Keywords

FormalPara Interviewees

  • Eli Beer

  • Tristan Lecomte

  • Caroline Schober

  • Tobby Simon

  • Lucian Tarnowski

  • Mark Turrell

  • Lisa Witter

“It would not be much of a universe if it wasn’t home to the people you love.”—Stephen Hawking

I would like to start this chapter with a confession: I love my family; I love the idea of the future because of my family—because I can only imagine my future with them. I also fully agree with one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, Steven Hawking, that the universe is only fascinating as it is home to my loved ones. To imagine one’s own family in the future is one thing; the other is to develop a theory of the “family concept” in the future and how the paradigm will develop in 30 years.

Although several specialists, organizations, and even the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEDC) have already produced devoted reports and scientific works on the future of family and home, those always depend on the profession as well as the authors’ point of view; I want to offer you some classic ideas about how a family might look like in the future and what kind of society concepts there may be, which, perhaps, will affect the development of family relationships (OECD, 2012; Thornton, 2005).

Family: a small group established by marriage or by consanguinity, whose members are bound together by common life, mutual help, and moral and legal responsibility.

The generally accepted standard conception of the family today tends to look like this: a man and a woman (greater acceptance if same race, same religion, and similar age), hopefully with a sound mind and a strong body, are getting married (mainly in a publicly staged spectacle called wedding). They will be (intended) devoted to each other and to the idea of having a joint home and having children and raising them together, to work, to retire, and to die while remaining in each other’s lives as a constant or so-called anchor. The commonly accepted myth is that when one spouse dies, the other one has the right to start another family, carrying the grief in their soul. We all know that. Family is thus postulated as a small group based on marriage or consanguinity, whose members are bound together by common life, mutual help, and moral and legal responsibility. Any violation of this “common sense,” even if accepted, is in modern times considered a deviation, as it is noticed and discussed, although the common accepted concept is usually never a topic of private or public discussions. Children born of other types of cohabitation are still considered illegitimate in some ways.

Anyone, who wants to be with a person of their own sex, is referred to as gay or lesbian; people who have been married several times are considered to be neurotic, and those attracted to group marriages are called sexy monsters. Most of us who (willingly or not) fit in with the “commonly accepted concept” label “different thinkers” and/or “different sensors” as “immoral” without taking into consideration that human nature is subject to strong changes over the time axis.

If the majority of people was able to live an open-minded life to be honorable and sincere and to not hide behind made-up excuses and other social curtains, families would have a great and bright future. We could provide the world with a completely new definition of family relationships, which unfortunately has not yet been tried.

Countless people will know what I am talking about. This one place—the absolutely real world, where you love and you feel—is the best. However, the number of people who will understand and live in such a “truthful” relationship is too little compared to the others. Sometimes I get a sense of fear and surprise when I think about how the future people, family, and family concepts will look like. What should we do to at least try to achieve a balance of human interactions for tomorrow and the far future?

We must pay attention to the education of children, and by this, I do not mean school education, literature, or science, although these are also extremely important but to the teaching of relationships and loyalty (OECD, 2012). There will be a change of practicalities and orientation within adults to create all conditions for the development of their own mindset and at the same time the mindsets of the young children they are raising. This means that children will be considered as a full-fledged personality from the moment of their birth and will be educated correspondingly. Accordingly, the child will be treated like a person who feels, sees, and recognizes himself/herself in his/her own way throughout the entire period of his/her development. They will be treated as individuals and therefore differently to everyone else. The same thing will happen with their parents (Harari, 2018). They should be determined, healthy, strong, energetic, and attractive. They must be willing to take the initiative in their hands, not waiting for help and not shifting the responsibility to others (Sorabji, 2018). These people should be creative and holistic by nature. They will not shy away from criticism in their discourse or of their work but, on the contrary, meet it with joy as it is a possibility for further development and advancement.

The future human beings will pay attention to their body as well as to their soul and understand all the processes so that this knowledge will make them aware of their emotional needs and dependencies and of their sexuality and appreciation, which are important and beautiful parts of themselves. The people will be full of warm feelings and less competitive and angry, which will build the basis of future families and the acceptance of different forms of future families (Shelton-Colangelo et al., 2006). In addition, I hope that with the help of more self-knowledgeable people in family structures, problems such as indifference and unfair attitude toward others—either physical or social—will be resolved in the future (Bandura, 1995). Human nature is highly variable. I believe that the family of the future will be much stronger, more important, and better in omnifarious forms and will form the basis of society. In the last 50 years, relationships within family structures worldwide have changed so much that they are not comparable to previous changes in history (Boulding, 2017; Elliott, 1970). If the same amount of change occurs within the next 50 years, then even by 2050 family life will look very different from now.

