"No, Ian, I really don't. Most Americans are affluent enough to have time to persue leisurely pursuits, like arguing on forums, watching television, and hanging out with friends, rather than working most of their awake hours and scrounging resources to just stay alive. Community is an afterthought, and survival instinct is pretty much lost."
Hmm, I guess that's an issue of perspective. Things are a lot easier in some regard, in that we have unlimited calories a short drive away from us if not in our fridge, but there's a lot of new stress that didn't used to exist in our lives. We do work to keep ourselves alive constantly, just in different ways--eating and seeking shelter are still major pursuits, and the ways those activities have changes doesn't mean we're not still doing them. The idea that we spent most of our awake time scrounging resources back in the day is pretty commonly held, but it was a major thesis of the book I just read that the Hobbesian view of life as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" was basically wrong, and one of the reasons the native cultures appeared so lazy to visiting westerners was that it was relatively easy to find what they needed foraging in just a few hours. It's an interesting read if only for the perspective on agriculture's impact on our quality of life (bad for us, except for a few humans recently emerging from scarcity to, well, diseases of affluence). If a prehistoric person watched us crawling through coal mines 12 hours a day for money to buy food and shelter, they might think we had it pretty tough.
But definitely, most modern people in our culture aren't fighting tooth and nail for survival all the time. Agreed. But I don't know why that would necessarily cause communities to fall apart.
CXT your opinion is noted. I would suggest you read the book.* It's not just an opinion, it's a very interesting thesis supported by lots of evidence from cultures all over the world, the archaeologic record, and comparisons with the other great apes. And it goes into why allow it "seems" reasonable for there to be practical and evolutionary advantages to life long exclusive mating, that is because we grow up in an environment where we are taught that, and where conditions are markedly different from the way they were for most of our species' history. As I mentioned before, it seems normal to many people to whittle away bits of their genitals, but that's just the power of culture, not biology or reason. Back to the opinion stuff:
"But IMO its next to impossible to really commit to more than one person outside of family."
Why? We can love multiple kids, why can't we love multiple mates? What if those mates ARE family, eg, a close knit mini community comprised of several overlapping traditional families? Until you read about cultures where mothers breastfeed nonbiologic shared kids, or the concept of solo paternity doesn't exist, this would seem logical--but while it may work, it's proven not the only way.
"And IMO when you don't really commit you miss out."
Sure, I support that option. There's definitely something to be said about the obvious thing that happens when a couple permits each other to have outside relationships: they don't "miss out" on outside relationships. And "really committing" doesn't have to mean you can't have those outside relationships too. What if you really commit to your partner's lifelong happiness and then you get paralyzed (or disinterested) and you continue to love them and celebrate their happiness respectfully dating other people? Would you be a more, or less, committed spouse if you told your partner they can't ever have intimacy again, or sufficiently, because you can't or don't?
"And I usually see cheating on ones significant other as a sign of weakenss."
I generally do too, but I see open conversations about happiness and trusting your life partner well enough to love them and accept that you won't be alpha and omega to them, as a great sign of strength. This isn't a choice between fidelity and cheating, it's meant to be a choice between single fidelity and honest multiple fidelity.
"But as a general rule if someone is willing to roll on their spouse, mother of their kids, father of their kids, long term partner etc. than they will roll on you for far less cause."
I don't support cheating on your family. But someone who feels lonely and trapped in a passionless (but loving and wonderful, perhaps) marriage and committed to that relationship and not given the chance to openly date anyone else may cheat. This is very common. I don't see why a person who decides to cheat for a reminder of what passion feels like is going to steal $20 out of your wallet; they're different issues. I might be as worried about someone who divorces and remarries instead of having that affair--they really did leave the family, didn't commit to it, whether they cheated or not. And better than either option, or committing a spouse toward a passionless life, would be maintaining passion the whole time (great for them!) or allowing for a safe, honest, discussed approved outlet.
has some interesting facts on prevalence.
*No, I can't type the whole thing out here.