12 ms·

The Decline of Marriage

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
Natural selection will take care of this eventually, either genetically or memeticly. I suspect the outcome will not be as happy as what the traditions we flouted provided. The birth rate is likely the most telling critique of western society. Our revealed preference is our civilization is not worth perpetuating. As of now only those who deliberately desire children and those unable to follow the instructions on the back of contraception packaging reproduce. It will be interesting to see how this works out long term.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  As a corollary, based on population growth rates/disparities between birth rates, people are going to be very surprised how quickly Mormonism rises. They're basically the only chunk of native born Americans that have a birth rates above replacement, and it's a LOT above replacement.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    Religion has a way of self-moderating as it grows. There's already a huge movement of ex-Mormons, and it's inevitable that pockets of Mormons with a different (and more open-minded) view will form as it spreads further from the source. Think about how many variations on Christianity exist in the US. If Mormons hold to the trend of every other religion that's gotten distant from its origins, I don't mind it replacing the thousand variations on other stories about some guy having adventures in the desert.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    How familiar are you with US religious groups? Because there are a lot of US religious groups and sub-groups with high birthrates. Examples include Orthodox Jews, the most conservative slice of US Catholics, several kinds of the most fundamentalist Protestants, etc etc.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  Are you a fan of Ken Arrow? :) I've found his accomplishments in theory of choice to be invaluable when studying the marriage/partnership systems.
- ef4 9y ago
  There's a fundamental flaw hiding under arguments like yours: the "civilization" you're circumscribing is an imaginary and arbitrary boundary. An ahistorical retcon. It's as unsupported as discredited racial theories that all humans fit into three tidy buckets ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid"). For example, maybe you're talking about "Christendom". But then it's not actually in decline -- hispanics are part of Christendom, and Christianity is growing in Africa, so on net it's growing, not shrinking. Maybe you mean the population within the actual geographic boundaries of Europe and the former British colonies (including America). But if that's your definition, then you would accept immigration as a solution, and you would admit that America is already doing fine. Maybe you're talking about people who live in societies with constitutions that ultimately derive from the ideas of the enlightenment. But again, not shrinking. Maybe you're talking about a specific local cultural tradition -- but then it's not really "the West" that's in decline. "Western civilization" necessarily spans a huge range of cultures, otherwise you can't successfully take credit for everything from Socrates to Charlemagne to Descarte to Luther to Newton to Einstein. Consider the magnitude of the cultural turnover across that span! Is South America part of "Western civilization"? It's literally in the western hemisphere and colonized by Spain and Portugal. If you're really talking about having a connection to European cultural history, it clearly fits. But if we include it, then again the decline disappears. Guatemalan immigrations to the US can't be a non-western invasion. What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for "white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with "civilization". Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. That web is fundamentally global, as much as that annoys chauvinists. And globally, the world is getting richer and more equal at a rapid pace. Mortality is falling. The population is not in decline, although it has a good shot at plateauing in the coming decades, which will be a good thing.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    >Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades, and the serious prospects for massive social unrest going forward both in the States and in Europe, which often get discussed here, how in the world can you say that. "The World" (since you apparently are one of those who think the term "Western Civilization" is racist), in my judgement, is looking at the most global security risk since the lead up to WWI. There's well documented demographic shifts in Europe that could lead to a fundamental cultural re-imaging of the continent. We might be careening into another financial crisis. No, it is not "clearly doing fine."
- cmahler7 9y ago
  What's your opinion on studies showing that people with lower intelligence reproduce at much higher rates? This would seem to lead to an Idiocracy like future. Do you think something should be done to prevent this?
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    It's not pseudoscience and I suspect we'll have firm genetic proof that this has occurred. However, it is so slow it likely won't matter. Genetic engineering for increased IQ is looking like it will be easier than anticipated. Hell, even embryo selection would give us 8 points per generation. Should be possible as soon as we have about a million genomes tagged with their donor's IQ. This would make quick work of any dysgenic trend. However our civilization is so self-hating and in such denial of the biological realities around intelligence and reproduction that I suspect we'll be a generation behind Asian nations when it comes to widespread use of such technology.
