choosing to live in novel family structures. Across society, the introduction of new family types could conceivably improve fertility rates or other outcomes that the state has an interest in improving. From the article, I gathered that one favored model is multiple single mothers and children in one household. I could easily imagine that model is more efficient and better for kids than having one parent try to do everything themselves. By subsidizing cohabitation of single mothers, the state could save money in the long term by improving the income expectation of the children and reducing likelihood of incarceration. Another aspect is that the interviewee has started a business which caters to single mothers who want to cohabitate, and most likely her business would benefit from state subsidies to the kind of lifestyle she's trying to facilitate. I get a weird kind of futuristic vibe from this article, as though this kind of multi-mother creche could be a step on the way to the parent-less, homogeneous culture of Brave New World. With the right combination of subsidies and persuasive media, I wonder if societies could be persuaded over a few generations to abandon the concept of a family altogether, eventually coming to see the nuclear family as another horror of the past.