Nowadays, most individuals residing in megapolises choose to live alone or in small family units over life in extended families. I believe it is a positive development.
On the one hand, opponents argues that smaller family units undermine social structures, increasing loneliness. Humans evolved in tribes and extended families for survival and emotional security. Bigger households offer financial, physical and emotional support. Whenever a person in a large family has little issues, other members may extend a helping hand. This may be a huge advantage in times of difficulties or time limits. In that sense , living alone might reduce daily support and even sense of belonging for some people. People living in one of the megacities – New York can be an example: they feel pressure of holding everything upon themselves and alienation, especially the elderly. That is why critics consider extended families to be a better option.
However, living alone or in small families promotes personal autonomy, especially in large cities. Individuals gain control over their personal decisions, such as career, lifestyle, and finances. This, in turn, reduces unwanted interference, invasion of emotional and physical privacy and pressure from relatives. Subsequently, especially those who value personal boundaries, tend to have stronger mental health while living in smaller family units. Since young professionals can focuse on careers without constant family pressure about marriage, career or proper decisions, they live happier. As for the need of emotional support, modern cities offer alternative social networks: friends and colleagues. Thus, this type of indepence alone does not lead to isolation, oppositely it enables self-actualisation.
In conclusion, living in extended families does offer some benefits in terms of different types of support. However, I believe those who choose smaller households in huge cities get more valuable opportunities, such as privacy and independence.