The seeds for this post were sown
in my mind about two years back, during a phone call. My friend was aghast to
know that I had never been in – or wanted to be in – love, and that I didn’t
want to marry or to have kids. Given the present state of society, she expressed
concern that I would come to regret my decision if I didn’t get married by
early 30s, because by then the marriage market would be out of supply.
I was aware of this, of course,
and tried convincing her that I really did
want to live and die a childless bachelor. But more than that, I tried
explaining to her my vision of the future, upon which my resolve is predicated.
In this future, love would be a far weaker force than it is today; marriages –
if they happen at all – would happen much later in life, expire after a
predetermined period, and the marriage market would retain supply even for
older individuals.
Not surprisingly, this was
laughed off, and for good reason. Under the prevalent circumstances, falling in
love, getting married (once) and procreating completes the holy trinity of
human life. Nevertheless, I believe that the trinity, no matter how ubiquitous,
will not stand the test of time. Advancing technology will either crumble or
change the trinity’s form to the point of non-recognition.
To a certain extent, I have
already been proven right. Women empowerment, birth control, abortion and
online dating have significantly shaken the traditional roots of the trinity. However,
three upcoming technologies – the result of unprecedented advances in healthcare and genetic research – are set to disrupt it beyond anyone's wildest imagination. These technologies are: increasing life span, creation
of artificial sperm and egg, and ectogenesis (pregnancy outside female body).
Let’s start with increasing life
span. When it comes to marriage, the tacit understanding behind the ‘right age’
is predicated upon the duration of female fertility and the fact that human
life is finite. There would be no ‘happily’ in
‘happily ever after’, if there was actually an ever after. Well, the ever after is now around the corner. As per conservative
estimates, life expectancy by 2100 AD will be a mindboggling 160+ years, coupled
with much longer sexual shelf life for both genders. The number could be much,
much higher if certain technologies come to fruition. In such a scenario, I am
curious to see who would be confident enough to proclaim someone as the ‘love
of their (entire) life’ and take the marital plunge by 30 – the cutoff age at
which concern for the unmarried turns into derision – and stick to the same
partner throughout. Can people imagine living with one person for 130+ years?
Longer life expectancy coupled with longer sexual shelf life for both genders,
will ensure that marriages happen late, are no longer a singular event, and become
contractual and limited to a few decades. This would also mean that the
marriage market is profuse with supply at much later ages in people’s lives.
The other two technologies – creation
of artificial gametes and ectogenesis – are far more radical than increasing
life expectancy. To understand their impact, one must go back to the
evolutionary reasons behind love.
Would people let go of an ideal offspring in favour of endlessly worrying, as they do now, about their partner’s receding hairline, breasts being too small or too large, anorexia or obesity, and countless other blemishes – all of which mar the quality of offspring? Moreover, sexually produced babies will continue to be at a far higher risk of genetic diseases than their soon-to-come asexual counterparts. In such a scenario, parents who choose to reproduce the old way would perhaps not be considered too different from the anti-vaxxers of today, thereby bringing immense social pressure, and perhaps regulation, to adapt. In time, asexual reproduction would deal a death blow to sexual attraction, and consequently to love itself.
Would people let go of an ideal offspring in favour of endlessly worrying, as they do now, about their partner’s receding hairline, breasts being too small or too large, anorexia or obesity, and countless other blemishes – all of which mar the quality of offspring? Moreover, sexually produced babies will continue to be at a far higher risk of genetic diseases than their soon-to-come asexual counterparts. In such a scenario, parents who choose to reproduce the old way would perhaps not be considered too different from the anti-vaxxers of today, thereby bringing immense social pressure, and perhaps regulation, to adapt. In time, asexual reproduction would deal a death blow to sexual attraction, and consequently to love itself.