In recent years, there have been significant changes related to specific family issues that establish new relationships. Divorce is now generally accepted; it is seen as a social measure rather than a personal tragedy. Several factors influence a changed situation of the modern family conception, e.g., contraception, free abortion rights, family planning, an increased desire and interest to work, the form of appearance at a new job or in a new position, open conversations about sexual topics (in the case of family, sex is the physical glue of emotional and conscious commitment to a relationship), a more proactive (if not aggressive) position of women, the increasing variety of occupations and jobs in which women can/may work, changes in formal conditions for the entry into adulthood, changes in the sphere of education, and the increased average life expectancy (Cyba, 1998; Kulmer, 2011). Moreover, it seems that new foundations, doctrines, and criteria for human existence have already emerged. These changes drive and generate further changes.

In view of all these changes and factors, the question arises: Exactly what is the direction we have to choose, and what should we do to persist and develop our moral idea of a family? First of all, we need to aspire to become more responsible as individuals, to not be afraid to make a choice on our own, to be courageous, and to build future plans that start with our own needs yet somehow are aligned with the needs of the world’s population, so that we can immediately recognize the problem of paramount importance for a better global future. I believe that we are on the threshold of a new evolution in the history of mankind and in the development of social units (Harari, 2018; Davies, 2005; Garner et al., 2013; Rothman & Wheeler, 2013; Thornton, 2005). Perhaps the human being as a person has never experienced so much fear and dissatisfaction as at this moment. Everywhere huge crowds with unselected and dogged information flows are taking to the stress and demanding change. The main slogan nowadays remains the defense of self-esteem and the “inner circle” of the family.

I think we are witnessing the beginning of a multifactorial process with several components like the eradication of relationships, building on forces, dictatorship, obedience, and stereotypes. Mankind will not be destroyed by nuclear war (as predicted in the Cold War period) but by the lack of confidence in (family) relationships, a great dislike and absolutely inhuman attitude toward each other, and the subconscious dividing people into rich and poor or manager and managed, leading to enormous human disrespect and disregard for feelings and one’s own dignity. The old, traditional, deep-rooted orientation became obsolete at the beginning of the new century. In addition, the following questions arise: will the traditional idea of family die if the old foundations are lost in the modernization and new age of acceptance and antidiscrimination? Moreover, will a new concept of a social, familiarly trusted unit exist to sustain our civilization? Personally, I believe in the first option and hope that traditions in some form will be preserved and coexist with the new forms of social cohabitee, allowing each person their unique choice (of happiness in the social medium) without stigmatization and shame of any form. With the population aging, the social acceptance component of futurization is becoming somewhat slower, but we still need history to recognize the progress (Rowland, 2012).

Marriage usually legalizes the relationship between a man and a woman, equalizes their rights to joint property, and provides a guarantee against mutual exploitation. But why is there a clear restriction of one man and one woman in a marriage? If we are honest with each other and take full responsibility for our actions, why do we have to exploit each other? Why do adults feel it is necessary to marry? Perhaps it is not necessary to chase marriage but better to wait and meet true love?

One fact is absolutely indisputable. The modern adult man today is very much dependent on how he was brought up in his childhood (Leira & Saraceno, 2008). Childhood is the time when the basic principles of the human world develop, and this happens under the influence of the people who educate them (Roesch, 2015). In this way, one can say that the “childhood” of today is the future of tomorrow.

Will there be families in the future, and what will they look like? Interestingly, people have not lost the desire to raise children and consequently create a family (emotional, not legal). In addition, we are setting new and narrower norms of human behavior and demand our children to meet them.

How will the family change in the future? And how will the concept of family change? Are marriages with robots and the artificial upbringing of children the future? Will traditional values still exist, and how will the perception of “family” change in the foreseeable future? These are too many questions at once, but let’s try to make a prediction, let’s say an educated guess.

The world is changing rapidly. In addition, regardless of whether we like it or not, the classic model of family is about to slip into oblivion and at best leaves us only with a counterfeit version. I would like to point out another example: In the 1950s and 1960s of the twentieth century, the traditional image of a family was that of a husband in a suit who is driving home from work while his wife is at home finishing the cake and combing her kid’s hair and rehearsing a wide smile. That was the generally accepted “greatest aim” of a woman.

One should understand that it was not possible for women to have access to education, to work, and to earn as much as men at that time. The role of a housewife was the best as possible, with all the consequences, with all pros and contras (Thornton, 2005). Of course, there were also little helpers for the everyday housewife. An example is a drug called “Frauengold,” which, translated from German into English, means “women’s gold.” It was sold to housewives, who were so called “unbalanced” (Frauengold, 1957). Funnily enough, it contained 16.5% alcohol, and that was the main culprit for the calming effect. This was a legal form of female alcoholism for a better control of husbands. Things are different today (Hess & Sussman, 2014). Those pictures are transformed into a museum exhibit. At some point, today's habits will be, too.

Is it possible that in the future we will learn how to make children robots, programmed to be disinterested in sincere love, as shown in the movies that point out artificial intelligence? By observing what is happening to the institute of marriage, we can also see a significant change that has taken place over the last decades. Young people are more than ever concerned with self-realization and self-expression (Hickmott, 2011). Women have become more independent, and family roles are changing (Hess & Sussman, 2014). Entry into marriage and the birth of a child are postponed. The number of divorces is growing, birth rates are falling, and civil marriage is gaining in importance (Janssen, 2020).