    - cmahler7 9y ago
      I agree, China is already investing massively in research on intelligence and they won't be afraid to use it. Chinese culture combined with super-intelligence will be unstoppable. >such denial of the biological realities around intelligence and reproduction I've always thought it was funny how people are perfectly fine saying height is genetic but saying intelligence is genetic is unthinkable. Research shows intelligence is just as, if not more so, influenced by genetics
      - remarkEon 9y ago
        >I've always thought it was funny how people are perfectly fine saying height is genetic but saying intelligence is genetic is unthinkable. Or behavior, and then purchase a specific dog because of that breed's selected behavioral characteristics.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
rf15 9y ago
While I agree that we have a problem with population growth, the author has very traditional views on marriage and its requirements for a society/population to function - there's much more to it than that. Also thanks for calling my existence "illegitimate" in 2017.
- gervase 9y ago
  Based on the perceptual bias the author let slip, I'm surprised that graph wasn't labeled "Bastardy".
  - kijin 9y ago
    Since the blog is run by someone who uses Japanese in their name and profile, I'm considering whether I should be a little more charitable and maybe call it a result of poor translation. Most of the stuff in the article that looks like bias to Western readers, in fact, could sound perfectly reasonable to Japanese readers for whom it might have originally been written. Japanese society is incredibly conservative when it comes to family norms.
gorkonsine 9y ago
Wow, this article isn't scientific at all, in the least. >As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies. >The best environment for these children is a home with their biological mother and father. Marriage is statistically the best way to ensure these environments for children. Healthy marriages create stable families. Stable families create strong and safe communities. Strong communities create prosperous cities. Prosperous cities create successful nations. Successful nations advance humanity. Citations needed. There's no proof of any of this, it's just the social norm we've had for centuries. "We've always done it this way" isn't proof, and the way our society was before ~50 years ago was actively bad and oppressive for many members of society, particularly women who really were second-class citizens, unable to vote or hold most jobs. Personally, I think it'd be better if people joined into polyamorous groupings; it's better for kids, and provides a more stable home life than only having 2 parents. Don't ask me for citations; you'll just have to take my word for it, just as the author of this article did.
- debacle 9y ago
  > Citations needed There are studies that show that single parent homes correlate with certain social outcomes. The next dozen leaps, however, are way out there or patently false.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
    Yes, It is all confounded by the heritability of all mental traits. I suspect the offspring of single women who use sperm donors (who are screened heavily for proxies of genetic quality, such height, facial symmetry and educational attainment) are more successful then the offspring of married couples on average. I don't know if anyone has looked into it though.
    - refurb 9y ago
      I think you're putting too much emphasis in heritability rather than the impact of childhood on mental states.
wuschel 9y ago
The article is a PR piece for "Keiyaku Kekkon", a japanese marriage partner startup. I quickly read through the text - and wondered what I had learned. It does not present any interesting conclusions, or back its statements with data. Here is the exec summary of the startup's business model: "Keiyaku Kekkon is a marriage-focused dating website with a twist. The name is Japanese and literally means "Contract Marriage." Users create their ideal marriage agreement and match up with a suitable partner. Unlike typical dating sites that match people based on personality, Keiyaku Kekkon matches people based on their marriage contracts. Users can spell out exactly what they want out of marriage and exactly what they have to offer." [1] http://keiyakukekkon.com http://keiyakukekkon.com
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  >The most important fact motivating this essay is simply that the vast majority of adults want to get married and have children. This suggests that the reduction in marriage rates reflects not a conscious choice but rather people running into various obstacles preventing them from finding a partner. Thanks to the parent comment we know that this is self-serving to a certain extent since they they're selling a solution to the problem. Nevertheless, this is an interesting point to make. It's one thing if people don't want marriage and reject it as such, something else if they do want to get married and don't/can't make it happen. Do they truly want marriage in the sense of what it's traditionally meant - exclusive and permanent, but externalities mentioned in the article hinder it from happening? Or do people just want a big party when they're young and a friend when they're old, and attach "marriage" to the sentiment?
  - watwut 9y ago
