The Jay Family System

Society/Culture

Support this proposal

Adapt this proposal

02 Nov 2011

Location: Population

To reduce the world's population by introducing a new family system into our society

The Jay Family System

A Way to Reduce the Earth’s Population while Increasing Family Strength

Let me begin by acknowledging two facts. First, at present and for the past thirty years, the Earth’s human population has been using more natural environmental resources than the Earth produces. The second is that 80% of the earth’s environmental resources are used up by the 20% of the world’s population in the USA and Europe.

And therefore may I suggest a “family system” which for simple convenience I shall call the Jay System.

Here is the essence of the system. It is that two couples will have one child each and then the four adults will share the love and care of the two children, thereby reducing the global population by 50%.

The benefits of the proposed procedure are several, aside from reducing the population of the highest polluters. First, each child has a companion and playmate. Second, both children have four adults to care for them and love them.

The first detail means that the single child does not suffer from loneliness the way many “only children” do. The second means that each adult is interacting with two children and not just one. The third benefit is by having four adults caring for them, the children have more protection and nurturing than if a ‘two adult’ family have only one child or more children.

This may become especially significant if one adult leaves the Jay Family through divorce or death. If this happens the children still have three adults to look to for care and protection. A further feature of the Jay System is that economically the two children can have more stability and well-being if there are four carers and providers.

The adults benefit also. First the sharing of the parental duties means more support and convenience for individual couples. Babysitters become less necessary. One couple may go on vacation, knowing that the other couple is looking after the two children.

The specific details of how Jay Style Family is established may vary. For example, two couples who already have one child may join together. In this case, both couples and children can know each other before their Jay Family System is established.

Or two couples might get together before having children. Another possibility is for two friends to decide between themselves to plan for establishment of a Jay Style Family. In this case they would discuss their desires with their future mates, etc.

Of course if after establishing the system, the two couples decide to separate, they can each go their way with their child.

The details of the working relationships would be for the adults to decide. Questions as to how physically close together they lived would be their decision. For example, they might share one dwelling, or live in adjacent residences, or they might live further apart. Most important would be the spirit of the relationship.

There also may be consideration given to the economics of the relationship. Each couple could plan economically for their own child or the two couples might set up a financial trust whereby the two children both share the estates of both couples. Recently in Britain the charity Day Care Trust has reported that a nursery place in the UK costs nearly 25% of the average household income.

Of course the Jay System in effect reduces our western population by 50% over time, which is probably the most important area for population reduction because affluent individuals (like all good parents) wish their children to have life’s benefits. It is not easy for an American or European couple who own one car each to expect their own two (or three) children not to own cars.

The practise of the Jay Family system offers the Third World a model as well. Often third world agricultural families are faced with the problem of sharing their limited land with two children. This means in effect that the family’s land holding will be divided into two smaller parcels. The Jay System eliminates this problem.

Naturally there are those who, having read about the Jay Family System, will say “Oh I wouldn’t like that” which is fair enough. However, of course we now face our present and imminent environmental crises from having done “what we like”.

If the coming together involves two couples who already have one child each, there is the opportunity for an initial period of acquaintance and trial - as in traditional marriages.

Many variations in behaviour and procedure are conceivable, but the essence of the Jay Family Style is one which reduces population and provides for the care and sharing of two children. Another possibility may be for a family who already has two children, to invite a couple without any children to join them. This may seem a bit more unbalanced but there are many couples who are unable to have children of their own. For them this might be a variation on adoptions. Naturally it would involve an openness and sharing on the part of the couple with children.

Implicit in the Jay Family System is concern for environment. This concern may presumably tend to overflow beyond the essence of the Jay System, and would also relate to other aspects of the behaviour beliefs and patterns of the individuals and the social unit as a whole.

And indeed in some Jay Family logistics it may be that the two couples working together could thrive with just one car rather than 2 cars if the two couples were not in a Jay Family structure. Such a result might be attractive not only ecologically but also economically.

The essence here is the extra flexibility offered by the 4 adults/2 couples co-operating. For example the sharing of a car with the back-up option of occasionally renting a car for brief periods when two cars may be needed. This is still very significantly less expensive than the owning of two cars.

Similarly in the area of housing. Co-operative arrangements may provide improved facilities and/or offer financial savings.

And then too, given modern life patterns of behaviour, some may ask about the relationships between the adults. Might it involve sexual intimacy? Needless to say this is not an inherent aspect of the Jay System at all. Any such behaviour patterns would be purely between members of the group.

In conclusion, the Jay Family Style of social system is ultimately only as good as the individuals involved make it. It does have inherent environmental benefits over time by reducing population, and it is a means whereby individuals can attempt to address one of mans’ greatest threats to all children’s likelihood of inheriting ecological mayhem and suffering, if not disaster.

Also, given the present failure of our marriage system, the Jay System may prove more stable and less hurtful. This is especially true for children if they have four adults from whom to draw love and care, especially if one member or even two adults should leave the family unit. There would be three, or at least two, adults remaining for the children’s ongoing care.

Naturally the above social breakdowns do not imply that the member who left the unit for personal reasons would be excluded from visiting the unit to maintain contact with the children. Nor does it prevent the abandoned adult from introducing a new sexual partner into the Jay Family.

With human care and love, all is possible. Let us not forget the emotional suffering created when present couples with children divorce or separate whether married or not. Then one adult generally is faced with loneliness, as well as the sole care of one or more children who have great need of social and economic support and attention. The Jay Family may offer more advantages besides helping to reduce the number of environmental concerns which today our planet Earth can no longer support.