Anyone can become the breadwinner now, even the teenager who sits behind the laptop and makes Youtube or TikTok videos. Who has to take care of the child is no longer predefined” by default” (Elliott, 1970).

Studies show that young couples focus on their careers; relationships in the family are only a partnership; the phenomenon of “having children together” tends to fade into the background and is only seen as possible but not obligatory (Robinson & Ross, 2012). A common, though, not publicized concept of “pregnant—get married” is transformed into a business project: Every decision is carefully considered; plans are made for years to come. However, these kind of changes are happening very slowly. Therefore, I hope that in the foreseeable future, the family will continue to be a priority, although the form will change. Futurologist Sergei Pereslegin sees that the impending changes are even more radical. There is a thinning of the social substance—a decrease in the number of people with whom you are truly connected in life. Already today, the family has become a steam room—very often the opinion is that it is better if the children live separately. So, we have a feasible percentage increase of singles—lonely people (Pereslegin, 2009).

What else? Futurologists expect that the length of childhood will decrease over the next decades. It is already noticeable in artistic literature: The Harry Potter books, for example, illustrate that children can fight with adults and even manage to win.

Another scenario for the development of the family is the emergence of external pregnancies that lead the experts in biotechnology to implement this idea. This will result in a more calculated family planning, especially as women do not have to bear children on their own. Denying pregnancy and childbirth definitely will lead to the loss of breastfeeding, which is a very important hormonal and emotional component of motherhood (Drane & Logemann, 2000). With the help of technology, Homo sapiens will be able to get rid of one of the attributive features of the mammalian class. Of course, the concept of the traditional family in a way as we discuss it today will follow.

The emerging technologies of artificial intelligence (AI) and the achievements of robotics are astonishing even today. There are robots that are able to carry out simple logical decisions, communicate with humans, and help. As early as 2050, robots will be able to maintain a relationship with a human at the level that is no worse than that of a normal human. Support, partnership, and sex—all the understanding, and in general, the ability of “human hormone secretors” will also find their way artificially into marriages. The family is changing and changing so quickly that the spirit grasps.

Family of the future: with or without children?

Children are the perfect topic for speculation. Children are our future; therefore, there will be no future without them, but if we consider the statistics and the development of births per family in the developed world, we recognize the change not only in the number of children but also the attitude toward parenthood—we want not only better lives for our children, as it was 100 or 200 years ago, but we want better lives for ourselves too (Roser & Rate, 2017).

Nevertheless, all hope for improvement in 2050 and beyond is for our children, although they often are gaping to see the perceptible result of hard labor of our life. The philosophy of social egoism or a egocentric society, not only community-related understanding but also free in biological aspects, has converted to be predominant. We see this development not only in large cities (as it is generally assumed) but also in the smallest communities. We move from the fantastic social structures that the evolution of humankind has made and developed to the most likely options to be able to develop the biggest “ego”… .

The concept of multigenerational families no longer exists in the developed world. Having been raised in such an extended family, I truly understand all the advantages and strengths but also weaknesses and difficulties of such a social construct of an extensive family; nevertheless, the loneliness of a large percentage of the population in big cities leads to new constructs of substitute families or scurrile business ideas that use the need for human communication and touch (Reilly, 2006). According to WHO statistical data, the typical human life expectancy on planet Earth increased from an average of 67 years to an average of 70 years between 2010 and 2015 (WHO, 2020). Possibly, for a regular reader the number does not seem very imposing, but if we recall, that at the end of nineteenth century, the average duration of life was approximately 40 years, then the number takes on a more conscious meaning. The trend of the rising number of life expectancy of humankind is stable, and the further we go in the future, the longer we will live.

If we follow this trend, families comprising five to six generations will not be unusual. Nevertheless, the living space for each individual becomes more important, and as the generations change, multigenerational families will no longer live under one roof. The most commonly existing variation of the “complex family” consists of three generations—children, parents, and parents of parents (OECD, 2012). As life expectancy increases by 30–50 years, it is on the one hand more likely to have great-great-great-grandmothers (-fathers), who will take the role of family patriarchs, and on the other hand, each new generation looks for more independency and freedom. This is why the new generation is not open to multigenerational homes anymore, although this construct provides a sort of security net in case of social, financial, and health needs. The development will show what the exact consequences of this “stretching” are. However, one fact is for certain, the concept of the family as a whole continues to evolve, and the intimate notion of family is still reduced to the people living under one roof.

Multigenerational families first of all can be seen as an enrichment of life experience for all generations. Imagine, that in one single house, a group of people could have seen in total 100–150 years of life on our planet? It is hard to imagine that from such kind of “social cocktail” in general, a high-quality life can be derived. Also, it is a question of how people will communicate, especially if we consider that those who remember how communication worked a hundred years ago (mostly in person but also by telegraph, horses, and few telephones) and those for whom it is “a textbook of history,” as they can communicate every second as they are being always online and even inventing the new term “digital detox” (Cherry, 2020), as they have realized that too much communication on the surface is also not healthy. This fusion of the life wisdom of the older generations with the energy of younger ones will become a source of new social capital and will usher in the next and absolutely different round of “conflict between parents and children” (Horx, 2021).

