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 3,029: | Line 3,029: | ||
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, replicating earlier findings by Wilder (2004). This implies that men have had higher variance in reproductive success. Some men had hundreds of children, but others none. | * Genetic diversity in female DNA is much higher, replicating earlier findings by Wilder (2004). This implies that men have had higher variance in reproductive success. Some men had hundreds of children, but others none. Conversely, women rarely had no children due to greater male promiscuity, but women cannot produce hundreds of children within a lifetime. This finding generally agrees with evidence of moderate polygyny across human cultures.<ref name=wikiPolygamy/> | ||
* Around 8,000 years ago, women's effective population size grew substantially compared to men's, peaking around 17 times the size of men's (see Figure below). | * Around 8,000 years ago, women's effective population size grew substantially compared to men's, peaking around 17 times the size of men's (see Figure below). | ||
* 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'' | 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'' estimated based on genetic diversity. The ability to afford many children was inherited in wealthy demes, reducing genetic diversity and hence effective population size disproportionally 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, 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]]. | 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]]. | ||
| Line 3,056: | Line 3,056: | ||
<ref name=tierney2007>Tierney J. 2007. ''The missing men in your family tree''. [[https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree FullText]]</ref> | <ref name=tierney2007>Tierney J. 2007. ''The missing men in your family tree''. [[https://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree FullText]]</ref> | ||
<ref name=cochran2015>Cochran G. 2015. ''Y-chromosome crash''. [[https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/ FullText]]</ref> | <ref name=cochran2015>Cochran G. 2015. ''Y-chromosome crash''. [[https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/y-chromosome-crash/ FullText]]</ref> | ||
<ref name=wikiPolygamy>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy</ref> | |||
</references> | </references> | ||