What happened to extended families?

People used to live with their large, extended families, including multiple generations and people like cousins, etc. Economic productivity ended that by allowing people to live independently, but are there any benefits to following such a lifestyle?

I believe it would make people much more conservative and traditionalist, and focused on preserving both their families and society in a collectivist manner. Not only that, but there are also consequences beyond the socially ideological. Larger families need less space per capita to live well and can pool economic resources collectively, and with property and living expenses so high right now, this may benefit people very much.

Finally, studies show that exposure to close knit social groups such as large families is very good for peoples' mental health, and keeps them happy and connected to others and society much more than atomized individuals away from others.

With all that in mind, would society be better off returning to a more extended family lifestyle? And if so, what measures should be taken to achieve it?

T H I C C
H
I
C
C

...

>collectivist trying to collect
*yawn*
The age of the individual is here you social luddite

It's for italians and minorities

Whites should live in nuclear familities when possibe

>It's for Italians
Can confirm, I have a huge extended Italian family in Australia (I hardly know them today). There was too much drama and more jobs in America so we moved when I was a kid.

I'm also italian and the same exact thing happened with us. My crazy family

Come to think of it though, if I had been raised by them I would have probably grown up to be chad. They're all into soccer and rugby and I'm a lanky nerd.

It's the weirdest thing for me. Every few years I go back and I spend time with people who look similar to me but they're all strangers. It's nice to see my family but they don't really feel like they're my family.

meant for

now we all own multiple houses.

>What happened to extended families?
They are abolished in every rish society.
Go to turkey or any other muslim country and you still have them. They suck.

>What happened to extended families?
Child labour was outlawed and having many children stopped being advantageous.
Urban life became more common and available space became smaller, making it harder to house many people without a considerable income.
But nah, I guess it's because of "liberals" and "lefties", not because of the complete shift in lifestyle societies face when they industrialize.

What does this have to do with the question? Are you implying that only shit minority non-white groups do it and therefore it's inherently bad? I laid out some of the reasons I think it would be a good thing, for one it would allow whites living in cities to actually own homes for a large family and establish property and capital, which is pretty much impossible for anybody but the wealthiest people living in cities. If anything it would allow whites to amass greater power as a group, and blacks and mestizos/hispanics don't live with their extended families at this point anyway.
Collectivism is pretty much necessary if we want to improve and continue, we need to ensure resources are distributed well, that people are willing to sacrifice to improve the world, that technologies aren't abused by an elite few to fuck over everybody else, etc.
Why not do it though if there are definitely social and individual benefits for doing it, even if atm it isn't the social norm? Also I'd bet you that most Italians in Italy don't live with their extended families anymore, even if they did their fertility rate is like 1.38/woman so that's not even much. And most minorities in America definitely don't live with their extended families unless you consider lots of kids in a nuclear family extended.

Who the fuck would want to live with those nosy, dumb, uneducated boomers we call familly?

Capitalism, Marxist values, and industrialisation killed it. The nuclear family is the last step before the destruction of family.

You'd need an extended family where most people are sane though, and that isn't too common - at least here in jersey.

>extended families
Fuck that. I want my own self-made family, not some sloppy seconds one

>But nah, I guess it's because of "liberals" and "lefties", not because of the complete shift in lifestyle societies face when they industrialize.
I never said or implied it was because of leftism or liberalism, I wondered why it happened and asked if it could actually be beneficial to society or individuals within it.
True, although I'd be wary of assuming that's how it will always be and predicting as such, society and history tend to happen either cyclically or unpredictably, and the massive growth in capital as opposed to median wealth and wages atm may mean that it actually becomes more economical to live collectively since property prices actually may make things less affordable for most people in the near future.

humans work by emulation: they see and learn.
when you are stuck amidst a very large group[ of people for a long time (close-knit traditional families), you literally breathe the culture every day.

how you fold clothes, how you clean stuff, how you cook and serve meals, etc..

when you are completely alone you are more likely to let these things go, hence it's easier to lost a culture with nucelar families.

it really depends on what you want.
I know what I want, and its gonna be a shitload of children to teach shit to.

You didn't, I was trying to anticipate the unavoidable people who'd just blame it on their usual boogeyman

Im guessing people are gonna say muh jews, but it's pretty much just industrialisation. People move to boom towns, raise a family, their trade declines, and their kids move to the next boomtown and repeat the cycle.

It's probably something in the sauce.

Extended families are the shit. Having lots of family around helps make you less socially awkward. Family make good company sometimes. Pooling resources is how many illigal immegrant families like mine get out of poverty and provide for their kids.

Also owning property and having family capital is good. Living by yourself is good too but building a big family across generations is based IMO

I can't stand being around my family all day, I love living alone.

Lungi speaks the truth. I've seen this play out amongst the people I know

feminism killed families entirely
there is noone to stay at home to raise children
women are self important tax paying slaves the same as men
why do you think we have to import tax payers from other countries?

>illegal
OUT OUT OUT

And that's fine, I'm not advocating banning living by yourself or anything, I'm just wondering if it's a better social organizational method for society in aggregate and if it would be societally beneficial overall. Not to mention, large collective groups owning property would use less property per capita and actually decrease net property values, making it cheaper for people to live alone or in nuclear families.

also one has to bear in mind that power has always been contended among clans, and historically these clans overlapped almost always with some huge families.

italy is a perfect example (historically Medici, Borgia, Pallavicini, Sforza), but current or recent families who wielded considerable powers are easy to spot: Clintons, Bush, Bin Laden, Rotschild, etc..

hence you can see growing a big family as a way to affirm and radicate your gene pool over existing others.

and also this
the shift in the female world is an epic one.
funny thing many of them didn't even think about it while slutting around in some bars.

around 45 they would probably start thinking what that thing between their legs was for and how they could use it in a good way.