We can see a development of a new kind of family understanding. A traditional family, which you cannot chose but you are born into, is losing the battle against the consciously chosen one, which is propagated by many books and television (TV) series, such as Friends, How I Met Your Mother, and Big Bang Theory (Kessler, 2012). These concepts allow a decision to be made about the type of family, with the heart and the head, not by genetic determination. Living in the same apartment, house, or area and being “there for each other” makes them to a family-like concept.

Given the trend toward same-sex marriage, the concept of “mom” and “dad” has some loose contours. To explain to a child why she/he has two mothers or two fathers, although her/his friends have a traditional family with a male father and a female mother, is somewhat challenging. The topic of gender and sex will be discussed in Chapter 10, but it is important to mention the influence of the paradigm shift and the enlargement of the understanding from binary metrics of gender (and family roles) to multifactorial ones in the commonly accepted family concepts.

There are many ideas and papers written about the possibility of robot families (or with robots) (Putic, 2014). If we broaden the discussion about robots, we find that there is increasingly frequent and intense speculation about the economic aspect of humanoid robots but not about the emotional and conceptual aspects (Preetipadma, 2022). The increasing auto-robotization of workplaces is seen as a real prospect for the coming years. Publications on advanced “rubber women and men” already start appearing, although not the ones from the “Toy Shop” but from electronic supplies, which, for a given price, could master to copy a person (Guizzo, 2010). Being honest, if that was possible now, I would be one of the first customers to buy my very own Albert Einstein to have endless and very emotional conversations with my role model. You could say it’s scientific fantasy, but my husband, who is one of the most intelligent people I know or have ever known, is almost never jealous, with the exception of, say, Einstein. He says: “The theory of relativity is Albert Einstein’s best-known work, so his death may also be relative.” In this case, this is meant as a joke (I hope), but I, on my part, hope that there is at least a small part of truth in that joke. Well nowadays, it is already possible to copy and reproduce the parts of the human knowledge and the logic (part of network thinking models), which is very complex and yet not fully investigated (Mitchell, 2006). If you look up the term AI in the German Version of Wikipedia, you will find the following: “The term is difficult to define as there is already a lack of a precise definition of ‘intelligence’ itself.” (Intelligenz, 2023). Intelligence has an emotional/humoral component, which is very difficult (if not almost impossible) to copy, as we don’t fully understand the concepts compared to love, motherhood, pride, devotion, etc. Emotions form the solid basis of a family; harmonious sexual interactions are also an important part of a strong relationship, which is the most important basis for being a couple, but let’s face it, sex is also based on hormones. So, the humoral component of our consciousness, which makes the enigmatic part of our souls, will remain the same and will keep our families functional and secure; I hope.

Nevertheless, there will be people who will prefer a relationship with a robot (and perhaps even love it), as the robots are always controllable and can hardly surprise the owner or do anything outside the range in which they are set. But, of course, while we are talking about a fairly narrow segment of services of the future that can be offered by robots (sexual and familiar), the same statistics show that 30% of the world’s population suffer from loneliness and emotional isolation (Statista Research Department, 2022). That means that this is potentially a huge future market for the sale of robots, which will not just become sex partners but also offer something more complex. You don’t agree and think that this is a fantasy? I think you are wrong. In the future, AI will be able to simulate emotions, possibly not all emotions and not perfectly, but it will. Many readers may now say that this is just a surrogate, but aren’t online social networks a substitute for real relationships? And watching films or reading books where people cry and rejoice are also substitutes for real-life emotions. After all, this book is also a kind of replacement for the emotions of human relationships. So, we cannot say that robotic emotions are fake, because we already have these fake emotions that feel so real. But in the case of robots (as compared to a book or a movie), it is more complex because there is a direct and bidirectional integration happening. Therefore, the question arises as to who these robots will be from a legal point of view. The topic is so advanced that the European Parliament has already drawn up a list of rules under which humans will communicate and do business with AI and robots. Furthermore. there is already a movement for the recognition of robots as family members with all the ensuing consequences (Deng, 2019).

The idea of cyber families and the possibility of their happening are the subject of much speculation these days. In this context, AI is also extensively and diversely discussed, but there are very few people who talk about the actual possibility of designing real personalities on the basis of this technology. Scientists described these possibilities already a while ago, but William Gibson’s “Neuromancer” also features such a hero (Dryer, 1999; Gibson, 2022). Yes, most likely we will talk with some kind of simulation of the mental reactions, speech, and actions of a human being. The paradox is that nobody, when communicating with family members, asks questions of neurophysiology and psychology or reads the body’s internal reactions and synapse activations (blushing out of shame, something we usually can see). The reconstruction of the complex behavior of a real person (in order to integrate the artificial subject to a family) is one of the scientific areas that, in some extent, is similar to biological cloning. Only in the case of biology do we clone the body; here, we copy the personality from the perspective of psychology. Well that will be an interesting future.

