What is the fundamental reason for the increasingly low marriage rate nowadays?

Stop talking about housing prices, feminism, or the pressures of life as if they are the main causes.

If we strip away the vague moral and romantic veils and look at it through the cold logic of biology and intergenerational asset transfer, the current marriage and fertility deadlock is actually very easy to understand.

The core reason lies in: modern laws grant young people the rights of independent natural persons, but harsh economic realities have reduced them to the status of pets.

When two young people cannot rely solely on their own income to complete the economic cycle of “building a nest (buying a house) - foraging (supporting a family) - reproducing (raising children),” marriage degrades from a union of two adults to an asset exchange and breeding transaction between two pet owners (their parents).

Once this logic takes hold, all the bizarre phenomena become understandable. The essence of modern young people is that they are high-IQ pets.

Observe the so-called marriageable-age young people around you:

They need their parents to buy a house for marriage, their children are raised by their parents, and even their monthly mortgage is subsidized by their parents.

In ancient times, this was called “clan,” because filial piety imposed a hierarchy where children were always subordinate.

In modern times, this is called “living off parents,” because economic pressure forces children to depend on their original families.

Under this structure, sons are equivalent to male pets, daughters to female pets. And the parents are the true owners of the territory (property) and the food (savings).

Think about it: what is the breeding logic in the pet world? Usually, a family owning a female pet wants to breed offspring, so they spend money to borrow a well-looking male pet for mating. After mating, the offspring belong to the female pet’s family.

If a family owning a male pet wants offspring, they can only spend a lot of money to buy a female pet and keep her at home to breed for their male pet.

Translating this logic to human society, you find that today’s marriage and fertility market is actually quite similar to pet breeding.

If we accept the “pet” setting, marriage becomes a game between two households: traditional “bride price and dowry” is a form of full acquisition.

The groom’s side pays a bride price and buys a house, which is essentially the male pet family buying out the reproductive and labor value of the female pet.

Therefore, why do many daughters-in-law demand that their parents-in-law treat them like their own daughters in this model?

Many think this is unreasonable, but the underlying business logic is highly self-consistent:

Since you bought me back, I am now an asset (pet) of your family.

As the owner, shouldn’t you be responsible for my food, clothing, and daily needs?

Are you still expecting my original family (my natal family) to keep buying me cat food?

If you don’t support me, why should you expect this female pet to breed offspring for your male pet? “Leaving the father to leave the son” is the female pet family’s way of finding a mate.

Many affluent single-daughter families in major cities increasingly prefer to let their daughters “not marry but have children” or find a gentle man if they do not marry.

Why?

Because, from the perspective of these female pet owners (the daughter’s parents), they have territory and food, and only lack a sperm donor. Instead of letting someone buy their daughter, it’s better to spend a little money to borrow a good-quality male pet for mating. The offspring are born with the mother’s surname and raised by the daughter’s family.

This is much more cost-effective than marrying off a daughter, as it preserves the core assets (the daughter and grandchildren) and avoids the risk of property division.

Viewing children who are economically dependent on their parents as pets also explains why the ability of a son-in-law is often much higher than that of a daughter-in-law.

Marrying a daughter-in-law (buying a female pet): the bride’s family mainly needs a womb capable of producing offspring.

Therefore, the daughter’s education and ability are secondary; the key KPI is reproductive capability (young, healthy, suitable for family life). Inviting a son-in-law (buying a male pet): the groom’s parents are not lacking reproductive ability (the daughter has a uterus).

So why let a foreign male enter the territory and share resources? Unless this male has strong hunting skills (earning ability) or high emotional value.

Thus, son-in-laws are often required to be high-quality, while daughters just need to be capable of bearing children. This is also why it’s hard to find a good son-in-law; those without ability prefer to stay in their natal homes, and capable ones are generally unwilling to enter into a marriage.

The “two-head marriage” popular in Jiangsu and Zhejiang seems fair but is actually a game where both households want to save money (no bride price or dowry) and also want to control the core assets (grandchildren).

But the problem is, offspring are indivisible. For the elderly, grandchildren are not only bloodline but also high-level emotional pets. They invest heavily in buying houses so that in their later years, they have a biological “grandchild/granddaughter” to bring joy.

If both sides are involved, no matter how the division is made, one side will always feel their return on investment has decreased.

Whoever has actual custody of the grandchildren is the real winner.

This ownership dispute often causes more family rifts than money disputes.

Finally, this logic explains the most painful inheritance issue: why, when there is one son and one daughter, the daughter who marries out and the son who stays at home often do not split the estate equally, but instead the estate goes to the one who stays? Explaining it as “favoring sons over daughters” is too superficial.

The real underlying logic is:

The child who marries out (or enters into a marriage) is an asset that has been divested.

They go to build someone else’s territory, and the offspring belong to another family.

In this case, dividing the estate would mean asset outflow.

The child who stays at home (whether through marriage or being a son-in-law) is the one who introduces assets and manages operations. They bring back someone else’s pet and keep the offspring in the family, so they get the lion’s share of the inheritance.

This also explains why divorced daughters who return to their natal home with their children often have a higher status than daughters who marry out and never return.

Because although the divorced daughter may not have brought back a male pet, she has brought her labor and offspring back to the original family.

For the maternal family, of course, it’s worth investing resources to support her.