The Flawed Nature of Marriage in Modern Society

Photo by Samantha Gades on Unsplash

Marriage is an archaic institution rooted in the ancient world. Marriage was designed to prevent the spread of disease through fornication, homosexuality, and adultery, while also being permanent as to ensure that children which are produced have a home and a father to provide, because bastard children were in a tough spot historically because men were typically the ones who provided for the family.

Marriage is nothing more than a 4,000-year-old technology. While it was a very powerful tool to reduce the spread of disease and provide children a more reliable upbringing, it is not a functional or viable tool in a world advanced by 4,000 years of greater knowledge and technology. It was a good technology initially because it was a very simple solution to serious problems, but that was over 4,000 years ago. With advanced technology the advantages marriage provides do not outweigh the detriments when compared to alternatives.

There are many considerable issues with marriage. One of which is the dependence of the child upon the parents. This is a system with a high degree of failure and with very limited failsafes. The quality of upbringing each parent produces is incredibly variable, and oftentimes poor upbringing causes considerable physical, psychological, and economic damage to children.

Even well educated, well-off parents with good intentions often produce low-quality children because parenting is not a skill each human is born with or learns, especially those who have demanding jobs, those with psychological afflictions, and those with behavioral predispositions, ideals, or beliefs which are unfavorable or damaging to the child.

The flaws and shortcomings of having parents responsible for rearing a child have been known since the dawn of time, and this is reflected in the idiom “It takes a village to raise a child”, as even completely uneducated people understood that two parents are an inadequate, inefficient, and unreliable means to rear a child in such a way to ensure that it produces value.

Rearing children is a process, a means to an end for producing viable adults which work and produce labor for society. This is why it must be treated as such. Rather than attempt to use this artisanal approach of having each parent function as the artisanal child producer, the concept of an economy of scale should be utilized.

The artisanal model of society died with the advent of industrialism. Rather than needing to have a local tradesperson to make clothes, shoes, or anything else, these are now produced in factories because this is much more efficient, reliable, and economical than having a local artisan produce each product.

When you no longer see a local cobbler every time you need to have shoes created or repaired, there is no longer and reason to defend the artisanal model of parenting, because defending the process of artisanal parenting depends upon the logic proving the superiority of a local cobbler over shoes produced in a factory.

While it is true that a cobbler might produce shoes of higher quality than factory, this is entirely dependent upon the skill of the cobbler. A poor-quality cobbler will make poor-quality shoes. Beyond this a cobbler is a person who has trained their entire life and devoted themselves to making shoes, day in and day out, a true artisan. This, while parents are not true artisans of rearing children but instead just handed the job. This is the equivalent of finding a random person and then asking them to make you shoes, which is ultimately far worse than even the artisanal model of having a dedicated cobbler in your town.

The entire world revolves around utilizing the economy of scale to produce high quality results, with high reliability, for the lowest possible cost. This same logic which empowers the economy of scale would reliably produce much higher quality children. Rather than using the inefficient and problematic artisanal model, reliant upon parenting skill most all people lack, the children would instead be reared professionally, en masse, at an incredibly reduced cost.

Considering that the average cost of raising a child today is $233,610, this an immense amount of money being invested into a markedly inefficient and low-quality system of artisanal parenting considering that you can produce higher quality children for a much lower cost by taking advantage of an economy of scale.

Another common issue with marriage is that familiarity breeds contempt. It is difficult for two people to coexist with one another without experiencing contempt for one another. This means most marriages are doomed to coldness, distance, and “staying together for the kids” just because humans are ornery, low-quality, annoying, incessant, taxing, burdensome, and logically there’s no reason to really have any compassion or interest for other humans.

Love and other such things are “mysterious” because logically there isn’t really much logic to explain them, they’re purely instinctive hallucinations which benefit our survival, but their pleasure doesn’t come from the high-quality company of your loved ones and doesn’t mean that the company of these people is actually preferable to alternatives.

It is instinct compels us to chase and pursue human contact without providing any real explanation other than “it feels good”, which is a feeling produced largely by instinct. Reproduction is necessary for the species to survive, so those whose genetics did not find reproduction, family, and rearing children reliably enjoyable regardless of the taxation and burden that a family produces did not end up surviving because they did not reproduce.

