8 ms·

The author was talking about romantic love. And indeed, they are right. Love is biological bribery. Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emot

The author was talking about romantic love. And indeed, they are right. Love is biological bribery. Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. (Or emotions caused by chemistry) that waxes and wanes and goes away over time. And the main reason for it is the perpetuation of the species by a mechanism that is outside of our consciousness and reason. When love is gone, what is generally left is (sometimes hopefully) a caring, appreciation, and high regard for the object of "love". And this is exactly why modern divorce rates are so high. Because marriages were always meant to be a coming together for reasons of survival, children, sharing of responsibilities and a series of common missions. Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be "love". So when the love inevitably wanes -- as it naturally does, if the couple has nothing else left (children, shared goals, common missions), why stay together? And yes, some people might say they have been in love for decades. Which is great! But it rarely happens. Generally love waxes and wanes. Rises and falls. Comes and goes. And those same couples that have been in love for decades will tell you all of the downswings and upswings over the years. I wish more people knew and understood this. A lot of heartache could be saved. Then again, the world would not be so interesting. Sigh.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I’m not sure to get your point on marriage. If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ? Seems to me it’s necessity has just waned over time, being single has become a lot more viable in our societies and the system is pretty much working as it’s supposed to.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ? You aren't reading what GP has written so maybe you'll read it if I quote it without the context. GP wrote: "Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be 'love'.". So the answer to your question would be, it isn't. The institution of marriage isn't ruined, in GPs view, by the act of divorce when love is gone and there are no other reasons to say together but when entering in to marriage when no other reason besides love exists.
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    Sorry, it still makes no sense to me, but perhaps I’m just missing a viewpoint. Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. If it wasn’t for that, half of the people wouldn’t be marrying I think, and as an institution it would be in a way worse shape. Perhaps GP isn’t embracing divorcing as a sane rational decision, and that would be the “ruined” part, on which we would diverge.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      > Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. This is just the difference of opinion OP is making; they see marriage as having the functional purpose of dedicating one's life to the other person, sharing responsibilities and goals with them (and taxes), ie. the development of platonic love; this is required if the couple doesn't want to divorce when/if that eros / romantic love dies out. In reality, nobody likes going through a divorce, so if they do marry without being ready to commit to shared goals like this, they're hoping that eros love never dies out, which I bet doesn't happen often.
- twoxproblematic 5y ago
onion2k 5y ago
when the love inevitably wanes You only need to look at the way some old people act around their spouse to see that there is nothing inevitable about that.
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  GP already addressed that: > Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. (Or emotions caused by chemistry) that waxes and wanes and goes away over time. > And yes, some people might say they have been in love for decades. Which is great! But it rarely happens. Generally love waxes and wanes. Rises and falls. Comes and goes. And those same couples that have been in love for decades will tell you all of the downswings and upswings over the years.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    I don't think saying "Love wanes except when it doesn't" addresses anything.
    - Kbelicius 5y ago
      No, what is being said is that love waxes and wanes. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the idiom and thus are having problems understanding what is written.
      - onion2k 5y ago
        No, what is being said is that love waxes and wanes. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the idiom and thus are having problems understanding what is written. I understand what someone means when they say something wanes. They means it wanes; it fades over time. If they meant to say it both waxes and wanes they'd have said that instead.
        Kbelicius 5y ago
        They did say it waxes and wanes.... I even quoted it to you, so that would be 2 times that you didn't read it. In fact, GP used it twice, so it would be 4 times.
dinkleberg 5y ago
I don’t get this attitude though, not just love, but everything about us is chemistry. At the end of the day we are biological machinery.
- frockington1 5y ago
  I agree, at some point drilling down lower on a biological scale provides no additional value. "Love is nothing but atomic particles interacting" is the logical next step that is just as useless to state
  - tonis2 5y ago
    Love is just bunch of quantum strings entangled.
  - mattgreenrocks 5y ago
    I suspect some people need to believe in a sort of biological determinism, where there was never a concept of will, just chemicals preordaining everything. It’s all so strangely religious-sounding. :)
    - oldsecondhand 5y ago
      Both free will and predetermination are core concepts in Christianity and one of the fundamental differences between protestantism and Catholicism.
papito 5y ago
It is almost upsetting how much humans are hostages to our hormones. One of the most interesting This American Life episodes was about what happens when you are too high or too low on testosterone, for example. It changes your entire personality. This is why I don't think the Black Mirror promise of "uploading" your brain is that simple. Without hormones, you will be a husk of your former self.
- troyvit 5y ago
  Yeah and I think that would make another, more excellent Black Mirror. It also doesn't take into account the possible affect of bacteria and other organisms that help shape (granted I can't find a source for that right now that isn't pop science so maybe take it with a grain of salt).
  - papito 5y ago
    It's reasonable to assume that even gut bacteria affects your personality, or chronic pain, or anything really that makes you feel.
52-6F-62 5y ago
> Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. When did that happen? As I understand it we've got to the point of understanding some of the chemical signals our bodies use to reflect the idea we called love, and that's about as far as it is reasonable to take that notion. Taking it further is unscientific. We don't even remotely understand our own bodies' signalling processes so I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that love is solved.
- troyvit 5y ago
  Yeah. If it had been solved it also would have been bottled and on the shelf at Walmart.
Zigurd 5y ago
You position re marriage is curious and seems backwards. You seem to value marriage over the goals and needs of the participants. Modern conventional marriage and the often unrealistic expectations of marriage for life are what's wrong with marriage. Humans made marriage that way. Humans can decide to make it different.
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
IMO love is the thing that remains after you stop being blinded by lust, novelty, etc. Love is quite boring, hardly the most stimulating thing in a relationship, almost the dullest thing because it’s the force that keeps you together through the pits. The feeling of emotional security, someone to care for / be cared for by. The reason it takes a longer time to fall in love than wanting to bang is because you need the previous qualities to appear, peak and then wither to notice it. Old people aren’t all going at it like knives, familial love is pretty mundane, even the love people have for pets is not very exciting. But that is the essence, the ecstasy of divine tedium.
twoxproblematic 5y ago
It's a natural result of society consuming ** propaganda nonstop for entertainment. We learn all the wrong lessons even though they feel sweet and and have good face value.

makeitdouble 5y ago

I’m not sure to get your point on marriage. If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ? Seems to me it’s necessity has just waned over time, being single has become a lot more viable in our societies and the system is pretty much working as it’s supposed to.

