This issue was first brought to my attention several months ago, but I was reminded of it today when, while I was eating lunch, I tuned into CNN, which featured a story about a 61-year-old scientist who is trying to extend his life through the use of 250 vitamins and nutritional supplements. He wrote Live Long Enough to Live Forever, which describes a strategy of extending one's lifespan well beyond what most people achieve. His premise is that if you live fifty more years, then you'll have "lived long enough to live forever."
I don't buy the entire package they're selling. However, I could believe most of what these two have to say were it not for the use of the word "forever." Using such a word is ludicrous. First, one can never accomplish "living forever." No matter how long one lives, there's still more time to live, so it's an unachievable goal. Second, and perhaps more importantly, nobody in their right mind, myself included, would want to live "forever."
"Living as long as you want" is a much more reasonable challenge, and it's one that will most likely eventually be won. I love the people who commented on Amazon listing a million medical challenges that didn't pan out. Of course, they also don't remember other things that were never predicted, such as the rise of the Internet, which is probably one of the greatest innovations ever conceived. Thus, I'd state that this more reasonable goal has a high probability of success.
If you're 33 right now, by current life expectancies you have about a 50% chance of living those fifty years to be 83. If there's even a one in five chance of these predictions being true, then there's a 10% chance you would live to be a thousand. Thus, if you get married right now and promise to love your spouse "until death do you part," it's possible you might get a little more than you asked for. If you live a thousand years, would you want to spend 967 of them with the same person?
For that matter, if you're 20 now, can you imagine spending even 60 or 70 of them with the same person? Has humanity reached a point where the concept of marriage is becoming obsolete?
In the past, people got married to have children, and to have lots of them. One of my grandfathers is the sole survivor of a family of sixteen brothers. The other is the only remaining of five. In the present day, if someone has five brothers or sisters, someone else starts a prayer for the mother to survive the torment. It's rare to see families larger than three, and I don't know anyone in the post-baby-boom generation who wants more than two children. Now, however, overcrowding, not survival, is the problem. Thus, we don't need to get married to birth yet more people.
What about to remaining in a monogamous relationship to prevent the spread of disease? Almost all of the STDs today are almost a nuisance compared to previous years if detected early enough. That's a far cry from when being infected with syphilis would cause dementia and eventual death. Even HIV has a promising vaccine in the works that could be approved within two years. The use of appropriate protection can further reduce the already low risk of contracting these diseases by 98%, and remember that having, say, oral sex with somebody with AIDS presents only a 0.04% chance of transmission per unprotected contact. If not already, within five years, STDs are not going to be a major factor in deciding with whom to have sex.
Perhaps, then, marriage creates emotional well-being that can't be garnered from short-term relationships. However, psychologists are finding out that single-partner relationships create just the opposite. I found out through an interesting Google search last week that there's a community called "swinging," where spouses basically trade partners for a night every once in a while. The studies show that "swingers" have lower rates of depression and happier marriages than partners who have sex only with each other.
Then, of course, there's the 54% divorce rate. I doubt that people are becoming more antagonistic towards each other as time goes on. Instead, it's more likely that increased longevity gives people more time to get divorced and perhaps remarry. Furthermore, divorce is more acceptable today than it was 100 years ago, when the Catholic church and similar organizations would ostracize individuals who couldn't resolve their marital problems. As a result, we sign prenuptual agreements and marriage contracts to protect our assets if a split occurs, which goes completely against the idea of two people living together as one.
And finally, if marriage were so important to us anymore, why would millions of people watch shows like "The Bachelor?" One of the most interesting shows I've ever watched as "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé." And years ago there was the huge "Who wants to marry a multimillionaire?" scandal. Regardless of the trend in the Western world towards conservatism or even reactionism, I don't turn on the news every night to see violent mobs threatening to kill the producers of "The Bachelor."
Marriage is an obsolete institution. Perhaps instead of getting married, we should simply hold our own assets and live with each other. It's worked well for my aunt, who's been with the same unmarried guy for almost twenty years.
If a commitment's that strong, we don't need a ceremony to force people to remain faithful. If they last for the rest of their lives, that's great. If not, marriage only encourages people to try to cover things up despite the relationship having gone down the tubes long ago. The separation is going to happen anyway, and the courts will be more burdened with disputes.
As humans, we can't live any more or less than "one day at a time." Committing to anything for 60 or even 967 years only boxes people in and reduces their potentials to live the happiest and most productive lives possible.