    There does not seem to be any mention of big party nor being friends in later age in article. There is mention of career for women (that is not a party) and expectation of completely different lifestyle for married man and married women in the article. Men is supposed to work (in japan context means maybe Sunday afternoon off), so I don't think couple gets to know each other to be friends. The only real externalities mentioned are that 1.) You cant keep up with Jones if Jones have two incomes and you have one (It kinda assumed that if we both have to work it counts as external obstacle to marriage. E.g. the assumption seems to be that people want 1960 middle or higher class marriage and don't bother when they cant get exactly that). 2.) No one arrange "suitable" marriage for you and there is no societal pressure to marry for you. I would say, that if you need pressure to marry, then maybe you do not want to marry. I would also say, that both points are you making marriage decisions based on social status it brings to you, in which case I am quite happy you are not my partner.
bla2 9y ago
> If people are voluntarily opting out of marriage and family I'm not married, I'm in a long term committed relationship, I have kids. The article seems to think that being married and having kids is somehow the same. It's not.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  It doesn't say they're the same, just that they're correlated: > The decline of marriage correlates strongly with reduced fertility rates as well. Further, it looks at the data in aggregate so there can be lots of "but I.." comments without invalidating the data or the affecting the analysis.
- proactivesvcs 9y ago
  I'd say the article is actually inferring that marriage is what makes a family happy and stable. That and their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable to finish the article. I'm sure some of it is my strong anti-marriage bias but it reads like being bound by contract and law is what makes a relationship and a family stable.
  - OJFord 9y ago
    > their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable to finish the article That's a well established definition of the word; if you Google 'define illegitimate' you'll get: 1. not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules. 2. (of a child) born of parents not lawfully married to each other. I don't think it really does to be offended by such things, I didn't read it as coming with any judgement from the author.
ravenstine 9y ago
Nobody ever mentions birth control.
zzalpha 9y ago
If you're curious about actual data, and not just a bunch of unsupported claims, Pew has a nice little paper they published back in 2014 on this topic: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-am... To my eyes, this is purely a data driven analysis and doesn't spend a lot of time moralizing on the topic.
renegadesensei 9y ago
Cool to see I got some comments! Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm an expat programmer living in Tokyo and Keiyaku Kekkon is a side project of mine. Got the idea from watching a Japanese drama actually. I'll probably do a "Show HN" eventually. It's still in alpha and kind of buggy. Making websites isn't really my specialty so this project was a cool learning experience. It's like midnight here and I'm going to bed, but feel free to leave questions or contact me if you want to know more about anything. Peace!
- gnicholas 9y ago
  Are you targeting the Japanese market, which I understand to have one of the lowest fertility rates? Or are you going after the EU and US markets also? My sense is that the US market for this is not very mature at this point. There is only a little talk of fertility rates, and in fact there are news stories floating around [1] that tout the environmental benefits of having fewer/no children. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
  - renegadesensei 9y ago
    Yeah it is mainly a Japanese product. I just do all of the copy in English first since that's my first language. Really the service can be used by anyone seeking a marriage partner. From my research I think Japan and east Asia in general is the bigger opportunity.
roundupReady 9y ago
This is rather misleading. What you are seeing is not so much the decline of marriage but rather the success of anti-gentile policies implemented by Israel designed to control non-Jewish populations. The Jews want small ethnic groups filled with willing sex slaves. The Jews want to break up marriage so that the non-Jewish populations are filled with sexually available single people. The Jews want to turn the world into a fucking zoo. Literally. A fucking zoo.
pyrrhotech 9y ago
Monogamy isn't dead as the author seems to imply by the falling marriage rates. Many people I know are not married but are in 10+ year long-term monogamous relationships (myself included). We don't ever plan to get married because I don't like the government telling me what to do and how our assets must be split in the case we decide to break up (though we never plan to). We also are vehemently anti-religious and would never support an institution like marriage for that reason either. I personally don't want to have children because my life is fulfilling as it is and I don't want extra distractions when there is no void to fill, but I think this notion of "illegitimacy" is very outdated and should be retired. I think a lot of the long term economic and population concerns will be solved by workplace automation and biotechnology revolutions in human lifespan respectively, so they are largely overblown. I also don't think a future child-raising industry where children are raised together in government sponsored and supervised systems would be as dystopian as depicted in Brave New World.
- pavel_lishin 9y ago
