On Marriage

Culture, population, and quality of life

Marriage is the cornerstone of a healthy society, and children are the conduit to the future.

Introduction

For the first time in modern American history, we are quietly entering an era in which having children is no longer the cultural default. The United States now sits well below replacement-level fertility, and each generation, absent immigration, will be smaller than the one before it. This fact is often discussed in purely economic terms: labor shortages, aging populations, entitlement systems, and GDP projections. But fertility is not merely a statistical problem or an economic variable. It reflects how people live, marry, work, and support one another. It reflects whether young adults believe that building a family is possible, affordable, and socially valued.

In public debate, falling fertility is usually treated as a technical issue to be solved with tax credits, subsidies, or immigration policy. Those tools matter, but they miss the deeper question: why are so many young people delaying marriage, postponing children, or opting out of family formation altogether? Fertility patterns do not exist in isolation. They are downstream of cultural expectations, economic pressures, educational pathways, and the presence, or absence, of extended family and community support. When marriages are delayed, when young couples are geographically scattered from their families, and when the burdens of raising children fall on isolated nuclear households, fertility predictably declines.

This essay is not simply about increasing birth rates. In fact, it questions whether perpetual population growth should even be treated as an unquestioned national objective. Instead, it examines the conditions under which families form, marriages endure, and communities remain stable. It asks whether the United States should reconsider the assumptions that have shaped its social and economic policies for decades: that young adults must leave home to succeed, that childbearing should be delayed as long as possible, and that economic vitality depends on an ever-expanding population.

If fertility is to rise, or even stabilize, it will not happen through slogans or subsidies alone. It will happen when young people can realistically imagine building families without isolation, when extended families and communities once again share the burdens of early childrearing, and when marriage and parenthood are treated as honorable and achievable paths rather than risky detours.

The discussion that follows explores how fertility, marriage, community structure, and cultural expectations intersect, and why rebuilding those foundations may matter more than any single policy lever.

Fertility

The total fertility rate in the United States is currently about 1.6 births per woman, based on recent national data.

In developed countries such as the United States, the fertility rate required to maintain a stable population in the absence of immigration is approximately 2.1 births per woman. This replacement level accounts for normal mortality and the fact that not all children survive to reproductive age. A fertility rate below this threshold means each generation is smaller than the previous one.

Because the U.S. fertility rate remains well below replacement level, the native-born population will gradually decline over time if immigration is excluded and fertility rates remain unchanged. Even when immigrant births are included, overall U.S. fertility is still below replacement. Without immigration, population aging will accelerate, the ratio of working-age adults to retirees will shrink, and long-term population decline will become unavoidable.

In short, current U.S. fertility is not at replacement level. The country’s population stability and growth over recent decades has mainly relied on immigration. Because it has experienced very low fertility rates and population momentum of its native-born people.

Population momentum:

Population growth depends not only on how many children people have, but on when those children are born. Two families can have the same number of children and still produce very different population outcomes purely because of the timing of births. Earlier marriage and earlier childbearing shorten the length of a generation, allowing more generations to fit into the same span of time. This effect, known as population momentum, can significantly amplify population growth even when fertility rates are modest.

Consider two identical couples, each with exactly two children. In the first scenario, the couple has both children by age twenty. In the second, the couple has both children by age thirty-five. In both cases, the parents fully replace themselves, and fertility is identical.

Over a sixty-year period, the early-childbearing scenario produces substantially more generational overlap than the later-childbearing scenario. Families that begin childbearing by age twenty can fit roughly four generations into that timeframe, while those that wait until age thirty-five fit only about two. As a result, the early-starting population can be roughly twice as large at any given moment, despite identical family size. The population grows faster not because people are having more children, but because generations are turning over more quickly.

When this timing difference is applied across an entire society rather than a single family, the effects compound rapidly. Earlier marriage and earlier births lead to more overlapping generations, a larger working-age population at any given time, and a broader base for subsequent generations. This is why populations can continue to grow even when the average family size is close to the replacement level. The tempo of reproduction, not just the total number of births, plays a decisive role in shaping long-term demographic trends.

Younger marriages

If the USA truly wants to increase the fertility rate, and that is an IF (as I will get to later), the best way is to encourage young women not go to college or to defer college or a trade school, marry early, and have children early. Instead of penalizing women for entering college or the workforce later in life, they could be encouraged to do so via financial and societal incentives. For example, young women of childbearing age could have free daycare while attending classes, or more online classes could be made available to women with children. Or to set up programs that allow young women to attend college or trade school part-time.

Women should not be looked down upon for having children early, instead society should honor them. Successfully running a household, including cooking, cleaning, saving money, teaching and caring for children, washing clothes, etc., is one of the most challenging and complex careers a woman and a young couple can embark upon. Yet it is also one of the most important and fulfilling responsibilities of our lifetimes.

