Economist Magazine: "The Link Between Polygamy and War"

[Lawrence]

This makes a lot of sense-  and won't be news to anyone here.

The Link Between Polygamy and War

 

[Anonymous]

I agree with the article, feminism has brought us nothing but violence and war. It is a national security threat that should be taken seriously, and outlawed.

 

[Deleted member 1252]

The reality is that if a man can’t get pussy, he will do other things with his time, and they will not be good things.

 

[Framecel222]

tldr

 

[subsaharan]

Interesting article. Systemic male sexual frustration is indeed a destabilizing force that begets violence.

Other thoughts:
Most of human history was polygynous ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x ). Assuming most of this post-Neolithic Revolution took a form similar to that presented in the article (OLD Money/Status Betabux polygamy of 15-year-old wives), and given Money/Status Betabux monogamy is what followed, one wonders whether women selecting mates based on looks is a recent cultural development (driven by female financial independence, itself precipitated by the technological leap of uncoupling of sex from procreation).

 

[nausea]

I agree with the article, feminism has brought us nothing but violence and war. It is a national security threat that should be taken seriously, and outlawed.

it is an international security threat

 

[subsaharan]

this article has nothing to do with feminism. wtf

 

[kvn]

i was elated to find such article on TE but i was very disappointed how cowardly the article left out any analysis if whats happening in sudan and such shitholes will happen to the west too when polygyny becomes normal here as well.

 

[Anonymous]

it is an international security threat

True, I just don't care what happens outside of the US.

 

[mikepence]

Interesting article. Systemic male sexual frustration is indeed a destabilizing force that begets violence.
Other thoughts:
Most of human history was polygynous ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x ). Assuming most of this post-Neolithic Revolution took a form similar to that presented in the article (OLD Money/Status Betabux polygamy of 15-year-old wives), and given Money/Status Betabux monogamy is what followed, one wonders whether women selecting mates based on looks is a recent cultural development (driven by female financial independence, itself precipitated by the technological leap of uncoupling of sex from procreation).

Looks and MS were correlated in those times. Height helped you see farther and made it easier to hunt. A wide frame made you appear bigger and stronger. And many features considered attractive suggest health and genetic quality(for example, facial symmetry means that your face genes copied extremely well).

---

Also, the thing people ignore in evolutionary arguments for polygamy is that back then, it was a consensual agreement. The alpha got the women, and in exchange, he protected the tribe and took on most of the responsibility. Being beta wasn't necessarily that undesirable in those times. But now that that agreement doesn't exist, polygamy just drives most men crazy and will lead to everything going to shit.

 

[subsaharan]

Interesting article. Systemic male sexual frustration is indeed a destabilizing force that begets violence.
Other thoughts:
Most of human history was polygynous ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x ). Assuming most of this post-Neolithic Revolution took a form similar to that presented in the article (OLD Money/Status Betabux polygamy of 15-year-old wives), and given Money/Status Betabux monogamy is what followed, one wonders whether women selecting mates based on looks is a recent cultural development (driven by female financial independence, itself precipitated by the technological leap of uncoupling of sex from procreation).

Looks and MS were correlated in those times. Height helped you see farther and made it easier to hunt. A wide frame made you appear bigger and stronger. And many features considered attractive suggest health and genetic quality(for example, facial symmetry means that your face genes copied extremely well).

---

Also, the thing people ignore in evolutionary arguments for polygamy is that back then, it was a consensual agreement. The alpha got the women, and in exchange, he protected the tribe and took on most of the responsibility. Being beta wasn't necessarily that undesirable in those times. But now that that agreement doesn't exist, polygamy just drives most men crazy and will lead to everything going to shit.

---

Good points. Random thoughts:

1. "Looks and MS were correlated in those times." Probably true pre-Neolithic revolution (Epipaleolithic/late Pleistocene) -- i.e., before agriculture. Ethnography of foraging ("hunter/gatherer" societies) such as the Hadza, suggest, "Hadza women want a husband who is a good forager, good looking. intelligent. and faithful." ("good forager" here referring to "good hunter" ( https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/Marlowe-hadza-mate-selection-criteria.pdf )
2. But the Hadza society is characterized by serial monogamy (or in the TE article's terminology, "serial polygamy") and had very limited "parallel polygamy" (see same link above). I suspect this may be true for most foraging societies, and perhaps generalizable to most of human history (seemingly confirmed by https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Relationships/How_Our_Ancestors_Lived#Were_Our_Ancestors_Monogamous_or_Polygamous? -- but limited citations).
3. Y & mtDNA shows only a fraction (1/3rd or less) human males sired children throughout our history:
   
