Post: #1

so this study apparently confirms women are the selective gender (you don't say) and agriculture and stantial civilizations consolidated the trend. maybe that's when the ruling elite figured out they needed monogamy as a mean to social stability.
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technolo...ve-success

Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.

Physically driven natural selection shaped many human traits. Ethnic Africans and Europeans had to evolve to digest milk, for example, while most ethnic Tibetans have adaptations to deal with the lower oxygen levels at high altitudes. But if Wilson Sayres' team's hypothesis is correct, it would be one of the first instances that scientists have found of culture affecting human evolution.

The team uncovered this dip-and-rise in the male-to-female reproductive ratio by looking at DNA from more than 450 volunteers from seven world regions. Geneticists analyzed two parts of the DNA, Y-chromosome DNA and mitochondrial DNA. These don't make up a large portion of a person's genetics, but they're special because people inherit Y-chromosome DNA exclusively from their male ancestors and mitochondrial DNA exclusively from their female ancestors. By analyzing diversity in these parts, scientists are able to deduce the numbers of female and male ancestors a population has. It's always more female.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?"

So much for what our DNA can tell us. This study, published last week in the journal Genome Research, can't directly account for why the dip occurred. Instead, the team members tried to think through other explanations. "Like was there some sort of weird virus that only affected males across the whole globe, 8,000 years ago?" Wilson Sayres asks—a hypothesis the team found unlikely.

To further test the wealth-and-power idea, the researchers plan to look for other genetic markers that would indicate that something cultural, not physical, kept those early male farmers from reproducing. Team members could also collaborate with anthropologists and archaeologists, to see if they have any clues.

Nature is a harsh taskmaster, but so, it seems, is human culture. Although the popular notion is that farming and settlement cushioned people against "survival of the fittest," this study shows that's not true. Something cultural happened 8,000 years ago that's marked us even today.

Post: #2

you are leaving out a few things: much higher infant mortality rate, it was very common for women to have 10 children and only a couple of them survive, and it was very common for the woman to die from birth complications. very few people lived into their 30s, they started having kids in their teens if they were going to have them.

my point is, many women simply died before having children, not that they were being super picky.

Post: #3

Well, a high rate of childbirth deaths means some women die on their first birth, and if the child is stillborn, then those women died without offspring. So this would reduce the % of women that reproduce. (And for other women giving birth, it doesn't matter - we are measuring "have reproduced", i.e. at least one child; it doesn't matter if they die afterwards.)
Despite death during childbirth being far more common than today, far more women reproduced than men during ancient times, so whatever was limiting men, it was darn spectacular.

Post: #4

For the 1 guy:





Game recognized.

Post: #5

(03-19-2015 04:24 AM)catoblepa Wrote:  so this study apparently confirms women are the selective gender (you don't say) and agriculture and stantial civilizations consolidated the trend.

Post: #6

From a red pill perspective this shows that 8000 years ago that women ignored the Beta male even more than today and bred exclusively with the Alpha male.

Post: #7

Not surprising. I think it was noted in an earlier thread that while 80% of women throughout history have reproduced, only 40% of men have done the same.

Roy Baumeister calls this imbalance “single most underappreciated fact about gender."

Post: #8

Good post, OP. Great to see empirical data-driven posts on what our DNA history tells us.

Post: #9

Due to tribes living in close proximity, could menstrual synchrony have accounted for this phenomenon?

If menstrual cycles are aligning, then ovulation is also aligning.

Alpha is privy to this, secludes the women during their fertile period, impregnates a couple of them a month over the course of the year, there's his 17 offspring (at least).

Post: #10

As marriage begins to crumble as an institution and our societies become more godless, we will be heading back towards that direction of playas and incels. No more pair bonding. Just one big orgy. The bonobo masturbation society.

Post: #11

On the point about periods syncing up made earlier, that phenomenon is called The McClintock Effect. The common hypothesis is that it evolved in humans because it is conducive to reproduction in a more efficient way. If a tribe of women had completely staggered fertility cycles, the men (or single alpha male) having sex with them might not time sex with that particular girl with her fertile window, since female ovulation is kept concealed moreso in humans than other species. If all women get in sync, then no matter who is fucking who during that week of ovulation, someone (or a lot of people) are getting pregnant. It might even promote giant, Bacchanalian orgies since the girls will all be at their horniest, as well as looking their best.