  > We don't ever plan to get married because I don't like the government telling me what to do What about the government telling other people what to do about your relationship? If one of you were seriously hurt, would the hospital accept the other's instructions as a medical or legal proxy, etc?
  - abfan1127 9y ago
    I have power of attorney over my dad, in the event a decisions needs to be made.
    - paulryanrogers 9y ago
      Did you mean to say "over to"? If so then what happens when your father is gone?
- schwap 9y ago
  > We also are vehemently anti-religious and would never support an institution like marriage for that reason either. Just curious, do civil unions not exist where you are? I kind of assumed in my mind they were a pretty normal thing at this point.
losvedir 9y ago
Like I imagine many HN readers, I had a visceral negative reaction to a lot of this post, since it directly attacks a lot of the new cultural norms I grew up in (and cherish). On the other hand, it does seem to raise some interesting points, so I hope it doesn't get flagged. Our new culture is relatively untested; a lot of our ideas about sex and relationships and children are only a couple generations old. I'm happily married with no children (maybe some to come in the future? Not sure). In this thread I've seen people propose polyamorous communes, and long term life partnerships with children but not marriage. These things may work out, but there's not much of a historical precedent for them, as far as I know. I recently came back from a trip to Oman. I talked with a ton of people there, and their cultural perspective was very different (and interesting!). While a lot of the younger adults were wanting to get married and have children a little later, there was still a pretty sizeable contingent of the population my age that already had several children. And it was clear that Islam there was such a community-driving force, I could see how their traditions were pretty robust. All this to say, I have my doubts that my concept of "prosperous, liberal, Western civilization" will live on for the long term. But if the people are fairly content and happy as it fades, is that such an issue? I'm not sure. My biggest regret if it dies is that we may never figure out all the secrets of the universe. But alas, thinking of all my highly educated PhD scientist friends in their 30s, there's only one child. edit to add: I completely forgot to mention probably the most culturally interesting part (to me) of the Oman trip: it was for a wedding of a friend, but it was a mostly arranged marriage (the bride and groom had veto power, but their parents found the match and they only knew each other for a short while before deciding to marry).
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  >But if the people are fairly content and happy as it fades, is that such an issue. Yes, this is a horrible outcome. We must admit that we have something here that is worth preserving. If we continue to fail in this we are in a very sorry state indeed.
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    People have been brainwashed to hate their own culture, demorilization is the first step of ideological subversion. Western Civilization might not be perfect but there's nothing else in human history that has come close to it. Everybody should watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
dr_ 9y ago
"As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies." This may be true historically, but does it have to be that way going forward? My thoughts, not based on studies but based on people I know, is that the general interest in marriage has declined as there is a preference for greater autonomy amongst both men and women, not to mention economic independence. Marriage was born out of economic need, and was given a religious stamp of approval. If the same economic need isn't there, and developed countries are becoming more secular in their beliefs, it would seem only natural that marriage rates would decline. But that doesn't mean people don't want children, or can't have children. With the introduction of ivf, and both egg and sperm donors -known or unknown- its possible for the birth rate to be maintained. It may sound bizarre now just as putting ones profile up online in search of a mate was at one time, but it could be become the new norm. Search for gametes the same way you searched for a partner at one time. As far as the maladies of single parenthood go, much of that may be attributed to the education levels of the single parent and/or their poor economic circumstances. It doesn't have to be that way though. Of our last 4 US Presidents, 2 pretty much grew up without having a reliable father around for most of their life. They seemed to both have had pretty smart moms.
- cmahler7 9y ago
  Your method would destroy society. Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits, leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. I'm agnostic but I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. People are different colors, genders, etc but religion can be used to bind it together.
  - washadjeffmad 9y ago
    You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. You and all other humans exist because of what you say you believe would "destroy society". Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. There are existing kinship models where the "husband" is the father of all of his wives' children, even if he's 80 years old and has ED. Native American courtship rituals placed women in control of their relationships with multiple partners. There's more than one way, and humans have done them all for millennia. The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. Just because you don't think you or the other products of your society could handle it doesn't mean an entire species is de facto incapable.

