So your notion is that 50% of married couples’ failure to get bored with each other is based on decomposition of their brain cells, so that by the time they’re old enough to get bored of each other the only reason they don’t is that they’re cognitively incapable?
Specifically, that a man with the memories of a 60 year old man and the brain of a 20 year old might say something like, “Huh - 30 years of shared memories sucks a lot more for me than it did for my parents, who had crusty old brains by the time they were my age and so just couldn’t remember how much they hate each other. So I guess I’ll go out and get a divorce now.”
I think serial monogamy would become even more prevalent. Getting married would be less of a risk if your lifespan were long enough to absorb more time-consuming mistakes, especially for women, since childbearing years are pretty limited.
I can honestly see being married a ridiculously long time. When I love someone, I really love them, and time spent together is my favorite thing in the world. 170 years? Maybe not, but I wouldn’t bet against it for quite a few couples.
I’m not sure if 170 years is the right figure. If people lived to be 200, then 30 might become a very early age for marriage. You’d probably get a lot more people taking their time to find just the right person, or not wanting to settle down at the young age of 40.
That was my first thought too. Why would people be getting married around the same time they are now? Maybe it becomes normal to spend a whole 100 years doing the single thing before you hook up with someone and raise a family for the second half of your life.
I do think the OP has a point if you think about this as human lifespans tend to infinity. As our psychology is now, I very much doubt couples will be staying together forever. Of course, the thing is that if humans start to live forever (or at least many times the current lifespan), the amount our psychology will have to change will be high enough that we think differently about everything.
Good point, under the OP’s scenario women wouldn’t even hit menopause untill they were about a 100 (assuming the “lifespan” of her eggs inscreases at the same rate as herself).
Indeed a couple could get married, raise a kid or two all the way to adulthood, split up, marry other people, and start new families. Women could even do it a third time. It could be perfectly normal to have half-siblings (or even full siblings) several decades older/younger than you.
Not really. I’m speculating that perhaps one reason some couples stay together so long is because they’ve somewhat mentally ossified and stopped changing. If they have the brains of the young, they may change as much as the young do and simply won’t stay compatible over the long term.
Yes, absolutely, not a moments hesitation. I’m married to a woman I absolutely love, and would take 200 years or 2000 years with her if I could get them.
Honestly, the people who don’t feel that way I don’t really think should get married at all. But, you know, it’s their life.
If we can live for 200 years, we’re probably cyborgs. Even a well-cared for body will just crap out around year 140 at the latest. And if we’re cyborgs (assuming we still have emotions), babies will almost certainly be born artificially (because it’d be tons easier to make a baby a cyborg if it was made in a factory). Therefore, since kids are no longer an issue, the fabric of marriage will be irrevocably torn, and will probably cease to exist, for the most part. Sure, there will still be long-term relationships, even life-long relationships. But I doubt they’ll be called “marriage”.
Heh, what about the possibility that they genuinely find the history of shared experiences and memories deeply satisfying and enriching to their relationship, and see no reason to discard that? Or is that merely another way of explaining “mental ossification”?
40? That’s much too early for you whippersnappers to be thinking about marriage. You should at least have a good three or four decades under your belt before you decide to settle down with someone for a century or more!
Seriously, while this topic has been dealt with in science fiction like Heinlein’s “Howard Families” on a superficial level (with the assumption that marriage would become a long-term but not lifetime contract) you have to take into account a broader scope of what such long life expectation would offer, and what attendant benefits or penalties would come along with it. Assuming that we’re talking about a post-scarcity economy (such that there isn’t a dramatic resource or overpopulation penalty at letting people live longer, a la Vonnegut’s “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow”) once could anticipate a somewhat more leisurely attitude toward having a family, and more early adult focus on education and career, just as we’ve already seen in the post-industrial world. It may not even make a lot of sense to have marriages in the conventional sense, as marriage as an institution is primarily intended to provide security for the offspring and dependent spouses which may not be such an issue. We’re already in culture in which pre-nuptual agreements (which account for the possibility of dissolution of the union) are a common and recommended practice, so it’s not much of a stretch to creating limited-term civil unions to provide for offspring. Many marriages survive post-children either out of apathy, fear of “going back out there at this age,” or just comfort; I’d wager that very few are the burning kind of passion hoped and desired for by romance novelists.
As a practical matter, if you can extend the average human lifespan to 200 years, which would require being able to rebuild degraded DNA, mitochondrial dysfunction, and other disorders associated with long organism age, you can probably extend it indefinitely. I don’t think anyone would be willing to sign up to a 1000 or more year marriage regardless of how fetching and compatible they might find each other at the tender age of 65.
I think at 200 years you’d just see a stretching of our current expectations of a timeline for life. IOW, instead of people ‘growing up’ and settling down in their 20’s or 30’s, they’d probably push that to their 40’s or 50’s (or 60’s or 70’s). There would be no rush, after all. And we are already seeing this pattern, as the current generation isn’t exactly rushing out to leap into new careers or long term marriages in their teens and early 20’s like they did in the past.
My favorite SciFi series that talks about this in an off hand way is the Honor Harrington books, where they have fairly recently discovered prolong, a procedure that allows them to extend life to several centuries. The off hand way it’s portrayed strikes me as plausible. In it, the meaning of marriage and long term relationships are pretty fluid, and have to do with the individuals deciding what the terms mean and how they apply.
I think that 200 years would fit into the model we’ve seen as life expectancy has increased over the last few hundred years and larger groups of people are living longer lives. People already don’t have to ‘grow up’ as soon or rapidly as they used to have to do (at least not in most Western style countries today).
Now, if we are talking about a thousand years or more, then that’s a more radical change, and would probably be something far different. But I think 200 years of life would look very similar to the 100+ years a lot of folks are living today, and the over all model of relationships would remain basically the same…just sort of stretched out a bit.
Depends on whether the increase in life span also includes a greater period of youthfulness and child bearing viability. If so, then the ‘sowing the wild oats’ phase will just last longer than previous, and the settling down period will be similar to how it is now. If not, then it will probably remain the same as it is now.
The antiquated, happiness stultifying institution of marriage - a contractual agreement between two people that supposedly love each other(!) - is alone absurd enough in this day and age. Having to endure such an obligation for over a century and a half, is just about more than a non matricidal man could bear!