One can argue that despite babies
being made to order, men and women will continue to love and marry as long as women
carry babies in their womb, and for the upbringing of the child. Here’s where
the genius of ectogenesis steps in. Ectogenesis will enable childbirth entirely
outside the female body, thereby putting an end to the idea of men and women
being ‘fathers’ and ‘mothers’. Not to mention that all these technologies will eventually cost cheaper than to do stuff the original way.
The impact that this will have on human society as we know it, is impossible to gauge: the combination of several forces – asexual reproduction, women no longer hobbled by pregnancy, and their increasing economic ability to care for children alone – would mean the predominance of single parenthood and increasing asexuality among humans. Becoming a parent will simply mean sponsoring a made-to-order baby. The resulting children, knowing they were fed not by their mother’s umbilical cord but by a test tube, would hardly carry the level of attachment towards their sponsors that they do towards their parents. Shorn of the burden of childbirth, women will finally have a chance to compete with men on truly equal terms. On the other hand, men, unencumbered by their love for women and by their need for women to procreate, might try to ensure their control over resources while they still can. This would make people look back at the present gender war with fondness.
The impact that this will have on human society as we know it, is impossible to gauge: the combination of several forces – asexual reproduction, women no longer hobbled by pregnancy, and their increasing economic ability to care for children alone – would mean the predominance of single parenthood and increasing asexuality among humans. Becoming a parent will simply mean sponsoring a made-to-order baby. The resulting children, knowing they were fed not by their mother’s umbilical cord but by a test tube, would hardly carry the level of attachment towards their sponsors that they do towards their parents. Shorn of the burden of childbirth, women will finally have a chance to compete with men on truly equal terms. On the other hand, men, unencumbered by their love for women and by their need for women to procreate, might try to ensure their control over resources while they still can. This would make people look back at the present gender war with fondness.
Sure enough, even with these
technologies in place, millennia of evolutionary and social training won’t
disappear overnight. The present humans, and possibly even some future ones,
might balk at the idea of relinquishing the cherished motherhood and at the
thought of their children not being truly ‘theirs’. Love and contemporary
methods of marriage and procreation will put up stiff resistance before they
are choked to death by the descendants of the very humans who have sung
countless paeans to them. After all, what is human desire in the face of convenience, favourable economics, pressure to conform, and the lure of a fair-skinned, blue-eyed child?
Why do I, someone who won’t even
have children that will be affected by the future, take so much interest in it?
Part of the enthusiasm stems from the possibility of my vision coming true. The
rest stems from the desire to pose a counter to everyone – from parents to
friends and countless sundries – who question, pillory, pity and dismiss my
life choices. Blissfully ignorant of the lurking future, they relentlessly lecture
me on how ‘natural’ and blissful marriage, love and procreation are, the right
age to take each of these steps, and the minimum number of children to bear.
It’s not that I don’t see reason
for their angst. As things stand today, I am a regret of evolution, for I have resisted its most fundamental impulses, love and procreation. But my point is, these
impulses are hardly as fundamental as they’re thought to be.
Like all else, love, marriage and procreation are nothing but stepping stones to a rapidly evolving future. There is but one truly fundamental human impulse – the desire to stand vindicated for one’s choices. To, at the end, be able to look one’s detractors in the eye and say, “I was right”. I don’t want to say these words literally. I only hope to stand vindicated by the choices made by my detractors’ kids and grandkids, to watch quietly as they horrifyingly witness their progeny make the very same choices that someone – who they thought was a fool to miss out on the joys of life – made several decades ago.
Like all else, love, marriage and procreation are nothing but stepping stones to a rapidly evolving future. There is but one truly fundamental human impulse – the desire to stand vindicated for one’s choices. To, at the end, be able to look one’s detractors in the eye and say, “I was right”. I don’t want to say these words literally. I only hope to stand vindicated by the choices made by my detractors’ kids and grandkids, to watch quietly as they horrifyingly witness their progeny make the very same choices that someone – who they thought was a fool to miss out on the joys of life – made several decades ago.