Natural selection will take care of this eventually, either genetically or memeticly. I suspect the outcome will not be as happy as what the traditions we flouted provided. The birth rate is likely the most telling critique of western society. Our revealed preference is our civilization is not worth perpetuating. As of now only those who deliberately desire children and those unable to follow the instructions on the back of contraception packaging reproduce. It will be interesting to see how this works out long term.

JBReefer 9y ago
As a corollary, based on population growth rates/disparities between birth rates, people are going to be very surprised how quickly Mormonism rises. They're basically the only chunk of native born Americans that have a birth rates above replacement, and it's a LOT above replacement.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Religion has a way of self-moderating as it grows. There's already a huge movement of ex-Mormons, and it's inevitable that pockets of Mormons with a different (and more open-minded) view will form as it spreads further from the source. Think about how many variations on Christianity exist in the US. If Mormons hold to the trend of every other religion that's gotten distant from its origins, I don't mind it replacing the thousand variations on other stories about some guy having adventures in the desert.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  How familiar are you with US religious groups? Because there are a lot of US religious groups and sub-groups with high birthrates. Examples include Orthodox Jews, the most conservative slice of US Catholics, several kinds of the most fundamentalist Protestants, etc etc.
antisthenes 9y ago
Are you a fan of Ken Arrow? :) I've found his accomplishments in theory of choice to be invaluable when studying the marriage/partnership systems.
ef4 9y ago
There's a fundamental flaw hiding under arguments like yours: the "civilization" you're circumscribing is an imaginary and arbitrary boundary. An ahistorical retcon. It's as unsupported as discredited racial theories that all humans fit into three tidy buckets ("caucasoid", "mongoloid", "negroid"). For example, maybe you're talking about "Christendom". But then it's not actually in decline -- hispanics are part of Christendom, and Christianity is growing in Africa, so on net it's growing, not shrinking. Maybe you mean the population within the actual geographic boundaries of Europe and the former British colonies (including America). But if that's your definition, then you would accept immigration as a solution, and you would admit that America is already doing fine. Maybe you're talking about people who live in societies with constitutions that ultimately derive from the ideas of the enlightenment. But again, not shrinking. Maybe you're talking about a specific local cultural tradition -- but then it's not really "the West" that's in decline. "Western civilization" necessarily spans a huge range of cultures, otherwise you can't successfully take credit for everything from Socrates to Charlemagne to Descarte to Luther to Newton to Einstein. Consider the magnitude of the cultural turnover across that span! Is South America part of "Western civilization"? It's literally in the western hemisphere and colonized by Spain and Portugal. If you're really talking about having a connection to European cultural history, it clearly fits. But if we include it, then again the decline disappears. Guatemalan immigrations to the US can't be a non-western invasion. What it boils down to is, people use "western civilization" as a cover for "white people just like me". But there's no non-racist way to equate that with "civilization". Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. That web is fundamentally global, as much as that annoys chauvinists. And globally, the world is getting richer and more equal at a rapid pace. Mortality is falling. The population is not in decline, although it has a good shot at plateauing in the coming decades, which will be a good thing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- remarkEon 9y ago
  >Our civilization -- the actual web of relationships and institutions that keep the lights on -- is clearly doing fine. Given even a passing look at just the last 2 decades, and the serious prospects for massive social unrest going forward both in the States and in Europe, which often get discussed here, how in the world can you say that. "The World" (since you apparently are one of those who think the term "Western Civilization" is racist), in my judgement, is looking at the most global security risk since the lead up to WWI. There's well documented demographic shifts in Europe that could lead to a fundamental cultural re-imaging of the continent. We might be careening into another financial crisis. No, it is not "clearly doing fine."
cmahler7 9y ago
What's your opinion on studies showing that people with lower intelligence reproduce at much higher rates? This would seem to lead to an Idiocracy like future. Do you think something should be done to prevent this?
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  It's not pseudoscience and I suspect we'll have firm genetic proof that this has occurred. However, it is so slow it likely won't matter. Genetic engineering for increased IQ is looking like it will be easier than anticipated. Hell, even embryo selection would give us 8 points per generation. Should be possible as soon as we have about a million genomes tagged with their donor's IQ. This would make quick work of any dysgenic trend. However our civilization is so self-hating and in such denial of the biological realities around intelligence and reproduction that I suspect we'll be a generation behind Asian nations when it comes to widespread use of such technology.
  - cmahler7 9y ago
    I agree, China is already investing massively in research on intelligence and they won't be afraid to use it. Chinese culture combined with super-intelligence will be unstoppable. >such denial of the biological realities around intelligence and reproduction I've always thought it was funny how people are perfectly fine saying height is genetic but saying intelligence is genetic is unthinkable. Research shows intelligence is just as, if not more so, influenced by genetics
    - remarkEon 9y ago
      >I've always thought it was funny how people are perfectly fine saying height is genetic but saying intelligence is genetic is unthinkable. Or behavior, and then purchase a specific dog because of that breed's selected behavioral characteristics.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

