Controversial hot topics for the next generation.

Obviously this is not the norm yet, or there wouldn't be an issue at all. But some places in Japan and Europe already have more single-adult households than two-adult ones, and the trend is growing elsewhere, too. In a world where it doesn't take the skills and time of two people to maintain a household, all too many people consider committed partnership to be a burden. Is that good? For whom? I don't know, although its being tied to a rapidly dropping birth rate in Japan is somewhat worrying.

At least in Japan, gender equality and social stigmas play a large role in encouraging this trend. I'm not sure the same incentives for single women to remain unmarried exist elsewhere (to the same extent), but I'll certainly concede that it's very possible.

Yes, and no. More people involved in your life is nice (if they are nice people, anyway). But more people with legal rights and obligations to you? Not necessarily nice. As it is, with two legal parents, sometimes the courts have a hard time deciding what is in the best interest of the child, when the two parents want different things for him or her. Can you imagine what would happen if 4 legal parents, each pulling their own way, went to court?

I hadn't even considered that. It's certainly a terrible prospect. Add to it the declining birth rates and you may have a single child (or other small number) responsible for a large number aging, retired adults. It may make the baby boomer generation problem look minor by comparison if the social security system even lasts that long.

Example of an issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_J...telligence
Now, obviously there are very stupid Jews, and there are non-Jewish geniuses. The variance is very high in all humans. But, do Jews on average have a higher intelligence? (Just as men, on average, are taller than women, even though the variance within each gender is much higher than the difference between genders). And if they do, is it of genetic origin?
Neither the original paper nor its rebuttals have done any actual studies of cross-adoption in order to try to verify or rule out a genetic component. Could any institution today fund such a study without being accused of racism? I doubt it.

My point wasn't that it couldn't be true, scientifically it may. My point was that it would be pointlessly difficult to study. There are far too many variables for an population data to produce meaningful results and you'll never get people to consent to experimental breeding. It's mildly possible for this to be proven genetically, but subsequent gene manipulation a la Gattaca would make it a moot point.

I'm aware of that. But already today, with very limited AI's, we have people in love with "virtual girlfriends", and we have people treating their iPhone's Siri (and similar tools) as a human assistant - for good and bad. Is there anything wrong with that? Some think so, some don't. The ancient, "go outside and play with real kids instead of watching TV all day" now takes the form of "go outside and play with real friends rather than online ones" and will turn into "go online and play with real kids rather than virtual ones", but the next generation will not listen. What will that do to human society? Remains to be seen.

Again, you're mixing a social issue with a scientific one. No one would classify the "virtual girlfriends" as AI or in any way sentient. It's the digital equivalent to an imaginary friend or talking barbie. The sentiment can be very real, but it's completely off base. Unless you're predicting future romantic relationships with AIs? I'd say that's a given although we have no idea how an AI might react to such affection... Sex bots are certainly coming, but I'd say any emotional attachment would result from personification rather than actual intelligence.

We'll certainly see a change "real" vs virtual societal norms. I fully expect the term "irl" will become obsolete shortly. The friends made while online are every bit as "real" as the ones met in the physical realm (possible excepting predatory scammers). With the meteoric rise in both casual gaming (mobile social media platforms ) and the MASSIVE popularity of games like LoL, the sheer number of "gamers" will force the transition. I can only see this exacerbating the current obesity problem in the US and other countries.

[MENTION=6442]Luxeraph[/MENTION]; A very interesting point. In some respect, I can actually see it being a great social equalizer. But it blatantly defies millennia of Darwinian instincts to protect your genetic offspring. I can't really picture the human race voluntarily giving up close ties to it's offspring in any kind of majority.