Other marked issues within marriage is that of physical abuse and sexual abuse, that of children or the wife. Most abuse is caused by instinct or opportunism within the perpetrator, and confining people in the prison of a family home puts people in a situation where opportunism can afflict them. It is misguided instincts or psychological maladaptations causing these events, and confining a man, a woman, and children in a house is putting three volatile elements in close proximity hoping that they don’t react violently.

The most severe of which is the quality and quantity of children produced. Every other animal in our civilization is bred selectively, with intent to produce an animal with certain traits or capabilities. Humans developed the system of animal husbandry because it worked very well, and every crop, farm animal, and pet you see today is the product of this system.

Selective breeding produces much higher quality offspring than random breeding, and it was essential for the development of agrarian society 10,000 years ago. It’s still essential today, but we have recently advanced further upon this 10,000 year old technology with genetic engineering, although that is still in its infancy. This is a picture of corn before and after selective breeding. (link)

Despite this 10,000 year old technology of animal husbandry being the basis of all farm animals we know and depend upon today, humans have yet to apply this technology to themselves. Initially humans saw themselves as different than animals, but science reminds us that we are very much so animals and there is no meaningful difference between a person, a cow, a dog, or any other animal.

The process of selective breeding would produce the same profound advancements in quality of offspring in humans that it was able to produce in the domesticated animal. The difference would be like comparing a modern domesticated pig to a wild boar or a dog to a wolf. The humans produced by selective breeding would rapidly cause modern humans to look like wolves. Much less reliable, much less valuable, and far more dangerous than the selectively bred counterpart of the friendly dog.

Despite this 10,000 year old technology being applied with profound success to other animals, humans have not applied this to themselves. Humans are biologically 10,000 years behind their own technology at this point, and it is not sensible to defend this sort of reluctance to accept a scientific truth which our entire species is currently dependent upon due to our dependence upon agriculture.

Often people attempt to condemn these arguments as non-viable or pseudo-science, but to condemn selective breeding in humans is like drinking water all day then claiming that arguments proving that water is real are illegitimate pseudo-science, going so far as to aggressively condemn people who disagree with your clearly nonsensical point.

Typical issues raised are that of ethics or freedom, when these are not valid arguments but rather ideals which are rooted in superstition, ignorance, delusion, or other subjective metrics which produce no valid argument beyond false logic.

Any argument which is opposed to the selective breeding of humans by the same logic argues that it is unethical to keep a dog as a pet, and instead each person must have a wolf. Dogs were produced by the process of selective breeding, so by the logic of ethicists, the dog is an ethical abomination and should be condemned. Instead, it should be feral wolves that play with your children, live in your house, and keep you company.

Eliminating the dependence of society upon marriage eliminates this critical point of failure which is the root of many severe issues and shortcomings in society including child production, child rearing, child upkeep, child and spousal abuse, and general discontent.

Without the dependence upon marriage to produce children, this allows us to avoid 100% of the dangers and problems caused by housing people of different ages and sexes in a house with one another. There can be no spousal abuse when there are no spouses. There can be no child abuse when adults and children do not coexist in private areas.

There is no reason to utilize a system with these profound points of failure when alternatives exist. There is no amount of pleasure from idealism that can amend the grievous damage caused by avoidable failure in our society. As much as people may feel disrespected by being subjected to these processes, the feeling of disrespect is a subjective metric which produces no value to offer as a counterbalance to the economic and social damage caused when people are not subjected to these systems.

A woman can never be raped by a man when there are no men. The point of failure here is the coexistence of men and women. When it is possible for men and women to coexist, this means rape becomes possible. When men and women do not coexist, it becomes impossible for a man to rape a woman. Because rape and other crimes of sexuality have proven to be problematic enough to become the staple of the news media, there’s no reason to allow these things to exist.

Humans can be produced and reared without men and women coexisting, so this means there is nothing which is gained by allowing this to happen. This only allows for problems such as rape and sexual assault to exist, all for the advantage of avoiding the work it takes to prevent these problems.