rf15 9y ago

While I agree that we have a problem with population growth, the author has very traditional views on marriage and its requirements for a society/population to function - there's much more to it than that. Also thanks for calling my existence "illegitimate" in 2017.

gervase 9y ago
Based on the perceptual bias the author let slip, I'm surprised that graph wasn't labeled "Bastardy".
- kijin 9y ago
  Since the blog is run by someone who uses Japanese in their name and profile, I'm considering whether I should be a little more charitable and maybe call it a result of poor translation. Most of the stuff in the article that looks like bias to Western readers, in fact, could sound perfectly reasonable to Japanese readers for whom it might have originally been written. Japanese society is incredibly conservative when it comes to family norms.

gorkonsine 9y ago

Wow, this article isn't scientific at all, in the least. >As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies. >The best environment for these children is a home with their biological mother and father. Marriage is statistically the best way to ensure these environments for children. Healthy marriages create stable families. Stable families create strong and safe communities. Strong communities create prosperous cities. Prosperous cities create successful nations. Successful nations advance humanity. Citations needed. There's no proof of any of this, it's just the social norm we've had for centuries. "We've always done it this way" isn't proof, and the way our society was before ~50 years ago was actively bad and oppressive for many members of society, particularly women who really were second-class citizens, unable to vote or hold most jobs. Personally, I think it'd be better if people joined into polyamorous groupings; it's better for kids, and provides a more stable home life than only having 2 parents. Don't ask me for citations; you'll just have to take my word for it, just as the author of this article did.

debacle 9y ago
> Citations needed There are studies that show that single parent homes correlate with certain social outcomes. The next dozen leaps, however, are way out there or patently false.
- Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
  Yes, It is all confounded by the heritability of all mental traits. I suspect the offspring of single women who use sperm donors (who are screened heavily for proxies of genetic quality, such height, facial symmetry and educational attainment) are more successful then the offspring of married couples on average. I don't know if anyone has looked into it though.
  - refurb 9y ago
    I think you're putting too much emphasis in heritability rather than the impact of childhood on mental states.

wuschel 9y ago

The article is a PR piece for "Keiyaku Kekkon", a japanese marriage partner startup. I quickly read through the text - and wondered what I had learned. It does not present any interesting conclusions, or back its statements with data. Here is the exec summary of the startup's business model: "Keiyaku Kekkon is a marriage-focused dating website with a twist. The name is Japanese and literally means "Contract Marriage." Users create their ideal marriage agreement and match up with a suitable partner. Unlike typical dating sites that match people based on personality, Keiyaku Kekkon matches people based on their marriage contracts. Users can spell out exactly what they want out of marriage and exactly what they have to offer." [1] http://keiyakukekkon.com http://keiyakukekkon.com

Brendinooo 9y ago
>The most important fact motivating this essay is simply that the vast majority of adults want to get married and have children. This suggests that the reduction in marriage rates reflects not a conscious choice but rather people running into various obstacles preventing them from finding a partner. Thanks to the parent comment we know that this is self-serving to a certain extent since they they're selling a solution to the problem. Nevertheless, this is an interesting point to make. It's one thing if people don't want marriage and reject it as such, something else if they do want to get married and don't/can't make it happen. Do they truly want marriage in the sense of what it's traditionally meant - exclusive and permanent, but externalities mentioned in the article hinder it from happening? Or do people just want a big party when they're young and a friend when they're old, and attach "marriage" to the sentiment?
- watwut 9y ago
  There does not seem to be any mention of big party nor being friends in later age in article. There is mention of career for women (that is not a party) and expectation of completely different lifestyle for married man and married women in the article. Men is supposed to work (in japan context means maybe Sunday afternoon off), so I don't think couple gets to know each other to be friends. The only real externalities mentioned are that 1.) You cant keep up with Jones if Jones have two incomes and you have one (It kinda assumed that if we both have to work it counts as external obstacle to marriage. E.g. the assumption seems to be that people want 1960 middle or higher class marriage and don't bother when they cant get exactly that). 2.) No one arrange "suitable" marriage for you and there is no societal pressure to marry for you. I would say, that if you need pressure to marry, then maybe you do not want to marry. I would also say, that both points are you making marriage decisions based on social status it brings to you, in which case I am quite happy you are not my partner.