Naturally, the habitat of these cyber-clones will initially be in a virtual, probably networked world and not in reality, but still, the cyber-help-gadgets and programs like Alexa (Amazon Alexa, 2023) and “Ok Google” (Google Assistant, 2023) are becoming a part of our lives—our family lives. Many people speak to the gadgets like they would speak to a human being, which is not unusual as well as not surprising. These devices “know and remember” important data (e.g., birthdays, anniversaries, …) better than any human would. They almost always play the music that we think fits a certain mood (which we would like to listen to in the specific moment). They listen and answer the way we are expecting them to (as they are analyzing and copying our behaviors), and so, they become a substitute socius for us, giving us the feeling that we are not alone, at least for a while. With better programming and better robotics, very soon we will have robot family members, who will even love and admire us. And again, I think that communication on the Internet is the same surrogate. This phenomenon has been around for 20 years, and especially with the pandemic, it became the mainstream of communication. In the case of family, however, the emotions that arise from communication with members are not only virtual but quite real and at least sometimes lead to a real action (family gatherings, parties, etc.). And then we have a real life augmented by a virtual “mixed reality”—where is the future place of a robot family member in that life? (Carter, 2021).

Now you can use a little more imagination and visualize various combinations of the above. Have you turned your imagination on? Do you have a picture in mind? Hopefully one that you and all humanity can live with. However, I still believe that the family of clones living with robots and communicating with ancestors in the form of AI is not a transcendental perspective. The people who are now a little over 40 years old may still experience these new fun times.

What the family of the future will look like and why the naturalness of traditional marriage may become (or is becoming) a myth will become clear in the very near future. “Large, traditional, and prosperous”—this is how the “sanctioned” rhetoric describes the ideal family. Their supporters are sounding the alarm: “Homosexuality and polyamory will destroy traditional marriage.” But while the image of the family from juice or kitchen furniture advertisements is almost non-existing, we see that a romantic relationship continues to grow (even in virtual space); nevertheless the trend from monogamy to open partnerships and polygamy from a couple to polyamory communes can already been seen. Whether these relationship formats will fit into the traditional family paradigm and become part of it is still an open question. Well, spoiler alert, of course, they will! Simply because we are evolving and the population of our planet Earth is more adventurous than ever before and more tolerant than at any other time—the family concept will change, enlarge and include more forms of families as we have now.

We should not forget that the family is considered the embodiment of our natural instincts (e.g., the mother instinct). In addition, there are the traditional values of marital relations (including polygamy (more rarely polyandry)), marriages for money (and even more specifically—for the parent’s will), the total absence of women’s rights, and other benefits of the traditional way of life.

In humanity’s past, love was the central element of family relationships, but this has not been the case for a long time. As Michel de Montaigne says so well, “If there is such a thing as a good marriage, it is because it resembles friendship rather than love” (Montaigne, 1877). He thereby questions the very existence of a good marriage, rejects love and its role as the basis of a family, and tries to compensate for his negative ideas with friendship. Well, the modern marriage is a well-prepared cocktail of crush, love, economic symbiosis, communal symbiosis (building and living in a joint space), reproductive liaison, intellectual communication, joint care (for children and each other), and very deep friendship, spiced up with sex and physical activities. In the future, we will see this cocktail in different variations. Several lines of development will run in different directions, with tendencies toward the extreme, e.g., only reproductive function, only emotional function, or only sexual function (maybe in the future, robots will be cheaper than prostitutes—but nobody knows if these robots will be better than humans).

Now marriages of convenience also exist but are regarded with contempt, and the family is celebrated as the union of two loving hearts. In the era of Montaigne, marriage was regarded as reliable; however, it often excluded love (Seidl Menchi, 2016). Marriage acquired its modern form only in the last century. The so-called “normal family”—a heterosexual couple with one or two children—is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Heterosexual relationships are always aligned with social institutions, associated with childbirth—the continuation of the family line, inheritance, and even the transfer of ownership. As part of the social order of marriage, it was based more on rational calculation and excluded an inherently anarchic element like love. The main goal of the family was/is to maintain social order and the demographic policy of the state. The autonomy of the senses is in contradiction with their interests.

In non-state societies, people live in complex tribal structures, far from everyone’s usual monogamous family. Paired relations, which are thought of Western culture even from Adam and Eve, for a long time have not been the norm, and the forms of marriage have always differed between cultures. Therefore, as we know, the history of humanity is a repetitive sinusoid, in which pics and downs are directly collating with a change of speed in the society. Keeping this in mind, the tendency in the future will also be in the direction of the open relationships, with accepted homo- or heterosexual covenants, with polygamy (absolutely mixed variations), and with artificial elements and members of the family (independently virtual or real robots sitting next on the couch). One thing, I think and hope, will remain ever the same: We will care for our family and about each family member.