Kbelicius 5y ago
> If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ? You aren't reading what GP has written so maybe you'll read it if I quote it without the context. GP wrote: "Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be 'love'.". So the answer to your question would be, it isn't. The institution of marriage isn't ruined, in GPs view, by the act of divorce when love is gone and there are no other reasons to say together but when entering in to marriage when no other reason besides love exists.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  Sorry, it still makes no sense to me, but perhaps I’m just missing a viewpoint. Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. If it wasn’t for that, half of the people wouldn’t be marrying I think, and as an institution it would be in a way worse shape. Perhaps GP isn’t embracing divorcing as a sane rational decision, and that would be the “ruined” part, on which we would diverge.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    > Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. This is just the difference of opinion OP is making; they see marriage as having the functional purpose of dedicating one's life to the other person, sharing responsibilities and goals with them (and taxes), ie. the development of platonic love; this is required if the couple doesn't want to divorce when/if that eros / romantic love dies out. In reality, nobody likes going through a divorce, so if they do marry without being ready to commit to shared goals like this, they're hoping that eros love never dies out, which I bet doesn't happen often.
twoxproblematic 5y ago

onion2k 5y ago

when the love inevitably wanes You only need to look at the way some old people act around their spouse to see that there is nothing inevitable about that.

Kbelicius 5y ago
GP already addressed that: > Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. (Or emotions caused by chemistry) that waxes and wanes and goes away over time. > And yes, some people might say they have been in love for decades. Which is great! But it rarely happens. Generally love waxes and wanes. Rises and falls. Comes and goes. And those same couples that have been in love for decades will tell you all of the downswings and upswings over the years.
- onion2k 5y ago
  I don't think saying "Love wanes except when it doesn't" addresses anything.
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    No, what is being said is that love waxes and wanes. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the idiom and thus are having problems understanding what is written.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      No, what is being said is that love waxes and wanes. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the idiom and thus are having problems understanding what is written. I understand what someone means when they say something wanes. They means it wanes; it fades over time. If they meant to say it both waxes and wanes they'd have said that instead.
      - Kbelicius 5y ago
        They did say it waxes and wanes.... I even quoted it to you, so that would be 2 times that you didn't read it. In fact, GP used it twice, so it would be 4 times.

dinkleberg 5y ago

I don’t get this attitude though, not just love, but everything about us is chemistry. At the end of the day we are biological machinery.

frockington1 5y ago
I agree, at some point drilling down lower on a biological scale provides no additional value. "Love is nothing but atomic particles interacting" is the logical next step that is just as useless to state
- tonis2 5y ago
  Love is just bunch of quantum strings entangled.
- mattgreenrocks 5y ago
  I suspect some people need to believe in a sort of biological determinism, where there was never a concept of will, just chemicals preordaining everything. It’s all so strangely religious-sounding. :)
  - oldsecondhand 5y ago
    Both free will and predetermination are core concepts in Christianity and one of the fundamental differences between protestantism and Catholicism.

papito 5y ago

It is almost upsetting how much humans are hostages to our hormones. One of the most interesting This American Life episodes was about what happens when you are too high or too low on testosterone, for example. It changes your entire personality. This is why I don't think the Black Mirror promise of "uploading" your brain is that simple. Without hormones, you will be a husk of your former self.

troyvit 5y ago
Yeah and I think that would make another, more excellent Black Mirror. It also doesn't take into account the possible affect of bacteria and other organisms that help shape (granted I can't find a source for that right now that isn't pop science so maybe take it with a grain of salt).
- papito 5y ago
  It's reasonable to assume that even gut bacteria affects your personality, or chronic pain, or anything really that makes you feel.

52-6F-62 5y ago

> Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. When did that happen? As I understand it we've got to the point of understanding some of the chemical signals our bodies use to reflect the idea we called love, and that's about as far as it is reasonable to take that notion. Taking it further is unscientific. We don't even remotely understand our own bodies' signalling processes so I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that love is solved.

troyvit 5y ago
Yeah. If it had been solved it also would have been bottled and on the shelf at Walmart.

Zigurd 5y ago

You position re marriage is curious and seems backwards. You seem to value marriage over the goals and needs of the participants. Modern conventional marriage and the often unrealistic expectations of marriage for life are what's wrong with marriage. Humans made marriage that way. Humans can decide to make it different.

gunfighthacksaw 5y ago

IMO love is the thing that remains after you stop being blinded by lust, novelty, etc. Love is quite boring, hardly the most stimulating thing in a relationship, almost the dullest thing because it’s the force that keeps you together through the pits. The feeling of emotional security, someone to care for / be cared for by. The reason it takes a longer time to fall in love than wanting to bang is because you need the previous qualities to appear, peak and then wither to notice it. Old people aren’t all going at it like knives, familial love is pretty mundane, even the love people have for pets is not very exciting. But that is the essence, the ecstasy of divine tedium.

twoxproblematic 5y ago

It's a natural result of society consuming ** propaganda nonstop for entertainment. We learn all the wrong lessons even though they feel sweet and and have good face value.