I agree that there are some questions that can really be explored in science-fictional situations, but isn't it another part of social SF to simply use universal and timeless situations, or port situations from another period or setting, into a strange new environment; using the social situation to illustrate the SciFi element rather than using the SciFi element to illustrate the social situation?
Episodes of Star Trek that used a bizarre society or situation to make some point about the human condition were great in a hamfisted way, but does than mean episodes where a human situation interacts with the futuristic technology or alien setting without a deeper allegory going on can't be fulfilling material to enjoy as well?
Think of the content of this story, the scifi elements and the details of this future society
- the museum of prehistoric revenants, recreated rather than custom designed in vats. I find that an interesting change from the quite familiar concept of genetic engineering getting to a point in a future or alien setting where bioroids can be created to fit the custom designs humans come up with. The idea of using a vat-growing, bioforge type technology to recreate extinct species and study them (the bit about the academic community ramifications of the pterodactyl was humorous) is a neat one.
- the "Big Brother" aspect: a world where, perhaps only if you want to be a parent, you are limited in the number of "Lifestyle Changes" you can make, for instance. And the idea that there is a government approved list of standardized lifestyle choices to choose from, and among them is Atavist, leads one to consider what other new subcultures and societies might exist in this world.
- the "Big Brother" social situation manifesting itself as telepresent supervisors, chiming in with their advice; without you knowing for sure if they are a real person on the other end or an artificial intelligence.
- And, as Amateur Simian mentioned, one of the most interesting ideas presented in the story was that the bizarrely omnipresent and overly precise examinations of parental behavior by the overgrown social services bureaucracy was based on weighing negatives and positives, benefits versus possible consequences, rather than judging based on some doctrine of what proper parenting is. The idea that good parenting is weighing the benefits of giving in sometimes to the benefits of being stern sometimes, and trying to make the best decision for a given situation rather than set in stone a certain erroneous values judgement (strict parenting is best, permissive parenting is best, etc.); seems quite reasonable.
In fact, for my money, that's what made the social services seem so overbearing and be so overbearing in the story: it's not that a license to have kids is, in the context of a different society that wouldn't have known anything different after a while, necessarily Orwellian; it's that for the judgement to be thorough, accurate, and based on the well-being of the child rather than on some fixed doctrine that would result in a lot of poorly raised kids, the oversight would have to be bizarrely and unacceptably precise in its scrutiny. The point system makes perfect rational sense, but the fact that you have these parents going around judging their potential actions by the point system is what is insane about the world that is presented in the story.
I really enjoy, thinking about it, the fact that applying this perfectly rational and humanistic standard - there isn't just one proper way to raise children, potential courses of action should be weighed against each other in a cost-benefits analysis - is far more dehumanizing, with huge potential consequences for society, than the simple authoritarian procedure involving child-rearing in of itself.
What happens when well-intentioned people implement a very well-thought out and well-balanced system and constantly judge and adjust that system based on performance, adhering to a clear ethical and meritocratic standard; all the while losing sight of the potential side-effects this system would have for society as a whole; failing to see the forest for the trees as it were.
So, as a story about social engineering and the benefits and perhaps hidden costs, I find this story very enriching.