REF:http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Marriage-Becoming-Obsolete%3F&id=2840534
I don't buy the entire package they're selling. However, I could believe most of what these two have to say were it not for the use of the word "forever." Using such a word is ludicrous. First, one can never accomplish "living forever." No matter how long one lives, there's still more time to live, so it's an unachievable goal. Second, and perhaps more importantly, nobody in their right mind, myself included, would want to live "forever."
"Living as long as you want" is a much more reasonable challenge, and it's one that will most likely eventually be won. I love the people who commented on Amazon listing a million medical challenges that didn't pan out. Of course, they also don't remember other things that were never predicted, such as the rise of the Internet, which is probably one of the greatest innovations ever conceived. Thus, I'd state that this more reasonable goal has a high probability of success.
If you're 33 right now, by current life expectancies you have about a 50% chance of living those fifty years to be 83. If there's even a one in five chance of these predictions being true, then there's a 10% chance you would live to be a thousand. Thus, if you get married right now and promise to love your spouse "until death do you part," it's possible you might get a little more than you asked for. If you live a thousand years, would you want to spend 967 of them with the same person?
For that matter, if you're 20 now, can you imagine spending even 60 or 70 of them with the same person? Has humanity reached a point where the concept of marriage is becoming obsolete?
In the past, people got married to have children, and to have lots of them. One of my grandfathers is the sole survivor of a family of sixteen brothers. The other is the only remaining of five. In the present day, if someone has five brothers or sisters, someone else starts a prayer for the mother to survive the torment. It's rare to see families larger than three, and I don't know anyone in the post-baby-boom generation who wants more than two children. Now, however, overcrowding, not survival, is the problem. Thus, we don't need to get married to birth yet more people.
What about to remaining in a monogamous relationship to prevent the spread of disease? Almost all of the STDs today are almost a nuisance compared to previous years if detected early enough. That's a far cry from when being infected with syphilis would cause dementia and eventual death. Even HIV has a promising vaccine in the works that could be approved within two years. The use of appropriate protection can further reduce the already low risk of contracting these diseases by 98%, and remember that having, say, oral sex with somebody with AIDS presents only a 0.04% chance of transmission per unprotected contact. If not already, within five years, STDs are not going to be a major factor in deciding with whom to have sex.
Perhaps, then, marriage creates emotional well-being that can't be garnered from short-term relationships. However, psychologists are finding out that single-partner relationships create just the opposite. I found out through an interesting Google search last week that there's a community called "swinging," where spouses basically trade partners for a night every once in a while. The studies show that "swingers" have lower rates of depression and happier marriages than partners who have sex only with each other.
Then, of course, there's the 54% divorce rate. I doubt that people are becoming more antagonistic towards each other as time goes on. Instead, it's more likely that increased longevity gives people more time to get divorced and perhaps remarry. Furthermore, divorce is more acceptable today than it was 100 years ago, when the Catholic church and similar organizations would ostracize individuals who couldn't resolve their marital problems. As a result, we sign prenuptual agreements and marriage contracts to protect our assets if a split occurs, which goes completely against the idea of two people living together as one.
And finally, if marriage were so important to us anymore, why would millions of people watch shows like "The Bachelor?" One of the most interesting shows I've ever watched as "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé." And years ago there was the huge "Who wants to marry a multimillionaire?" scandal. Regardless of the trend in the Western world towards conservatism or even reactionism, I don't turn on the news every night to see violent mobs threatening to kill the producers of "The Bachelor."
Marriage is an obsolete institution. Perhaps instead of getting married, we should simply hold our own assets and live with each other. It's worked well for my aunt, who's been with the same unmarried guy for almost twenty years.
If a commitment's that strong, we don't need a ceremony to force people to remain faithful. If they last for the rest of their lives, that's great. If not, marriage only encourages people to try to cover things up despite the relationship having gone down the tubes long ago. The separation is going to happen anyway, and the courts will be more burdened with disputes.
As humans, we can't live any more or less than "one day at a time." Committing to anything for 60 or even 967 years only boxes people in and reduces their potentials to live the happiest and most productive lives possible.
REF:http://ezinearticles.com/?Is-Marriage-Becoming-Obsolete%3F&id=2840534
ezinearticles.com
Some scientists believe that young adults today could live to see a cure for all disease, including aging. With life expectancies constantly increasing, is marriage becoming obsolete? In this article, the author muses over whether committing to one...
Share
