The Rise of Relationship Breakdowns and Their Genetic Impact

In the “olden days”, couples used to stay together for the sake of their children. Nowadays, that is less inclined to happen.

One feature of modern society is the widespread breakdown of relationships. Divorce and separation are much more common than they used to be.

In fact, they are now a normal aspect of society and mean that many children are raised in single-parent households or are looked after by step-parents with no biological connection.

Inevitably, we must wonder whether there is any genetic significance to this, given the change in environmental conditions during that child’s upbringing.

There is a good chance there will be some consequence.

Genetic continuity comes from reproduction following sexual relations between a male and a female. Importantly, those relations are driven by our genes and align with their interests. We are acting on their behalf.

Although we may not always be fully aware of it, we choose a partner based on what we perceive to be an opportunity for reproductive gain. Our chosen partner will be genetically good for us. It may improve our genetic makeup by endowing us with new qualities, or it may reinforce our pre-existing genetic configuration, making it stronger and therefore even more attractive.

This matchmaking, partner-selection process forms the basis for our reproductive activity. It is by ensuring our chosen partner is genetically advantageous that we will most likely be able to improve our genetic stock and thereby secure our genetic continuance.

Significantly, though, we have become much more willing to change our choice of partner of late. Hence, there is a rise in relationship breakdowns. This may happen at any time during a relationship: before reproduction, when offspring are young, or even when they are older.

For relationships that break down before any reproduction, this is part of the shopping-around process. Individuals are just trying to identify the best genetic partner for themselves. They may think a partner is right for them, but it may only be when they are in a relationship with the person that they realise it is not, or that they could do better.

Such breakdowns are of limited concern because they have no genetic consequences.

In fact, such relationship breakdowns are beneficial because they show that individuals are choosy in their partner selection. They are not rushing into things. They are trying to ensure they get an advantageous genetic partner.

What is more concerning are relationships that fall apart after reproduction. If a relationship is only then judged to be poor, lacking or unsuitable, it is too late. This is because a child, a genetic output, now exists. This is a commitment. It will require an individual’s investment.

Not only do parents have to go to great effort to raise that child, creating and maintaining an environment conducive to maximising that child’s potential, but there is also an opportunity cost – by raising this child, they limit themselves in having and raising other children.

Most parents, concentrating their parenting resources, limit their reproductive output. They can only reproduce so many times. They must therefore be careful not to waste their efforts. They must ensure that their reproductive choices are the right ones, that they are maximising their genetic prospects.

In short, for both sexes, we shouldn’t be firing bullets unless we’re aiming for something; we shouldn’t be firing unless it’s at a specific and desirable target.

The fact that relationships have become more tenuous and more likely to break down could be because we are entering relationships too quickly and not going through a full genetic matching process, or because we have become increasingly picky about our choice of reproductive partner.

More specifically, relationships break down for a number of reasons:

• When an individual feels that they can do no more for their genes. If they are not contributing something, then what is the point of them being in that relationship? They may even think that their genes could possibly do better without them. For instance, if a person works away from home, their children rarely see them, then the likelihood of the parents’ relationship lasting is much lower.

• When an individual feels that the poor relationship (disagreements, arguments, hostility, violence) between them and their partner is having a negative impact on their genetic offspring. It can’t be good for a child to see their parents constantly at loggerheads.

• When an individual thinks (usually sub-consciously) that their genetic offspring are not as good as they had hoped. Perhaps their reproductive partner wasn’t everything they thought they were. In the mating game, deceit, subterfuge and pretence are not uncommon. Having realised that they could do better, an individual might want to get out of a relationship while there’s still time and opportunity to find other reproductive possibilities. That person might then be able to improve on what they have already genetically produced. A new relationship may therefore be a correction of an earlier failure or disappointment. Of course, there is always a danger in doing this. The grass isn’t always greener. If someone decides to cut their losses and look for a new partner, it’s a gamble – by taking the risk and pushing for more, they might end up in a worse position or with nothing.