bla2 9y ago

> If people are voluntarily opting out of marriage and family I'm not married, I'm in a long term committed relationship, I have kids. The article seems to think that being married and having kids is somehow the same. It's not.

caseysoftware 9y ago
It doesn't say they're the same, just that they're correlated: > The decline of marriage correlates strongly with reduced fertility rates as well. Further, it looks at the data in aggregate so there can be lots of "but I.." comments without invalidating the data or the affecting the analysis.
proactivesvcs 9y ago
I'd say the article is actually inferring that marriage is what makes a family happy and stable. That and their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable to finish the article. I'm sure some of it is my strong anti-marriage bias but it reads like being bound by contract and law is what makes a relationship and a family stable.
- OJFord 9y ago
  > their use of the term "illegitimate" left me unable to finish the article That's a well established definition of the word; if you Google 'define illegitimate' you'll get: 1. not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules. 2. (of a child) born of parents not lawfully married to each other. I don't think it really does to be offended by such things, I didn't read it as coming with any judgement from the author.

ravenstine 9y ago

Nobody ever mentions birth control.

zzalpha 9y ago

If you're curious about actual data, and not just a bunch of unsupported claims, Pew has a nice little paper they published back in 2014 on this topic: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-am... To my eyes, this is purely a data driven analysis and doesn't spend a lot of time moralizing on the topic.

renegadesensei 9y ago

Cool to see I got some comments! Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm an expat programmer living in Tokyo and Keiyaku Kekkon is a side project of mine. Got the idea from watching a Japanese drama actually. I'll probably do a "Show HN" eventually. It's still in alpha and kind of buggy. Making websites isn't really my specialty so this project was a cool learning experience. It's like midnight here and I'm going to bed, but feel free to leave questions or contact me if you want to know more about anything. Peace!

gnicholas 9y ago
Are you targeting the Japanese market, which I understand to have one of the lowest fertility rates? Or are you going after the EU and US markets also? My sense is that the US market for this is not very mature at this point. There is only a little talk of fertility rates, and in fact there are news stories floating around [1] that tout the environmental benefits of having fewer/no children. 1: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-...
- renegadesensei 9y ago
  Yeah it is mainly a Japanese product. I just do all of the copy in English first since that's my first language. Really the service can be used by anyone seeking a marriage partner. From my research I think Japan and east Asia in general is the bigger opportunity.

roundupReady 9y ago

This is rather misleading. What you are seeing is not so much the decline of marriage but rather the success of anti-gentile policies implemented by Israel designed to control non-Jewish populations. The Jews want small ethnic groups filled with willing sex slaves. The Jews want to break up marriage so that the non-Jewish populations are filled with sexually available single people. The Jews want to turn the world into a fucking zoo. Literally. A fucking zoo.

pyrrhotech 9y ago

Monogamy isn't dead as the author seems to imply by the falling marriage rates. Many people I know are not married but are in 10+ year long-term monogamous relationships (myself included). We don't ever plan to get married because I don't like the government telling me what to do and how our assets must be split in the case we decide to break up (though we never plan to). We also are vehemently anti-religious and would never support an institution like marriage for that reason either. I personally don't want to have children because my life is fulfilling as it is and I don't want extra distractions when there is no void to fill, but I think this notion of "illegitimacy" is very outdated and should be retired. I think a lot of the long term economic and population concerns will be solved by workplace automation and biotechnology revolutions in human lifespan respectively, so they are largely overblown. I also don't think a future child-raising industry where children are raised together in government sponsored and supervised systems would be as dystopian as depicted in Brave New World.

pavel_lishin 9y ago
> We don't ever plan to get married because I don't like the government telling me what to do What about the government telling other people what to do about your relationship? If one of you were seriously hurt, would the hospital accept the other's instructions as a medical or legal proxy, etc?
- abfan1127 9y ago
  I have power of attorney over my dad, in the event a decisions needs to be made.
  - paulryanrogers 9y ago
    Did you mean to say "over to"? If so then what happens when your father is gone?
schwap 9y ago
> We also are vehemently anti-religious and would never support an institution like marriage for that reason either. Just curious, do civil unions not exist where you are? I kind of assumed in my mind they were a pretty normal thing at this point.