Polygamy occurred in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, and India and in Muslim culture; it is preserved to this day (History of Polygamy, 2022). Polyandry is very little known and described but is still present (there is polyandry, though). For example, in the Hindu and Buddhist communities in the Himalayas, several brothers have traditionally married the same bride (Coomar and Raha, 1987). The custom served purely practical purposes: It allowed the brothers to preserve the inherited land and not divide it between all the relatives into tiny pieces. The tradition lasted up to the twentieth century and has gone on only when the economy allowed possessing to possess enough land. In the Old Testament, we can find not one mention of these phenomena (Brooks, n.d.). As the king, Solomon had 700 wives and even 300 concubines (Edelman, 1999). King David has turned out not so impressive: With precision, it includes 18 women of different statuses—wives and concubines. Even more, the Bible is registered, and the principle of levirate—he makes polygamy mandatory for those whose brother left a widow without an heir (Lexham Press, 2021).

In ancient Greece, polygamy was considered an unworthy barbaric custom, but adultery remained an absolutely legitimate practice. Legitimate marriage served merely to continue kind. At the same time, the culture of heterosexual harlots existed openly. It was not a simple counterpart to prostitution. Wives did not have the right to vote and obeyed their husbands in everything. If we look at today’s developments of the society, it seems that times will come that adultery will become a legitimate action for both man and woman and both in homosexual and heterosexual marriages. So, why do we need marriage in the future? But before that, let us once again look at our past. Homosexuality for the Greeks was a constant part of the norm, if not to say the institutional practice. It had also a pedagogical character: Erotic relationships of mature men were “allowed” only to young men, often—with disciples. Bisexuality was the norm not only in Greece but also in Rome. The tightening of the family code came to replace the pleasure first in the era of the Middle Ages. Childbearing is at the center of the church’s sexual politics. Family relations were used for and completely made subject to demographic demands. Abortions equated to murder, and interrupted sexual intercourse is considered a terrible sin. This prohibition goes back even to the biblical episode associated with Onan. Relationships began to build around the act of childbirth. Pleasure became a random and unusual bonus and then has been completely excluded from the family concept of those times. The bond of marriage was supposed to be a stop signal for desire—above all, the desire of a woman. Only in the second half of the twentieth century, attention shifts from the birth of children to the relationship within the couple. These days, we are still somehow uptight if we speak about joy, sex, and pleasure in the family and marriage. For example, many guests feel uncomfortable, ashamed, or even are irritated by the very artistic, tasteful, and socially compatible (I thought ) “nude love” pictures (100 cm × 75 cm black-white photos) of me and my husband on the walls, even if it is in our bedroom, and it is a private area, which guests are either entering during a house “tour” or by accident. Even after the sexual revolution in the 1960s, our minds are not free of the judgment and shame about “having fun” in marriage. In the future, another extreme is going to be normal; another level of liberation will give us joy in the relationship, in marriage, and with it in the family.

For a long time, marriage remained more of a diplomatic decision: It was concluded in order to establish ties that were beneficial for the families of the bride and groom—to conclude a truce or a strategic alliance, to improve the affairs of a lost family, or to take possession of new property. Mesalliances have not been allowed. If a man could marry for love, the woman turned out to be at a much more vulnerable position. In the future, the vulnerability will depend on our preferences, love, and emotional affections in marriage and family as on our decision. It is socially accepted to have several partners in the course of life. Nowadays, not only married couples are considered a family but also those who live together, have children together or share the upbringing of their offspring, or consider each other as life partners. Considering this aspect, families will become larger units, and different types of cohabitating will be accepted as a family relationship. On the other hand, the idea of large families, with several generations (under one roof or not) including even the aunts, uncles, and cousins, will no longer exist.

However, for a long time (and even now), marriage for love retained the status of a work in progress: Even if a woman did not find “the soul mate,” she was forced to marry to have legitimate children and not to be abandoned from society and considered a whore (Hawthorne, 1850). Public opinion and the lack of a right equal to that of the man were encouraged.

As far as the family model is concerned, a male breadwinner, a female homemaker, and a couple of children are usually described as “traditional.” However, like any other social institution, the family is not frozen in time and space; on the contrary, it changes along with society and depends on social and economic developments. The industrial transition brought with it the development of cities, factories, etc. and demanded more mobility and more labor from people. Gradually, humans moved to the city, where the accelerated rhythm of life, the Ford's conveyor belt (Hayes, 2022), and “small-sized cars” were waiting for them instead of their native hectares of land. Inevitably, the family structure was changing too: Young couples were separated from their parents and limited to a few children. And also women went to work, different generations no longer lived together, and the family became smaller. Behind the idyllic facade of the 1950s lies the ugly flip side of the “housewives’ syndrome” (Martins Lamb, 2011)—depression and nervous breakdowns of women who are locked in a “golden cage.” A similar phenomenon will start with the development of future technology. The families will become even smaller and less attractive. Couples living in different parts of the world will continue their relationships in an “online format,” and the idea of family, marriage, and cohabitation will be reduced. Technology will try to develop and reproduce pheromones and hormonal components of love so that we will see virtual families and relationships that are unthinkable from today’s perspective.

However, trying to get back to the traditional family model can be sometimes very challenging. Besides, no matter how one might feel about the sustainability of traditional family relationships, stopping the progress is impossible, similar to how we cannot turn back time (at least not yet).