Extended families and churches can play a decisive role in whether young couples with children merely survive or actually succeed. What they provide is not abstract “support,” but concrete reductions in stress, risk, and isolation during the most fragile years of family formation. If young people know they have such support, they are more likely to start a family.

Extended families help first by sharing the practical load. Childcare from grandparents, aunts, or older siblings gives parents breathing room to work, sleep, and recover physically and emotionally. Even small, routine help, such as watching a baby for an hour, picking up from school, and preparing meals during illness, dramatically reduces burnout. Financially, extended families often provide support through shared housing, temporary loans, or pooled resources, reducing the pressure that money stress places on young marriages.

Instead of encouraging young folk to attend college far away, never to return to the support of the extended family, what about parents encouraging young people to stay close to the family? Online classes, trade schools, entering the family business, or learning a trade are all options that can help keep families together and create close extended families.

Older relatives have faced many of the same challenges, such as their children’s infancy, sleepless nights, marital ups and downs, and career sacrifices. Their stories help normalize these struggles and remind young parents that such difficulties are just phases, not failures. Equally important, families serve as inspiring models of lasting commitment by demonstrating how marriages can withstand stress, conflict, and tough times. This quiet example fosters patience and the importance of working through issues rather than giving up.

All of this should be normalized, not treated as an anomaly.

Does the USA “need” population growth?

Many argue that the model of continuous population growth being necessary for economic growth is outdated and never really met reality. That idea comes from a 20th-century industrial model that assumed growth meant more workers + more consumers. In a world shaped by the internet, AI, automation, and capital-light businesses, that logic is increasingly outdated. In this new reality, the United States does not inherently “need” population growth to remain prosperous.

The idea that the United States “needs” population growth is largely a holdover from a 20th-century industrial model in which economic growth depended on ever-larger labor forces and consumer bases. In an economy shaped by the internet, automation, and artificial intelligence, output increasingly comes from productivity, capital, and energy rather than sheer population size. Raising the population can increase total GDP, but it does not necessarily raise living standards and often puts greater pressure on housing, infrastructure, and natural resources.

What matters more than population growth is demographic balance and adaptability: higher productivity per worker, retirement systems based on need, not age, and the intelligent use of technology to offset labor shortages. In this context, population growth should be a by-product of a healthy, affordable society, not an economic requirement in itself.

Maybe the U.S. government would benefit from changing its mindset that population growth is necessary.

The Japanese example:

Japan is often labelled as a “declining” economy, because its population has shrunk. However, it is actually functioning quite well despite depopulation, because it adapted early and intentionally. Instead of increasing headcount, Japan emphasized productivity by investing heavily in automation, robotics, and process improvements, so that fewer workers could produce about the same output and sustain a high standard of living despite declining population growth, including an aging population.

At the same time, Japan built systems oriented toward social stability rather than rapid growth, resulting in low crime, well-maintained infrastructure, world-class public transportation, and reliable supply chains; factors that shape everyday quality of life more than headline GDP figures. Culturally and economically, Japan also adjusted to an older population by keeping seniors engaged longer, allowing flexible retirement, and integrating healthcare and elder services into community life, treating aging as a design constraint to manage rather than a crisis to fear.

Healthy marriages equal healthy people

The truth is that study after study shows that the happiest people have the healthiest marriages and are married. Overall, divorced people tend to be lonelier, less financially stable, and unhappier.

Such studies also demonstrate that people in long-term relationships live longer lives.

So, how do we teach children to have happy marriages?

Teach character before chemistry

Many parents warn their kids about the obvious dangers of choosing the wrong partner, but fail to emphasize the slow, boring traits that predict long-term success in a marriage. Children should learn early that character beats charm. Reliability, emotional regulation, honesty, work ethic, and kindness under stress matter far more than intensity, attraction, or “spark.” Parents can point this out explicitly when discussing friends, relatives, movies, or real relationships:

Who shows up? Who keeps promises? Who gets better under pressure?

Many young people choose partners they want to fix. Parents and grandparents can gently dismantle this by emphasizing that marriage magnifies who someone already is. Love does not replace discipline, maturity, or responsibility. If a child learns that “potential” is not a plan, they choose far better.

Choose someone whose worst traits you can live with, and whose best traits show up under pressure.

It is also important that parents do not allow their children to be groomed or exposed to porn. Behavioral patterns and fetishes can easily become ingrained in young children. Behavioral patterns that will ruin or impede the ability to have monogamous relationships. It is the job of parents to protect the mental health of their children.

Before the internet, sexual interests typically developed privately and gradually, shaped by personal experience, culture, and limited media. Online social media and gaming expose young people to highly specific sexual content before emotional or cognitive maturity has developed. As a result, some fetishes today are less organically formed and more algorithm-reinforced.

