This is a linkpost for http://thinkingcomplete.blogspot.com/2017/12/thinking-of-days-that-are-no-more.html
I couldn't help but notice an element missing from any of the points in this: Children. The "modern life" heading is not yet universal to all of humanity, and many of the genies you mention-- remain safely corked elsewhere in the world. In those very same places though- marriages are formed, children are birthed and reared with the recipes passed down through local and hereditary traditions.
While I personally think its neat that marriage and even sex are no longer bound to reproduction- There are gentle nudges from history and more forceful insistences from others that the people (in the human universal sense) found that marriage was a stable method to have and raise children into the world. Things have been tacked on and removed from it from time to time- like 'dowries' or 'union before god' and perhaps we will continue to do that as you suggest- but none of those adaptations and edits will last long if children are removed from the picture.
But maybe we are at the true dusk of pure sexual reproduction? That genie along with increased longevity are quite the thing to consider. Maybe even a little scary.
I mostly agree with all of that, but also, the case against "everyone managed it back in the good old days" seems understated IMO. If in the "good old days" everyone stayed in miserable relationships because of social and legal barriers to leaving, that's not a point in favor of the good old days. I don't see the advantage of modern society in this respect as a trade-off, it seems more like a win-win.
I think a system which lets you disappear from your kid's life just because you got feelings for someone else is not win-win.
You can get divorced and still have both parents in your kids' lives. Conversely, you can remain married and make your kids miserable. There is no system that can force someone to be a good parent.
Ehn, no system can force someone to be a good parent, but some systems might nudge people in one direction or another. Barriers (permeable, and surmountable when the drive is sufficient) to less-commonly-good situations might serve a purpose.
Walking the line between encouraging responsibility and best-for-the-child and allowing those who choose/need to do otherwise (where best-for-everyone is distance from the child) to do so is not easy, in theory or practice.
Romantic love as a basis of marriage is a new invention and doesn't work well. I prefer to think of marriage as a contract to invest in each other and children (if any). If we make it a special kind of contract that can be breached without penalty, then duh, people will invest less in each other and children. But that doesn't mean we want to invest less. It'd be better to have a system that let us invest more and fear less.
Why would people invest less except because they want to invest less? I realize you probably have some model involving coordination failure here and I don't know what it is.
EDIT: to explain my confusion better: A village that makes sure its residents have the ability to leave easily whenever they want (e.g. by providing them with a payment when they move out) seems good to me, whereas a village that makes sure its residents have a hard time leaving (e.g. by forcing them to pay almost all their life savings upon entry, which get converted to "village bucks" only useful within the village) seems very yikes to me. I think this is partially because the first has a natural mechanism that ensures that residents stay only as long as the arrangement is working for them, whereas the second has gone out of its way to break the natural mechanism. I don't actually expect the first village to have huge problems with people exiting; people will still form social bonds and have property in the village that makes it more convenient to stay, as long as the village is providing value.
I don't think the first village is a strict improvement, but it seems far better, and I have similar intuitions about marriage.
My intuition about marriage is more like the centipede game, where preventing exit makes both players better off. Does that make sense?
It makes sense that exit costs would help in a centipede game. What is a resource created in marriage that is disproportionately held by one party at a time and has value outside the marriage? My first thought was finances, but sharing finances doesn't require exit costs.
I was mostly thinking of one partner investing in the other's human capital, e.g. by paying for their education, or taking on housework so the other can focus on career. Though this discussion is changing my mind - I no longer think it's such a strong argument.
"Doesn't work well" by what metric - having children? I don't see why that should be the predominant consideration. I have many other goals when I go into relationships - enjoyment, companionship, self-improvement, security, signalling, etc. Now that people are much wealthier and have fewer children, the relative importance of hard-to-breach contracts has decreased, and it's plausible that for many people, moving even further towards flexible contracts is better for most of their goals.
But the current trend is to ban hard-to-breach contracts for everyone, even those who want them...
I don't think there's any alternative. The reason that these contracts used to be hard to breach was mainly because of social norms - otherwise you could just leave and live in sin with someone else any time you wanted. But weaker contracts are only possible because the relevant social norms have changed. (Although there are probably some communities which take marriage much more seriously, and you could live there if you wanted to).
Then there are changes re who gets child custody, but it seems to me that having consistent legal judgements based on what's best for the kids is better than allowing some people to opt into more extreme contracts.
Another factor is laws around property ownership, but I think that even though the laws have weakened, opting in to prenups is a sufficient solution for anyone who wants stronger commitments. They have clauses changing property allocations depending on who's "at fault" for the divorce, right? (Although I guess I'm against prenups which specify custody arrangements, except insofar as they turn out to be good for kids).
Of course there are many reasons to want a permanent relationship - to spend the rest of your life committed to another person. For a majority of people (probably including myself), those considerations will be overwhelming. But I'd be surprised if there were not plenty of people more suited to a series of medium-term relationships, each lasting perhaps half a dozen or a dozen years. Given the heights that divorce rates have soared to, it seems like many are already ending up in this scenario accidentally.
You might object that almost everyone could manage long-term relationships - because almost everyone managed it "back in the good old days" - and it's just modern life which is giving people shorter attention spans. Perhaps that is true. But under the heading of "modern life" we must include a variety of genies which we can't and shouldn't put back in their bottles - women's empowerment, longer lifespans, no-fault divorce, increasing secularism, even the rise of film and TV. Besides, we're going to have to adapt eventually: if and when technology extends the typical healthy lifespan to two hundred years or more, I'm very confident that new forms of marriage will arise to replace the current expectation of lifelong commitment. So why not anticipate them now?
(Note: since this post is based more on anecdotal data than hard evidence, I'd be very interested to know whether your experiences match my claims.)