Post: #12

The advent of all modern religions likely came as a response to this post-agricultural sexual imbalance. At a certain point, the beta majority rose up and rebelled against the lack of sexual options they were receiving. It would have become a liability for the alphas to maintain such large harems at the risk of rebellion or being assassinated. It became beneficial for society overall to reorganize it along the lines of (relative) monogamy. Marriage also solidified property and wealth inheritance along the male line, which became important once we switched to an agrarian civilization. That probably brought the imbalance down from 17:1 to something like 5:1. Or during the most pious times in Christian history, maybe even close to 1:1 as far as actual births carried to term. This is probably why the historical figure that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced is even as close as it is, being a 2:1 ratio.

Post: #13

(03-19-2015 08:58 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  As marriage begins to crumble as an institution and our societies become more godless, we will be heading back towards that direction of playas and incels. No more pair bonding. Just one big orgy. The bonobo masturbation society.

As with everything else, it's cyclical. The more people believe moral codes are put into place by the weak to disenfranchise the powerful, the more barbarous, violent, and uncivilized we'll become until the majority comes to the realization that social anarchy ain't much of a way to live.

And one thing people like to ignore when discussing these hypotheticals are the disenfranchised alphas that will be created, which has always been the case through history. Hyperviolent men with nothing to lose capable of rounding up and controlling like-minded cutthroats to turn against the big balla rich dudes.

Post: #14

And Labuda et al. (2010) found that the overall historical female-to-male breeding ratios were 1.4, 1.3, and 1.1 for West Africans, West Europeans, and East Asians, respectively.

And nowadays, across and within societies, West Africans and their descendants are on average more violent, have greater bone density and muscle mass, have more robust facial features, and have lower degrees of paternal investment than East Asians and theirs, with West Europeans in the middle.

Surely this is a coincidence...

Post: #15

Female reproductive strategy:

-Survive until reproductive age.
- Spread your legs. (Or wait until male of stronger conquering tribe spreads them for you)

Female survival strategy if reproductive capacity is lost or non-existant:

- Find a beta chump that will support you, negating his own chances of reproducing himself.

Male reproductive strategy:

- Survive until reproductive age.
- Battle the elements, hungry wolves, or packs of hyenas.
- Prove your worth to males of your tribe to avoid banishment.
- Prevail over opposing tribes.
- Manage to prevent females of your tribe from running off to reproduce with males from opposing tribes.
- Manage to avoid females from your tribe from reproducing with stronger, more dominant males from your tribe.
- Make sure that your limited resources are not wasted on the offspring of other males.

Male survival strategy when reproductive capacity is lost or non-existant.

Die or exile yourself to make way for stronger, dominant males.

Post: #16

You know what this means bros...

We're all descendants of very, very alpha dudes

...don't disappoint your forefathers

Post: #17

I'm pretty sure this is more a male on male thing, then a female choice thing. A woman has a son and daughter. Tribe get attacked and loses. Who do you think gets to live after being conquered?

Post: #18

(03-19-2015 09:12 AM)Dagonet Wrote:  The advent of all modern religions likely came as a response to this post-agricultural sexual imbalance. At a certain point, the beta majority rose up and rebelled against the lack of sexual options they were receiving. It would have become a liability for the alphas to maintain such large harems at the risk of rebellion or being assassinated. It became beneficial for society overall to reorganize it along the lines of (relative) monogamy. Marriage also solidified property and wealth inheritance along the male line, which became important once we switched to an agrarian civilization. That probably brought the imbalance down from 17:1 to something like 5:1. Or during the most pious times in Christian history, maybe even close to 1:1 as far as actual births carried to term. This is probably why the historical figure that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced is even as close as it is, being a 2:1 ratio.

Roman Republic was patriarchal and monogamous, for example. That was before Christianity

Post: #19

(03-19-2015 04:24 AM)catoblepa Wrote:  "It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Since they were not reproducing, they were probably jerking off. Doesn't take any computational biology to deduce that either.

