3 ms·

Sounds like those "one man", "17 women" scenarios were some kind of utopia for men with harems Makes you wonder about the other 16 guys, though

dragonwriter 9y ago
It doesn't mean that it was one man and seventeen women reproducing at the time, it means that male parentage at that time was a much stronger factor in whether descendants from the line survived to the modern day than female parentage.
- dmix 9y ago
  That would still make one wonder about the other 16 guys and why the survival rate of their seed was so diminished vs the 'alpha male' in the group. The unequal structure of society that naturally comes about from capitalism, an unevenness that has become even more prominent in modern mixed-economies where heavy state intervention in the economy is combined with market ideology, seems to have been far more extreme and socially destructive back in the stone age when we were all 'living off the land' and not exploiting resources to support a consumer centric culture... So much of the "naturalist fallacy" and "appeal to nature" is based on a misunderstanding or idealized view of nature. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Naturalistic_fallacy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Naturalistic_fallacy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Appeal_to_nature https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Appeal_to_nature
  - simonh 9y ago
    The Stone Age, even the Bronze Age wasn't a capitalist society. Wealth and power were derived from military might and traditional roles, not ownership through capital investment by private enterprise.
    - dmix 9y ago
      If that's what you got from my comment then you must have misread it.
- jiggunjer 9y ago
  It could also mean the family unit was structured differently. E.g. five brothers taking care of dozens of wives sounds more viable than one man being able to survive 17 women :p
  - warrenm 9y ago
    That's still a disproportionate ratio of males to females
microwavecamera 9y ago
My theory is it had to do with hunting in that era. Animals were big, all you had was a stone tipped spear and if you got injured there was nothing anyone could do for you. I'm sure death and debilitating injuries came early and often.
- simonh 9y ago
  8k years ago is 6k BC which is well into the agricultural era. Just look at the picture at the top of the article, or read the very first sentence.
  - microwavecamera 9y ago
    It was late I misread that. But it's still the neolithic era, there wasn't mass agriculture or urbanization yet. And competing tribes and the advent of warfare would have played a role.

dragonwriter 9y ago

It doesn't mean that it was one man and seventeen women reproducing at the time, it means that male parentage at that time was a much stronger factor in whether descendants from the line survived to the modern day than female parentage.

dmix 9y ago
That would still make one wonder about the other 16 guys and why the survival rate of their seed was so diminished vs the 'alpha male' in the group. The unequal structure of society that naturally comes about from capitalism, an unevenness that has become even more prominent in modern mixed-economies where heavy state intervention in the economy is combined with market ideology, seems to have been far more extreme and socially destructive back in the stone age when we were all 'living off the land' and not exploiting resources to support a consumer centric culture... So much of the "naturalist fallacy" and "appeal to nature" is based on a misunderstanding or idealized view of nature. https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Naturalistic_fallacy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Naturalistic_fallacy https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Appeal_to_nature https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Appeal_to_nature
- simonh 9y ago
  The Stone Age, even the Bronze Age wasn't a capitalist society. Wealth and power were derived from military might and traditional roles, not ownership through capital investment by private enterprise.
  - dmix 9y ago
    If that's what you got from my comment then you must have misread it.
jiggunjer 9y ago
It could also mean the family unit was structured differently. E.g. five brothers taking care of dozens of wives sounds more viable than one man being able to survive 17 women :p
- warrenm 9y ago
  That's still a disproportionate ratio of males to females

microwavecamera 9y ago

My theory is it had to do with hunting in that era. Animals were big, all you had was a stone tipped spear and if you got injured there was nothing anyone could do for you. I'm sure death and debilitating injuries came early and often.

simonh 9y ago
8k years ago is 6k BC which is well into the agricultural era. Just look at the picture at the top of the article, or read the very first sentence.
- microwavecamera 9y ago
  It was late I misread that. But it's still the neolithic era, there wasn't mass agriculture or urbanization yet. And competing tribes and the advent of warfare would have played a role.