   
   
   ( http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract ) Also consistent w/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x -- BUT DNA CAN'T differentiate b/w serial monogamy and parallel polygamy, but given what we know about modern day hunter/gatherer societies, it seems likely most of our human history was marked by Chad the hunter siring children primarily in serial monogamous relationships but opportunistically supplemented with side-relationships whenever he can get away with it (pretty much like present-day). Non-Chads (the majority of men) either did not sire children, sired very few, or their children died before reproduction
4.  The above figure and associated article shows the proportion of men reproducing was especially low (<1/10th of men reproducing) during the Holocene period corresponding to the Neolithic Revolution -- which would have been associated with the introduction of pastoralism (e.g., cattle = Money/Status, like present-day South Sudan -- the focus of the TE article) and other forms of agriculture. THIS EXTREMELY low effective male population size is perhaps best explained, in part, by the phenomenon described in the article -- "WINNER-TAKES-ALL" Betabux "parallel polygamy", with far more low Money/Status men (including slaves) completely excluded from reproduction. It seems intuitive that in that period, Money/Status (e.g., including social strata & hereditary caste) >> Looks in determining reproductive success 

 

[mikepence]

Good points. Random thoughts:

1. "Looks and MS were correlated in those times." Probably true pre-Neolithic revolution (Epipaleolithic/late Pleistocene) -- i.e., before agriculture. Ethnography of foraging ("hunter/gatherer" societies) such as the Hadza, suggest, "Hadza women want a husband who is a good forager, good looking. intelligent. and faithful." ("good forager" here referring to "good hunter" ( https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/Marlowe-hadza-mate-selection-criteria.pdf )
2. But the Hadza society is characterized by serial monogamy (or in the TE article's terminology, "serial polygamy") and had very limited "parallel polygamy" (see same link above). I suspect this may be true for most foraging societies, and perhaps generalizable to most of human history (seemingly confirmed by https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Relationships/How_Our_Ancestors_Lived#Were_Our_Ancestors_Monogamous_or_Polygamous? -- but limited citations).
3. Y & mtDNA shows only a fraction (1/3rd or less) human males sired children throughout our history:
   
   
   
   ( http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract ) Also consistent w/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00239-003-2458-x -- BUT DNA CAN'T differentiate b/w serial monogamy and parallel polygamy, but given what we know about modern day hunter/gatherer societies, it seems likely most of our human history was marked by Chad the hunter siring children primarily in serial monogamous relationships but opportunistically supplemented with side-relationships whenever he can get away with it (pretty much like present-day). Non-Chads (the majority of men) either did not sire children, sired very few, or their children died before reproduction
4.  The above figure and associated article shows the proportion of men reproducing was especially low (<1/10th of men reproducing) during the Holocene period corresponding to the Neolithic Revolution -- which would have been associated with the introduction of pastoralism (e.g., cattle = Money/Status, like present-day South Sudan -- the focus of the TE article) and other forms of agriculture. THIS EXTREMELY low effective male population size is perhaps best explained, in part, by the phenomenon described in the article -- "WINNER-TAKES-ALL" Betabux "parallel polygamy", with far more low Money/Status men (including slaves) completely excluded from reproduction. It seems intuitive that in that period, Money/Status (e.g., including social strata & hereditary caste) >> Looks in determining reproductive success 

Very interesting write up. I appreciate the research that went in.

The Neolithic revolution/agriculture completely changed the game in human history. That was when we really started to outpace our evolution. Since we could pass on information from one generation to the next, over time we were able to create a society we we were not adapted for. While looks-based mating reduced, it did not disappear and it’s likely good-looking men had good representation among those with MS anyway. 10000 years is nothing in evolutionary terms and even if MS traits like intelligence, motivation, etc. with looks completely irrelevant, looks would still be a dominant feature of attraction.

Basically, what I’m trying to say is that while looks-based mating has been less prominent for most of the previous millennial in comparison to pre-Neolithic times, this idea that looks was completely irrelevant is unlikely. Women had the same exact instinct to fuck Chad as they do now, it was just constrained by male restraints and the need for security. Now that MS isn’t as relevant, the powerful chaditational pull women is no longer dormant and is now completely released.

---

sorry for the grammar errors, I typed this in my phone

 

[FeminismsCancer]

Nobody sees the easiest solution. Have more daughters than sons. Many Asian countries eliminate female fetuses but we never hear of a society that controls the number of sons. There is no need for so many of us in a hypergamic species.