• As a species, we have become more confident and assertive. It seems that we may therefore be more willing to challenge our genetic masters. An individual may consider their genetically selected partner choice to be suboptimal. Our genes may be wrong; they may not have achieved all that could be possible. Perhaps, if it were left to us, we could do better. As such, we may be more prepared to do our own thing, to choose our own relationships, rather than to meekly follow genetic orders.

• In a complex society where people mix together more, where we form close relationships around work and socialising, individuals may be more tempted to stray from their existing relationship agreement. There are more opportunities to form new relationships, which can then develop into sexual affairs. With so many enticing products available on the supermarket shelf, it can be difficult not to pick one up and put it in the shopping basket.

• As we have achieved greater control over our lives, no longer constantly struggling for mere survival, we have also acquired an appetite for personal fulfilment. We don’t just want to toil through life; we want to enjoy life. We want to make the most of the freedom that society has given us. Sexual relationships can be perceived as an important part of that good life.

• As a species, with society’s support, we are living a lot longer than we used to. It can be difficult to spend these extended years in a relationship with one person. Fifty, sixty, even seventy-year anniversaries are not as rare as they used to be. People have to have a lot in common or a strong motivation to stay together for this long.

• Once we’ve satisfied our genetic duties, once our procreational activity has finished, once we’ve raised our offspring to the point of their independence, we are no longer under any genetic obligation. We’ve done our bit for our genetic future. We are now free to do as we choose. We can behave without adhering to genetic guidelines or striving to achieve genetic ambition. Our genetic purpose is sated, so it’s time to enjoy ourselves, to indulge in some pleasures. We can now choose the sexual relations we want to have rather than having to act at the behest of our genes.

• Changes in society mean that couples are no longer forced to stay together. Not only can they now afford – often with the support of the state – to go their separate ways, but there is also less stigma attached to divorce and separation than there used to be. Although society may not encourage us to leave failing relationships, it does little to deter us from doing so. Society has made changing relationships more acceptable and easier. Couples may therefore be more inclined to split up than to work through the difficulties they may face in a relationship.

The breakdown of parent relationships will have consequences for their children. The nature and seriousness of those consequences will depend on factors such as the children’s ages at the time of the breakdown, how the breakdown is handled financially and emotionally, the ongoing access the children will have to their parents, and the impact that any new partners of either parent may have.

Given that relationship breakdowns are a relatively recent phenomenon (certainly to the extent that they now occur), it is probably too early to establish whether these social changes will have any longer-term genetic effects or change our development as a species.

Consideration should, however, be given to the following:

• When one parent is absent, children may struggle to find a role model for what it means to be a mother or father.
• If children are being raised by non-biological parents, do those parents have the same commitment and devotion to the children (this may be particularly telling when their own biological children are also living with them)?
• The raising of children is tough. Can a single parent give a child all the support it needs? What happens when there is more than one child? How does a single parent give each child the required attention?
• With relationships changing, new family structures have developed – same-sex families, step families, polyamorous families, grandparent families – how will this impact those children that are raised within these environments?
• More often than not, relationship breakdowns are acrimonious affairs. The disagreement and feuding also don’t always stop following the breakdown. Children have to live through this. It is bound to have some emotional repercussions. What effect will it have on those children’s own behaviours and relationships?

Our ability and willingness to step away from a relationship with our partner when there are also children involved may or may not be a ticking genetic bomb. It is certainly, however, an illustration of how we have lost or are losing our Genetic Priority – doing what is in the best interests of our genes.

It shows a downgrading of the importance we attach to our genes and what they expect of us. It seems that, increasingly, we are not prepared to do what we are genetically obliged to do. We prefer to do our own thing, to do what we think is in our own best interests.

Once again, herein lies the danger. By breaking Nature’s gene-centred operation, we venture into the unknown with all the risks that such an action entails.

For other interesting blogs on this subject area, check out the Article Index