It is work to implement sexual separation, an artificial selection program, and a surrogate breeding program, but these things are work rather than folly because these produce measurable benefits. The point of work is to produce improvement through your efforts, and while it is true that this is work, this work produces profound improvement over the archaic and dangerous system currently utilized by the world.

The argument against this process is saying “I am pro-rape and pro-child-abuse because I am too lazy to do the work to prevent these things.” Though it is work, and while people may miss the company of the alternate sex, the work produces immense value and the company of the alternate sex is a subjective phenomenon.

A man who has never been exposed to women would instinctively find the pleasure typically provided by a woman in the company of another man. His mind has an empty spot to fill where women would normally be placed, and it will naturally fill this spot with other men provided that to his knowledge, no women exist to fill this spot. Just like how an animal which is born will instinctively breathe, even if there is no oxygen, it will attempt to breathe, it will breathe whatever is in front of it.

A man cannot miss women when he is not aware of the existence of women, and a woman cannot miss men when she is not aware of the existence of men. Every generation born into this system will not have any of the side-effects of the initial population which is introduced to the system after having known alternatives.

People in our world today will clearly have a severe negative reaction to the thought of this system, but this is only because it is contrary to what they know. Those who do not know the traditional system will not have this negative reaction, and this system will ensure far fewer problems afflict society, especially those caused by the integration of the sexes and age groups.

This same argument which resolves disease and sex issues also resolves other issues stemming from unavoidable differences. Thing such as racism cannot exist if there are not races of people. Discrimination cannot occur when everybody is the same. By culling people into groups where there are no differences between them, this eliminates a profound point of failure in Western society which is the coexistence of different types of people.

There are endless incurable problems stemming from difficulties coexisting with different people. This is a needless complication and an avoidable point of failure entirely. Every day you hear about race relations, gender relations, relations of this group and that group, and how there is discrimination occurring.

This is an incredibly taxing and problematic phenomenon which can be instantly and completely avoided simply by separating groups of people into identical groups. The separation goes beyond race, sex, and age, but also any sort of distinguishing feature.

You cannot be discriminated against based upon your traits when everybody you coexist with has the identical traits you do. When there is no longer grounds of being discriminated against due to being physically different, this means that every person is now judged entirely upon their merits, rather than any sort of underlying features which may cause people’s opinion to shift.

This complete culling of society is what actually has the unquestionable capacity to eliminate racism, sexism, and every other form of discrimination. Clearly the current process of force people into the same area and hope for the best does not work, it instead produces endless discontent, tension, anger, and even riots. A thoroughly culled system ensures that such issues never occur because people born into these systems will have no knowledge that those who look different from themselves exist.

One final issue related to children and marriage is that marriages produce an unreliable quantity of children. Many marriages produce 2 or fewer children, when this is an insufficient number. So long as our country is exporting food products, this means we have a severe dearth of humans.

Once we consume 100% of our food, then each person is audited to check if the food invested into the human is producing yield at a higher rate than it would if the same food was invested into a new human. For example, if you need to shift the concentration of people away from underperforming industries and require a different cultivar for another industry, or retire people who have begun to yield at a lower rate than a new worker will.

Even when we consume 100% of the food we produce, food production still must be optimized to produce the highest yield, away from inefficient crops and animal products towards crops with higher calorie and protein yield per acre. It is also viable to invest in imported food to temporarily sustain a population above carrying capacity, so long as we are getting a higher return on the humans then we invest into their upkeep, and so long as we are capable of divesting from this human surplus provided that our food imports are embargoed.

These issues are spoken of in further detail in another article (link), but in short, just as child rearing is done using an economy of scale, child production would also be subjected to this improvement. This means a cultivar of women are bred to be reliable producers of human children, queen humans akin to queen bees, which will produce all of the children needed for society so that other women can work instead of bear children.

The children produced, workers, would be bred to be small, allowing the queen to reliably carry a sizable number of children per term. Small workers also allows for the reduction of the overhead on each human due to diminished size requiring fewer resources for upkeep such as food, clothing, shelter, and transport, so long as the size does not negatively afflict the performance of human within the job or jobs the human is designed for.

Used to write things, a couple books. Delusions of being able to help humanity faded. Now I'm mostly just waiting to die.