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
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 3,036: | Line 3,036: | ||
* 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. | ||
Note: This study was ''misquoted'' by Pacific Standard (psmag.com) and others to imply that ''17 women reproduced for every one man'' (see Cochran, 2015). In truth, the study only considered ''effective population size'' as derived from genetic diversity. | Note: This study was ''misquoted'' by Pacific Standard (psmag.com) and others to imply that ''17 women reproduced for every one man'' (see Cochran, 2015). In truth, the study only considered ''effective population size'' as derived from genetic diversity. The ability to afford many children was inherited in wealthy families, but the males in such families would not contribute with one individual to the effective population size each, but considerably less than that due to their genetic similarity. Since women's fertility is much more limited, this increases the F:M ratio in genetic diversity beyond the sex ratio in actual reproductive success. | ||
Nonetheless, | Nonetheless, the result points to substantial sex differences in variance of reproductive success. Earlier DNA studies by Wilder and colleges (2004) estimated the historical sex ratio of reproductive success to be 2:1. Half the branches on a tree of ancestors represent males, but half of the males are repeats. Possibly 80% of women, but only 40% of men (i.e. half as many) have reproduced. The observation that males (humans and in the animal kingdom in general) exhibit a greater variance in reproductive success as compared to females is known as [[Bateman's Principle]]. | ||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''Quotes:'''</span> | <span style="font-size:125%">'''Quotes:'''</span> | ||
* ''Likely, the effect we observe is due to a combination of culturally driven increased male variance in offspring number within demes and an increased male-specific variance among demes, perhaps enhanced by increased sex-biased migration patterns and male-specific cultural inheritance of fitness.'' (Karmin et al., 2015) | * ''Likely, the effect we observe is due to a combination of culturally driven increased male variance in offspring number within demes and an increased male-specific variance among demes, perhaps enhanced by increased sex-biased migration patterns and male-specific cultural inheritance of fitness.'' (Karmin et al., 2015) | ||
* ''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% [e.g. depending on child mortality]. 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) | * ''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) | ||