This does not mean that one has to sing the requiem of the family: The industrial age has not entirely abolished large families, but it is no longer the universal norm of communication and fraternal togetherness. To restore the family’s dominant role in society (even if we wanted it to), it would be necessary to stop the development of humankind. The traditional type was the ideal solution for the mass and centralized society. As the conventional way of life disintegrates, society becomes more and more in silico and atomized. There, where individuality and freedom of movement appear, a uniform rule for all loses its force.

The family ceases to be an economic unit of survival. Even if it was an absolute necessity half a century ago, French women were allowed to work without the husband’s permission only from 1965 onward (Saverna, n.d.), and Swiss women received the universal right to vote (without their husbands) only in 1971 (Eugster, 2021). This shows a rapid development, which is combined with the invention of multicookers, washing machines, and semifinished and ready-to-eat products in the supermarkets, and food ordering services bend over to “no family life philosophy,” as it is now a practical component of marriage all over disappears. People can live alone.

Since the second half of the twentieth century, a family is no longer limited to children: The focus of attention shifts from children to relationships between partners. The baby boom of the postwar 1950s has created the absolute value of a child: Even experiencing a serious crisis of relationships, parents do not breed for the sake of children and for the sake of them could also refuse a career. The student riots of 1968, the sexual revolution, the era of eclecticism, and the collapse of the old social order—these are also crises of the bourgeois family and individualization of the society. Individualization means that people are no more ready to sacrifice themselves—their careers, their success, and even the momentary pleasures—for the appeals of society (how the family should be). However, a mother will always be the only humankind being that is ready to sacrifice everything for a child. Even more, I believe that AI, digitalization, and all other developments that may follow will be able to change many things even in family relationships and love but will never be able to replace and change “a mother’s love to the child.”

According to the opinion of psychologist David Elkind, family is becoming adult-centered: Parents are willing to move to another city for their careers, even if it is not the most comfortable for the children. We can also see the incredibly high percentage of divorces, as getting a divorce and educating a child by yourself become economically possible (Elkind, 1998). The same development of contraceptives created a family culture that leads to people eventually becoming childless. The decision to exchange rings is also becoming a free choice increasingly. The other side of the coin is the oppression of choice: the constant concern for the correctness of our decisions. Nevertheless, the development and the trends in family building and the duration of family relationships show that serial monogamy will be the most unattractive choice in the future. The short-lived nature of romantic relationships will be accepted, and devotion and loyalty—which, along with love, make up the bulk of serial monogamy—will become only exceptional and weird exceptions to the norm: Regular partner changes instead of marriage for life will be the new norm. Faced with endless choices from the varieties of cheese on the department stores’ shelf to emotional attachments—we strive hard to find the best.

Psychoanalysts note the inability of modern people to have long-term love relationships (Apostolou & Wang, 2020). It seems that in an atomized world, a neurotics’ defense mechanisms and fear of intimacy have spread to the whole of society. I cannot imagine a world without a romantic relationship. Still, the fact remains a fact—romantic relationships are changing their format, and people are less in a hurry to seal themselves in the bonds of marriage. They are no longer looking for property or stability.

Lack of commitment is a new development in relationships, and I think the reason for this trend is the shift in age limits. The question “who will I be when I grow up” is no longer humiliating even for 30 year olds. Moreover, the possibility to change my profession and job profile is now a common practice (I have changed my profession more than five times, which has significantly improved and increased my understanding of the world and my productivity) (see Chapter 15). Nevertheless, flexibility in this traditionally very rigid area of life affects other definite parts of our being in the socium on this planet. Traditionally, growing up is characterized by mastering the most important social roles: employee, spouse, and parent. Millennials also spend much more time studying, finding themselves, and choosing a partner (Horx, 2021). This is a reaction to a new reality: There are too many possibilities in front of us to live our future lives so that it is impossible to decide on the right path at the age of 20 (if there is one).

We have the opportunity to suddenly change jobs or place of residence (to other continents or countries), and requirements of new, formerly not known professions are born with such speed that even getting education, which may/should be relevant at the time of the issuance of a diploma, is questionable (see Chapter 15): That is why men (and women) experience uncertainty and postpone many vital decisions. That is why virtual dating is becoming a socialization tool, as the situation is milder, controllable, changeable, and better if we go to the Internet. Virtual dating is not just a substitute for real dating; it is a modification: Researchers note that the Internet has reduced the capacity for empathy (OECD). Humankind is more prone to immerse in themselves longer rather than building a mature emotional contact.

On the one hand, one can raise the idea that in order to return to more socialized relations, it is necessary to reduce the level of economic development, as people cannot survive on their own. However, this is precisely how the logic of a conservative opinion leader works. It means mobilization of pro-old life society, exclusion of LGBT people in marriage relationships, and conservative rhetoric about large families—the attempt has already passed and is no longer a possible development variant. Entering the game against popular modernization—everyone and every organization (even state) are doomed to failure. The more the society “insists” on formal marriages, the more often people do not enter into them at all.

As a rule, a family hands over some of its tasks to other institutions: education—school, healthcare—hospitals, etc. So accordingly, its utilitarian value conceded a place of love. Of course, love is a very fragile foundation for a family, but right now, it is perhaps the only justification for the union of two people. Which family structure will replace the traditional family? Will the change of the stamp on the marriage certificate lead to contracts regulating the ownership of the partners, or will the marriage itself remain as a symbolic gesture? The question is not even about the form of partnership but about the diversity of options.

The most certain possibility is that we will not find the prevailing model of the family in the future, but that instead, many variations will be accepted (allowed) and will/should always state the love between people (or human-artificial life forms) as the primary basis of marriage. Many different kinds of marriages will be possible, starting from guest marriage as the effect of the accelerated rhythm of life to individualism, mono- or polyamory, homo- or heterosexual relationships, and large or small families. The fight for gender equality, the new values, blurring the boundaries of personal and working space—all these changes will affect the nature of our relationship.

With all this information in mind, what will the family of the future look like? The issues of technological progress are often considered in scientific, economic, and political contexts. When it comes to society and the family, it is viewed through the prism of economic relations—the quality of “human capital,” the profitability of new market segments, and the impact on people’s lives on consumers with different financial possibilities. What will happen to simple human relations is limited to arguments about the impact of the non-virtual social networks that will remain.

And because the family is a fundamental phenomenon, which defines culture, economy, politics, social structure, and plenty other aspects, it is at the same time, a primary receiver of the impact of technological innovations and corresponding society change. So, we need to think and describe how a family can evolve under the influence of technology and what new forms it can take. There are more or less realistic options—some very understandable and agreeable, others very exotic, and some barely possible. However, the main message is still literally the following: “No rigid definition will exist for the family and there will be no point in trying to come up with one.”

I certainly do not believe that the idea of the family will perish but that it will change beyond today’s recognition when there is only the private in its midst—something that has been marginalized for a long time. Love will still be the principal value in the family (independently of form and size).

“As many of you know, our name, Portokalos, is come from the Greek word “portokali,” which mean “orange.” So, okay? Here tonight, we have, ah, apple and orange. We all different, but in the end, we all fruit.” –Zwick, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” (2002)

1 Input from Interviewees

Eli Beer

Social innovator and first responder and founder of United Hatzalah of Israel

I would like to walk around the street during the day and would like to be able to be projected back to my family at the end of the day through technology and know that nothing will happen to me far away from them.

Tristan Lecomte

Chief executive officer, Pur Projet

Regarding the organization of families and societies, I see two possibilities. We go very individualistic or opposite go back to family. Life gaining value again, we go probably also transgender; families can be group of men or women or transsexual. In Thailand, where I live, for example, 40% of men are gay because it is accepted. Maybe we are all much more gay than we think. So it is well accepted in other countries; it could rise in other countries.

Caroline Schober

Vice rector of Research and International Affairs at Med Uni Graz

The definition of family will continue to become broader than having a common genetic background—with fluctuating size and physical distance. At the same time, feeling like a family will be increasingly important as a safe haven in an ever so volatile and overwhelming world around us. Energy-efficient, connected, smart, and smaller, modular homes mostly in urban areas will accommodate small families, singles, or shared-apartment communities. With home office being a full-time reality for many, this will be psychologically and practically challenging. Fast, public, and zero-emission transport will be for leisure time activities and those who need to—or can—go to work physically.

Tobby Simon

Founder and president of Synergia Foundation

Kids needs for future are pedigree, simplicity, and honesty—what our grandfathers gave us.

Lucian Tarnowski

Hindsight futurist and founding curator of United Planet Game

Family unit seems to be important; humans don’t change with technology, but technology changed human behavior.

Evolution of sects will be there; people may be much more liberal, but there could be a backlash.

Mark Turrell

Strategist, educator, entrepreneur, and founder and CEO of Orasci

Forming of new relationship models (at social level, e.g., civil partnerships). Notion of identity will be changing. Do you have two Facebook accounts? Most young people have at least two (one for parents or employer and one for friends). Control your identity by having false aliases. If in the future I divorce 15 times, my kids might end up with 60 grandparents.

Lisa Witter

Executive, serial entrepreneur, writer, public speaker, and cofounder and executive chairman of Apolitical

Men are fed up with leading; they want to be more involved in parenting. This will change everything fundamentally, affecting also the role of women. There will be much less violence. Instead of man as defender rather as protectors, a new macho is emerging, men redefining themselves.

Having a brain scan will be part of good parenting. To teach kids how to meditate and be present. Board rooms will meditate before going to big meetings, soccer teams also before big games, instead of prayer.

Much calmer and clearheaded decision-making. This will have a lot to do with gender dynamics, which will be affecting almost everything. In general, we will be going toward deeper interconnectedness.

Biggest invention, connecting man and machine, which will also be more interconnected. Smart things are around us everywhere.

Ethics will become more important as we unlock the brain. On Amazon, we will be able to buy a lie detector test and use it on our wife and children with 100% accuracy; imagine the possibilities. It will be the favorite toy of the future.