Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Is there a Codidact community fitting for this question (or one emerging)?

Parent

Is there a Codidact community fitting for this question (or one emerging)?

+2
−4

Is there any Codidact network website in the horizon to accept this question?

Perhaps with some edit or conceptual change the question would be a good fit for scientific speculation?

Daily life computerized automation as impacting the number of marriages and live births

I understand that dating is quite of a new phenomenon and it was rare to nonexistent before the 19th century; marriages were typically a way to share resources between families to ensure survival and prosperity and was most often based on matchmaking rather than on anything we would name "dating" today.

In modern era marriages define mutual residence and having children with the common and challenged view that men should bring all or most salary and women should bring little to no salary and either way, mainly do housekeeping tasks.

Is there a theory according to which computerized automation (i.e. applications and robots), applied in daily life, somewhat decrease, or actually increase, the amount of family arrangements and live births?

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

That would fall under "Sociology"... (3 comments)
I don't think the real question is about "automation". This is a classic question, examined in many p... (1 comment)
Post
+2
−0

If I understand Scientific speculation correctly, it's for extrapolating current science for some possible future developments, but in this potential question you want to get a) evidence (difficult for scientific speculation) and b) want to learn something about the current time (not some possible future). It's therefore simply a scientific question and would be ontopic on a suitable scientific site.

In particular, you are interested in human social behavior and the scientific category would be sociology but if you want to know more about impact on the ability of the human bodies to recreate, there might also be a biological/medical aspect to it.

It has nothing to do however with engineering, because the automation/usage of robots in your example question is just context.

There is currently no suitable site of Codidact for sociology, biology or medicine.

There is a biology proposal and a medical science proposal.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

2 comment threads

Scientific speculation and evidence or proof (3 comments)
Thanks, Proposals is a nice thing, but I believe that without massive creation of new Q&A websites, ... (5 comments)
Scientific speculation and evidence or proof
Canina‭ wrote about 1 year ago · edited about 1 year ago

You are right that Scientific Speculation Codidact is primarily about extrapolation from currently known science. (It was conceived as a more focused, somewhat more science-y counterpart to Stack Exchange's Worldbuilding site.) It's possible to extrapolate yet provide some kind of evidence, such as giving a current scientific basis and reasoning leading up to a conclusion, for that extrapolation and the results of that. Example: as far as I know, we don't have any evidence of non-water-based life, and generally liquid water is considered a prerequisite for life as we know it, but we can still speculate about how such lifeforms may be able to use other compounds as solvents and provide, say, a chemistry-based reasoning for why a particular suggestion is more or less likely. So while a biology community might consider such a question off topic for being too speculative, it could have a home on Scientific Speculation.

Trilarion‭ wrote about 1 year ago

Thanks for the explanation. That is more or less what I thought it would be. If current science doesn't know yet, one can speculate but one cannot simply break fundamental physical/chemical laws in order to make things works. Instead one should hint at how things could work.

Canina‭ wrote about 1 year ago · edited about 1 year ago

Trilarion‭ Pretty much. It might even be reasonable to break currently known science (and engineering) if that can be justified; the hypothetical Alcubierre drive, for example, requires matter that has negative mass, which we have no idea how to make or even if it can exist, but it's still possible to postulate the existence of such matter and say "based on the assumption that such matter can exist, here's how a FTL drive might behave". (It's also possible, of course, that the Alcubierre drive is simply a situation in which Einstein's equations break down, similar to how singularities or relativistic speeds is an example of where Newtonian equations break down. As far as I know that hasn't been settled yet, but it's still possible to postulate and then speculate, if the postulate can be justified. IIRC the Alcubierre drive hypothesis started with a physicist pretty much saying "I wonder what happens if I plug negative mass into Einstein's equations...".)