The ability to form long-term bonds and derive pleasure from a single partner can easily be compromised. It is up to the parents to protect and teach children that morality is to be cherished, not ditched at the first opportunity.

Marriages in India

One very good example of a culture with a history of stability, a 1% divorce rate, and traditional early marriages is India.

Indian families often teach different marriage skills than Western families, and some of those skills do appear to lower the risk of divorce. From an early age, marriage is framed less as a pursuit of personal fulfillment and more as a long-term practice that requires patience, compromise, and endurance. Children grow up observing marriages that persist through financial stress, illness, extended-family conflict, and emotional dry spells.

Another key difference is the expectation that love develops within commitment, rather than preceding it. In many Indian households, marriage is not treated as a constant emotional high but as a partnership that deepens over time through shared responsibility. This mindset lowers the pressure placed on romantic compatibility to meet every emotional need, and reduces the tendency to interpret dissatisfaction as a sign that the marriage is fundamentally broken. When expectations are more modest and distributed across family and community, marriages are less likely to collapse under emotional strain.

Indian families also tend to normalize outside mediation and collective problem-solving, but not by using a paid “mental health professional,” as is done in Western cultures. Conflict is rarely viewed as a purely private matter; parents, elders, or relatives often step in to de-escalate disputes and encourage repair. Children learn that disagreements are expected and that walking away is not the default response. This teaches negotiation, restraint, and the ability to remain engaged during conflict rather than exiting at the first sign of distress.

Taken together, Indian marriages tend to cultivate resilience, lower expectations of perpetual satisfaction, and prioritize continuity over emotional volatility. These factors help explain why divorce remains relatively uncommon in Indian society.

Community-supported living simply means:

Families, neighbors, and local networks genuinely support each other, both materially and emotionally, creating a warm and close-knit fabric of daily life built on proximity and mutual trust. Economic activity is pleasantly localized, with trade, schooling, and small-scale production deeply rooted in the community rather than government services.

People tend to rely less on sprawling bureaucracies and more on personal, trust-based relationships that grow stronger over time. In this heartfelt model, childcare, elder care, and food production are not outsourced to corporations or driven solely by government programs; instead, they are managed close to home through reciprocity, shared responsibility, and a strong sense of social cohesion.

Having a community is a reality that requires work, responsibility, and healthy relationships. Those relationships start at home. They start with strong marriages that have been crafted and built. For many people, this process has spanned multiple generations; for others, they have had to work and learn the secrets of maintaining a marriage.

Rural communities tend to be more community-oriented because the government isn’t there to step in. People live in the same area for a long time, and reciprocal relationships develop. People have to help each other in order to succeed. And that marriage is the cornerstone of a healthy society.

Summary

We argue that strong marriages, extended families, and close communities are the bedrock of a stable and flourishing society. When young couples remain connected to their families, they benefit from shared childcare, practical help during illness, financial support, and the steady guidance of elders who have already weathered similar seasons of life. These supports reduce burnout, normalize hardship, and strengthen relationships. Rather than assuming that young people must leave home to pursue education and opportunity, we suggest that staying close to family. through local training, trades, online learning, or family enterprises. can help preserve intergenerational bonds and create healthier, more resilient households.

We also question the modern assumption that economic prosperity depends on continuous population growth. In a world shaped by automation, AI, and productivity gains, adaptability and balance matter more than sheer numbers. Societies like Japan demonstrate that stability and quality of life can be sustained even with a declining population when systems are designed thoughtfully.

At the personal level, we maintain that healthy marriages are central to human well-being. Long-term partnerships are strongly associated with happiness, stability, and longevity. We should teach children early to value character: reliability, honesty, emotional maturity, and perseverance, over fleeting attraction or charm when choosing a partner.

Cultural models, such as those in India, show how marriages rooted in commitment, family involvement, and patience can endure stress and conflict without collapsing. Communities that function well rely on trust, reciprocity, and shared responsibility, with families and neighbors supporting one another materially and emotionally. These patterns are not anomalies; they are time-tested ways of living that sustain individuals and societies alike.

Conclusion

The main point here is simple: strong societies begin with strong marriages supported by extended families and cohesive communities. We should normalize interdependence and connectedness rather than isolation, stability rather than constant mobility, and character rather than impulse.

Economic strength does not require endless population growth, but it does require resilient people, individual responsibility, and supportive networks. When families stay connected, when elders mentor the young, and when communities, including churches, share responsibility for care and stability, individuals are better equipped to weather hardship and build lasting relationships. By restoring these foundations, commitment, proximity, and mutual support, we can create a society that is both more humane and more durable for generations to come.

---

---

---