Post: #20

(03-19-2015 11:31 AM)Orion Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 09:12 AM)Dagonet Wrote:  The advent of all modern religions likely came as a response to this post-agricultural sexual imbalance. At a certain point, the beta majority rose up and rebelled against the lack of sexual options they were receiving. It would have become a liability for the alphas to maintain such large harems at the risk of rebellion or being assassinated. It became beneficial for society overall to reorganize it along the lines of (relative) monogamy. Marriage also solidified property and wealth inheritance along the male line, which became important once we switched to an agrarian civilization. That probably brought the imbalance down from 17:1 to something like 5:1. Or during the most pious times in Christian history, maybe even close to 1:1 as far as actual births carried to term. This is probably why the historical figure that 80% of women and 40% of men reproduced is even as close as it is, being a 2:1 ratio.

Roman Republic was patriarchal and monogamous, for example. That was before Christianity

Well, other than the slaves.

Post: #21

(03-19-2015 11:47 AM)poutsara Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 04:24 AM)catoblepa Wrote:  "It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Since they were not reproducing, they were probably jerking off. Doesn't take any computational biology to deduce that either.

They were probably busy participating in Slut Walks, Occupy Neolithic Street, and protests over idiot males getting themselves killed by tribe enforcers, wondering why their tribeswomen kept voluntarily spreading their legs for violent invaders with penchants for murder and rape.

Post: #22

(03-19-2015 04:30 AM)eradicator Wrote:  you are leaving out a few things: much higher infant mortality rate, it was very common for women to have 10 children and only a couple of them survive, and it was very common for the woman to die from birth complications. very few people lived into their 30s, they started having kids in their teens if they were going to have them.

my point is, many women simply died before having children, not that they were being super picky.

Actually, it was the infant mortality rate that drags this statistic down. If you lived to be a teen or young adult, then you (barring disease or war) had a high chance of living to older age with some even making it close to modern standards.

One thing to keep in mind is that naturally there are more males born than females, I think it is somewhere between 102-104 males for every 100 females, and at the same time a sick male infant has a higher mortality rate than a equally sick female infant if all things are considered.

Males come into the world weaker but if we survive then we are stronger, in most cases, than females. Though, I have read that we tend to have weaker immune responses to various diseases but I am not completely sold on that. Either way, if you have such a high infant mortality rate combined with the higher rate of males being born, then that has to account for some of this.

Another big chunk of it probably comes from accidents and other types of deaths. At all ages of childhood males are more likely to take risks. So, whether it is a male dying on a hunting trip or getting a small infection that becomes septic at a young age that will take out a number of other males from the gene pool. My grandmothers younger brother got a small cut on his foot when he was about 8 years old and it became infected and days later he was dead from sepsis. I have a private family cemetery on one side of my family and if you walk around and look at the grave stones from even just about 100 years ago, the vast majority are children that died before the age of 5 and most didn't live to be more than a few weeks old.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of these societies also practiced infanticide of males to some degree. The Spartans are one example where they would leave the infant out to either die or survive due to exposure. Also, I know that archeologists can tell when they find a ancient whore house due to the fact that they find large pits of dead infants, most of which are males, near by. Think about it, a female adds to the whorehouse down the line, a male doesn't.

Having said that, I doubt that that would explain all of this even when you add in wars. So, there is probably still a lot of female choice involved.

Post: #23

Females didn't choose anything. The alphas decided. If an alpha wanted to bang a female, he banged her. If she fought him off he clubbed her over the head before the bang

Post: #24

(03-19-2015 12:58 PM)RIslander Wrote:  Females didn't choose anything. The alphas decided. If an alpha wanted to bang a female, he banged her. If she fought him off he clubbed her over the head before the bang

Yes, picking up a girl with "club game" had an entirely different meaning then...

Post: #25

(03-19-2015 11:22 AM)heavy Wrote:  You know what this means bros...

We're all descendants of very, very alpha dudes

...don't disappoint your forefathers

Unfortunately since the reproduction ratio is so skewed statistically one has a very good chance of disappointing one's forefathers.