The Tale of Oogie and Boogie, Part 5

The Tale of Oogie and Boogie, Part 5

We left off with:

<Indignant tone>

So, after these hundreds of words, that’s it? That’s your proposal? Just change the length of the standard marriage contract from lifetime to annual-but-renewable?

</Indignant tone>

Yes, pretty much, that’s it. Effective ideas are usually simple. As Einstein said, if you can’t explain an idea simply, you don’t really understand it.

In this case, it is psychological transformation between being a prisoner with a life sentence and a volunteer. The conditions haven’t changed but the assurance that you can walk out at the end of your shift is huge. That paradigm shift makes all the difference.

This concluding segment is a related set of observations and other drivel. It is not supposed to be an epilogue. Rather, I want to project these possibilities a little further into the realm of speculation and oughta-be scenarios.

I also want to thank several people who contributed wise and sometimes contradictory comments. If you happen to be one of those rare folks who are indeed happily married and who get up every morning feeling lucky to have such a mate, then good on you (as the Aussies say).

From Torgeir: I agree, we are no longer living in the Ougie-Bougie-society with life long marriage – so we have to make new marriage institutions. 12 months and a new contract.

Strange that society still klings to that old dogma of "to death". But of course, there are the issues of a radical change of marriage form: I think the birth rate would go even further down in a society like that. Then our species will be extinct.

Couples would be even more reluctant about having a baby. 

RG: To which I agree but with the reservation that society - and the laws and mores that regulate them - are never fixed and unchanging. Rather, our species, for good or bad, creates a set of laws which is dynamic rather than static. As conditions change, society will change and the laws will change.  Part of the reason for these changes will be the acceptance by the public of a need for change. And part of it will be the result of the phenomenon of “I wonder what happens if we push this button?” As a species, we cannot seem to resist the temptation to try something new, sometimes merely to show that “but our generation is different”.

Governments likewise will change to meet new conditions, new challenges. If we finally wake up and see that our exploding population numbers and the off-balance demographics are a serious problem, governments will take steps to correct them. Laws and incentives will change. True, such steps often follow the botch-and-fumble tradition of social engineering but, never fear, none of these new changes are permanent either. The pendulum swings from one crazy idea to another idea just as crazy but in the opposite direction. Slowly, improvements and workable solutions arise, usually somewhere in the middle of the pendulum’s swing.

*********************’

Anton observed: Probably what helped us to develop from biological species to humankind since neolithic times is the ability to learn from others and think things in advance, being proactive.

Well, I can be more romantic and cynical about human relationships simultaneously, but I believe we went far enough from Oogie and Boogie as our feelings and family ties climbed up Maslow's pyramid.

RG: Anton, I hope you are right. History tends to show a slow but irrefutable trend upward in terms of our ability to get along with other groups of humans without resorting to throwing rocks at anyone who is not a member of our small tribe, i.e., any stranger. However, we have among us a number of people who have barely passed the thinking of Oogie and Boogie and their ilk. Sure, they will readily grasp any new technology which promises more horsepower, more firepower, more comfort, and more time-saving convenience. But adopting a new way of thinking? Not hardly!

As a child of my era, I have profound faith in technology to continue raising our standard of living - and, hopefully, our quality of life also. However, I am beginning to wonder if the real solution to the problem of brainless cattle-like behavior lies in a different realm. (Cattle-like? Yes, as in “Hey! I’ve got a great idea. Let’s all get together, make each other crazy, and have a stampede!” That kind of cattle-like. Anyone who has grown up on a farm or ranch and taken care of large numbers of domesticated animals will know what I mean.)

So I offer: Perhaps the real savior of our vastly increased numbers of mankind lies not in technology but in improving literacy rates. I cannot offer any numbers to show that higher education - which invariably accompanies higher literacy rates - is responsible for better and more thoughtful behavior by individuals and by their tribes, but it seems like a reasonable projection. Imagine dealing with a problem with someone contributing, “I remember reading about a time in history when another group had a situation similar to what we are facing today. They made an easy and impulsive choice as a solution, the same as what we are considering. The results of that choice were disastrous. Not what we want to happen today. Maybe we should keep looking for a better solution.” Literacy, sadly, does not increase intelligence. However, it does allow intelligent people to have more leverage in their local affairs.

******************’

And, finally, Anton again: I believe every couple revises their relationships daily and yearly and considers prolonging or terminating their deal. I am lucky to vote for prolonging in my case with no doubts.

RG: Anton, if you can face each day with such an unquestioning attitude, you are indeed lucky. I send you best wishes that the years do not bring about a divergence of interests that would separate you from your partner. Kids, of course, are the glue that binds many couples together through thick and thin. Likewise, a commitment to endure together whatever happens. But, I contend that the vast majority of marriages that stay together do so for reasons other than marital bliss.

**************************’

What about some other possibilities related to the Unhappy Marriage problem? I believe we could we avert many of the marital disasters by the simple expedient of raising the entrance requirements. As an American, I grew up with the concept of inalienable rights, including the right to doom yourself at an early age to a lengthy period of unhappiness through an impulsive, unfortunate choice of marriage partner. But, in truth, that is not an inalienable right. Every government on the planet - and every religion, probably - has created a set of laws limiting our freedom to marry. Exhibit A: Yes, you are free to get married but we, the government, will determine whom you can marry and at what age.

Since governments have already limited our right to select and marry the mate of our choice, what would happen if those governments set additional, higher entrance requirements? (It would be easy for governments to justify raising the bar. Look at the expensive social services, loss of productivity, general malaise, and number of divorce attorney’s children attending expensive universities and see why toxic marriages are a community problem.) What if those new standards were based upon what we know about science, biology, and life expectancy, rather than the tired old standards - mostly, simple puberty - that fit Oogie and Boogie and their tribal society?

What would happen to the misery rate if each individual had to earn the right to marry? Heresy! That would mean taking away my personal freedom for the good of the larger community or, more pragmatically, for the sake of children of such toxic marriages. Actually, this would simply be taking away more of your personal freedom, a process well begun with mandatory education and driver’s licenses and standing in line to wait your turn.) Yes, what if everyone had to perform community service or, by some point system, demonstrated that they sincerely, deeply wanted to marry… before they could be legally partnered?

In business, don’t you have to put up a bond or some form of collateral before you are permitted to offer your goods and services to the public or get a bank loan? In most countries, there is a strict set of requirements and standards to meet before you will be issued a business license. Why not for a marriage license? (Nothing would keep couples from simple cohabitation. In some ways, “shacking up” or common law marriage is an earlier and time-honored form of the ART marriage.) But, if you want to be legally married, with all the rights, incentives, and tax benefits marriage brings, you must go through the legal process first.

Tune in next time for the thrilling conclusion of the conclusion to the Tale of Oogie and Boogie, those teenage neolithic social innovators who created the first monogamous, lifetime-commitment marriage. In addition to the Annual-But-Renewable Marriage contract, we will consider other ideas for reducing the human misery associated with marriage.

Your comments and suggestions are invited. And, as before, I request that you share this series of articles among some of your friends and colleagues. Not all of them; just the ones who are married or might get married in the future. New subscribers are particularly welcome. As Bluto said, “Don’t cost nothing.”