losvedir 9y ago

Like I imagine many HN readers, I had a visceral negative reaction to a lot of this post, since it directly attacks a lot of the new cultural norms I grew up in (and cherish). On the other hand, it does seem to raise some interesting points, so I hope it doesn't get flagged. Our new culture is relatively untested; a lot of our ideas about sex and relationships and children are only a couple generations old. I'm happily married with no children (maybe some to come in the future? Not sure). In this thread I've seen people propose polyamorous communes, and long term life partnerships with children but not marriage. These things may work out, but there's not much of a historical precedent for them, as far as I know. I recently came back from a trip to Oman. I talked with a ton of people there, and their cultural perspective was very different (and interesting!). While a lot of the younger adults were wanting to get married and have children a little later, there was still a pretty sizeable contingent of the population my age that already had several children. And it was clear that Islam there was such a community-driving force, I could see how their traditions were pretty robust. All this to say, I have my doubts that my concept of "prosperous, liberal, Western civilization" will live on for the long term. But if the people are fairly content and happy as it fades, is that such an issue? I'm not sure. My biggest regret if it dies is that we may never figure out all the secrets of the universe. But alas, thinking of all my highly educated PhD scientist friends in their 30s, there's only one child. edit to add: I completely forgot to mention probably the most culturally interesting part (to me) of the Oman trip: it was for a wedding of a friend, but it was a mostly arranged marriage (the bride and groom had veto power, but their parents found the match and they only knew each other for a short while before deciding to marry).

Moshe_Silnorin 9y ago
>But if the people are fairly content and happy as it fades, is that such an issue. Yes, this is a horrible outcome. We must admit that we have something here that is worth preserving. If we continue to fail in this we are in a very sorry state indeed.
- cmahler7 9y ago
  People have been brainwashed to hate their own culture, demorilization is the first step of ideological subversion. Western Civilization might not be perfect but there's nothing else in human history that has come close to it. Everybody should watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

dr_ 9y ago

"As mentioned in the previous essay, single parenthood correlates with a number of social maladies." This may be true historically, but does it have to be that way going forward? My thoughts, not based on studies but based on people I know, is that the general interest in marriage has declined as there is a preference for greater autonomy amongst both men and women, not to mention economic independence. Marriage was born out of economic need, and was given a religious stamp of approval. If the same economic need isn't there, and developed countries are becoming more secular in their beliefs, it would seem only natural that marriage rates would decline. But that doesn't mean people don't want children, or can't have children. With the introduction of ivf, and both egg and sperm donors -known or unknown- its possible for the birth rate to be maintained. It may sound bizarre now just as putting ones profile up online in search of a mate was at one time, but it could be become the new norm. Search for gametes the same way you searched for a partner at one time. As far as the maladies of single parenthood go, much of that may be attributed to the education levels of the single parent and/or their poor economic circumstances. It doesn't have to be that way though. Of our last 4 US Presidents, 2 pretty much grew up without having a reliable father around for most of their life. They seemed to both have had pretty smart moms.

cmahler7 9y ago
Your method would destroy society. Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits, leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. I'm agnostic but I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. People are different colors, genders, etc but religion can be used to bind it together.
- washadjeffmad 9y ago
  You're conflating your personal experience with modern courtship and kinship rituals in a particular society with some sort of universality of human nature. That's a nice way of saying you're wrong. You and all other humans exist because of what you say you believe would "destroy society". Sex wasn't even associated with pregnancy, let alone progeny until fairly recent history. There are existing kinship models where the "husband" is the father of all of his wives' children, even if he's 80 years old and has ED. Native American courtship rituals placed women in control of their relationships with multiple partners. There's more than one way, and humans have done them all for millennia. The fact that US vernacular doesn't have common terms to distinguish between the people who raise you (your parents) and the people whose genes you posses (your genitor/genetrix) speaks volumes about it's dimness in the face of modern understanding. Just because you don't think you or the other products of your society could handle it doesn't mean an entire species is de facto incapable.