Trusted, Automoderated users
17,538
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Before 'enforced monogamy', women's effective population size was up to 17x larger than men's
| Line 3,032: | Line 3,032: | ||
Karmin et al. (2015) analyzed the genetic diversity of exclusively male and female parts of the DNA (male Y chromosome and female mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA) to estimate effective population sizes of both sexes throughout human history. The analysis revealed the following: | Karmin et al. (2015) analyzed the genetic diversity of exclusively male and female parts of the DNA (male Y chromosome and female mitochondrial DNA, mtDNA) to estimate effective population sizes of both sexes throughout human history. The analysis revealed the following: | ||
* Genetic diversity in female DNA is much higher | * Genetic diversity in female DNA is much higher which implies that men have had higher variance in reproductive success. Some men had hundreds of children, but others none. Women were more likely to reproduce at all (due to greater male promiscuity), but they can't produce hundreds of children in a lifetime. This finding generally agrees with evidence of moderate polygyny across human cultures. | ||
* 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, women's effective population size grew substantially compared to men's, peaking around 17 times the size of men's. | * 4,000 to 8,000 years ago, women's effective population size grew substantially compared to men's, peaking around 17 times the size of men's. | ||
* The peak coincides with early agricultural revolutions, hence a plausible explanation is increasingly polygynous mating practices enabled by the power concentration and wealth accumulation of farmers. Economic inequality and hereditary systems may also have disproportionately increased the reproductive success of few wealthy men and their descendants, e.g. through political and religious succession, e.g. chiefdoms, hereditary priesthoods and early monarchies. | * The peak coincides with early agricultural revolutions, hence a plausible explanation is increasingly polygynous mating practices enabled by the power concentration and wealth accumulation of farmers. Economic inequality and hereditary systems may also have disproportionately increased the reproductive success of few wealthy men and their descendants, e.g. through political and religious succession, e.g. chiefdoms, hereditary priesthoods and early monarchies. | ||
| Line 3,044: | Line 3,044: | ||
* ''And as for the 80%-40% numbers, admittedly those are chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It could have been 60%-30% or 70%-35%. The only definite thing was that twice as many previously living women as men have descendants alive today ... The crucial implication was that for adult women, the odds of passing on genes were much better than for adult men, and so different strategies were needed.'' (Baumeister, 2007) | * ''And as for the 80%-40% numbers, admittedly those are chosen somewhat arbitrarily. It could have been 60%-30% or 70%-35%. The only definite thing was that twice as many previously living women as men have descendants alive today ... The crucial implication was that for adult women, the odds of passing on genes were much better than for adult men, and so different strategies were needed.'' (Baumeister, 2007) | ||
* ''Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends.'' (Baumeister, 2007) | * ''Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends.'' (Baumeister, 2007) | ||
* ''Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids. In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.'' (Baumeister, 2007)<ref name=kamin2015/><ref name=diep2017/><ref name=wilder2004/><ref name=baumeister2015/><ref name=tierney2007/> | * ''Look at it this way. Most women have only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen — but many fathers have had more than a few, and some men have actually had several dozen, even hundreds of kids. In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.'' (Baumeister, 2007) | ||
<div style="display: none"><ref name=kamin2015/><ref name=diep2017/><ref name=wilder2004/><ref name=baumeister2015/><ref name=tierney2007/><ref name=cochran2015/></div> | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | <span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | ||