3 ms·

Regarding the historical analysis, we do seem to be in a provably unique point in history. For most of human history, population was constrained by the availabi

by whack 9y ago

Regarding the historical analysis, we do seem to be in a provably unique point in history. For most of human history, population was constrained by the availability of resources. Ie, the Malthusian trap. The number of healthy children one can raise, was constrained by the amount of material resources one had at his disposal. Not to mention that even in monogamous societies, birth-control was rare, and mistresses/children-born-out-of-wedlock were prevalent. It's only in the past 100-200 years that the nature of population-control has changed so dramatically. Due to the widespread availability of birth-control, the increasing taboo against mistresses, and the abundance of food/shelter/medical-care, the number of children one sires is no longer well-correlated with financial prosperity. Luckily, the effects of improved education and nutrition have drowned out any potential genetic effects from the above. But I suspect any potential consequences in natural-selection will take several centuries to fully pan out.

soundwave106 9y ago
This might end up as a "nature vs. nurture" question. The flip side of this argument, is that in modern monogamous societies (especially with birth control enabling easy family planning), the smart and industrious couple will probably have the ability to devote more time and resources to the relatively small amount of children they have. Whereas, the smart and industrious polygamous male (traditional polygamy tends to almost always be patriarchal)'s resources will be spread more thinly among their X wives and Y babies. At present, I'm not aware of a current polygamous society that is known for technological or intellectual sophistication. In addition to the above, the overall social structure in polygamous society seems to be negatively impacted, owing to the large quantity of unmarried, potentially violent, men that need to be dealt with somehow (as alluded to in The Economist article). Consequently, I'm also not aware of a polygamous society which embraces liberal values politically, or embraces democratic style political structures. In other words, from the evidence I see, it seems likely to me that the negative consequences of polygamy wipes out any potential genetic benefit.

by whack 9y ago

soundwave106 9y ago

This might end up as a "nature vs. nurture" question. The flip side of this argument, is that in modern monogamous societies (especially with birth control enabling easy family planning), the smart and industrious couple will probably have the ability to devote more time and resources to the relatively small amount of children they have. Whereas, the smart and industrious polygamous male (traditional polygamy tends to almost always be patriarchal)'s resources will be spread more thinly among their X wives and Y babies. At present, I'm not aware of a current polygamous society that is known for technological or intellectual sophistication. In addition to the above, the overall social structure in polygamous society seems to be negatively impacted, owing to the large quantity of unmarried, potentially violent, men that need to be dealt with somehow (as alluded to in The Economist article). Consequently, I'm also not aware of a polygamous society which embraces liberal values politically, or embraces democratic style political structures. In other words, from the evidence I see, it seems likely to me that the negative consequences of polygamy wipes out any potential genetic benefit.