6 ms·

Ancient Greece did not genetically survive. We have remnants of their culture NOT by virtue of their genetic fitness nor the continuance of their civilization,

Ancient Greece did not genetically survive. We have remnants of their culture NOT by virtue of their genetic fitness nor the continuance of their civilization, merely because we discovered their artifacts and the people whom they enslaved had children who fancy themselves as the children of the masters of their ancestors. Don't be fooled, Ancient Greece's failure to mention the importance of the nuclear family should be evidence as to what happens to cultures that lay aside such. Namely they are wiped out and their heritage is merely whatever is picked up by those near by after their society dies and goes through the throughs of civil and social collapse. The fact that Florence had a Renaissance to go through, thanks to discoveries of artifacts of the long dead Greeks and Romans. And as per some of the most 'creative'/'productive' people being single presumes that their accomplishments sprung out of their heads like Athena. None of them would have the very culture they played off of that enabled their greatness without the existence of nuclear families.

vacri 13y ago
The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years, but I've never seen anything suggesting that they lionised the nuclear family. "Lay aside the concept of nuclear family" didn't seem to stop them, and few cultures have lasted as long as they have. The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age. It is specific to the modern age. Trying to retrofit it to historical civilisations is only going to end up in trying to explain away why this one or that one doesn't fit. Strangely, you dismiss Ancient Greek culture as not being up to the task, but then grant that Florentine success was only because they copied old Greek culture. It's also worth mentioning that the Renaissance wasn't just central Europeans rediscovering archaic artifacts, as there was a host of new ideas and technologies being founded at the time, eventually accelerating into the Enlightenment period.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age." That's not my understanding at all. It refers to the "nucleus" of parents and children, as opposed to extended family.
  - vacri 13y ago
    It seems I am wrong with the definition, or rather am using an uncommon variant of the term. Still, living with extended family has been pretty common before the age of pensions.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Agreed, though it's never been absurdly uncommon.
  - FD3SA 13y ago
    A nitpick that has caused much confusion in the comments below: The nuclear family is the most basic form of family, and is certainly not opposed to an extended family. An extended family is a superset of a nuclear family. All families by definition must include the subset of the nuclear family, and thus it is the minimum requirement to fall into the set of "All possible families". For the set of all families F, there exists an element N = "nuclear family" such that N is a subset of F.
    - vacri 13y ago
      This is not true. If the children don't live with the parents, it's not a nuclear family. If one parent is dead or the parents don't live together, it's not a nuclear family. If dad's abusive and mum can't cope, and the grandparents are taking care of the kids at their place, it's not a nuclear family - the supposed 'nucleus' is not there. If there are no children, but adult siblings live together, they are a family, but not a nuclear one. My old boss took in a couple of teenagers from up the road when their mother was caught cheating and fled, never to be seen again, and the father was a pilot, always away, and utterly useless with kids. So here you have a situation where there is a sort of stepmother (no formal adoption) taking care of two kids (who come to see her as mum), a separate father who's not really in their lives, and a biological mother who has never been seen since. It's hard to see how terming that fractured family as a 'nuclear family' allows the phrase to have any useful meaning whatsoever.
      - 13y ago
zeteo 13y ago
> Ancient Greece did not genetically survive I'm not sure if that's true (considering just Hellenism and the descendants that Alexander the Great's people must have left between Thrace and India), but to address this more generally: of course if you don't have children you won't "genetically survive". The question was whether it would preclude you from great work. In this regard, Ancient Greece is an example of work that did survive - and even, for many centuries, served as a model.

vacri 13y ago

The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years, but I've never seen anything suggesting that they lionised the nuclear family. "Lay aside the concept of nuclear family" didn't seem to stop them, and few cultures have lasted as long as they have. The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age. It is specific to the modern age. Trying to retrofit it to historical civilisations is only going to end up in trying to explain away why this one or that one doesn't fit. Strangely, you dismiss Ancient Greek culture as not being up to the task, but then grant that Florentine success was only because they copied old Greek culture. It's also worth mentioning that the Renaissance wasn't just central Europeans rediscovering archaic artifacts, as there was a host of new ideas and technologies being founded at the time, eventually accelerating into the Enlightenment period.

dllthomas 13y ago
"The whole point about the term 'nuclear family' is that is refers to the (generally WASP) family structure in the nuclear age." That's not my understanding at all. It refers to the "nucleus" of parents and children, as opposed to extended family.
- vacri 13y ago
  It seems I am wrong with the definition, or rather am using an uncommon variant of the term. Still, living with extended family has been pretty common before the age of pensions.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Agreed, though it's never been absurdly uncommon.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  A nitpick that has caused much confusion in the comments below: The nuclear family is the most basic form of family, and is certainly not opposed to an extended family. An extended family is a superset of a nuclear family. All families by definition must include the subset of the nuclear family, and thus it is the minimum requirement to fall into the set of "All possible families". For the set of all families F, there exists an element N = "nuclear family" such that N is a subset of F.
  - vacri 13y ago
    This is not true. If the children don't live with the parents, it's not a nuclear family. If one parent is dead or the parents don't live together, it's not a nuclear family. If dad's abusive and mum can't cope, and the grandparents are taking care of the kids at their place, it's not a nuclear family - the supposed 'nucleus' is not there. If there are no children, but adult siblings live together, they are a family, but not a nuclear one. My old boss took in a couple of teenagers from up the road when their mother was caught cheating and fled, never to be seen again, and the father was a pilot, always away, and utterly useless with kids. So here you have a situation where there is a sort of stepmother (no formal adoption) taking care of two kids (who come to see her as mum), a separate father who's not really in their lives, and a biological mother who has never been seen since. It's hard to see how terming that fractured family as a 'nuclear family' allows the phrase to have any useful meaning whatsoever.
    - 13y ago

zeteo 13y ago

> Ancient Greece did not genetically survive I'm not sure if that's true (considering just Hellenism and the descendants that Alexander the Great's people must have left between Thrace and India), but to address this more generally: of course if you don't have children you won't "genetically survive". The question was whether it would preclude you from great work. In this regard, Ancient Greece is an example of work that did survive - and even, for many centuries, served as a model.