5 ms·

The gender ratio worldwide is currently somewhere around 101 female to 100 male (this is a bit hard to quantify, because in this group you’d also have ~3.4 inte

The gender ratio worldwide is currently somewhere around 101 female to 100 male (this is a bit hard to quantify, because in this group you’d also have ~3.4 intersex births). However, it is estimated that in the 17th century, somewhere around 1-1.5% of women giving birth died. So I would not take it for granted that the gender ratio was the same hundreds of years ago.

gshdg 7y ago
But then you have to take into account more men dying in war and whatnot.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Yep. In the old days women died in child birth, men died at war. And everyone that died was born. What comes out, by nature is nearly 50/50 - and what dies is the same ratio as born...by whatever means nature determine
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
lugg 7y ago
You can basically assume the overall population gender ratio was 1:1, the birth ratio might have been different but that is expected. It's a self correcting phenomenon where the ratio self selects towards 1:1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  That is a long term phenomena - long enough that evolution by natural selection can operate. Nothing to do with less than a thousand years/a few dozen generations.
  - lugg 7y ago
    Evolution and natural selection do work on those timescales. Take a look at rapid evolution for examples. I'm not sure how fast exactly human birth ratios swing but I would hazard a guess a few dozen generations would be enough to self select at least partially back towards the norm. How long did it take the worlds population to recover after WW1/2? I'm happy to see evidence contrary but please don't just dismiss things as if evolution is working on geological timescales it's just not.
- jlawson 7y ago
  The birth ratio tends towards near 1:1 though it is not 1:1, the population gender ratio can be heavily skewed by different death rates, as can reproductive patterns. i.e. did you know that genetic analyses have revealed that ancestrally, only 40% of men managed to reproduce, while 80% of women did? Maybe more relevant to what we're actually discussing.

gshdg 7y ago

But then you have to take into account more men dying in war and whatnot.

edoceo 7y ago
Yep. In the old days women died in child birth, men died at war. And everyone that died was born. What comes out, by nature is nearly 50/50 - and what dies is the same ratio as born...by whatever means nature determine
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

lugg 7y ago

You can basically assume the overall population gender ratio was 1:1, the birth ratio might have been different but that is expected. It's a self correcting phenomenon where the ratio self selects towards 1:1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
That is a long term phenomena - long enough that evolution by natural selection can operate. Nothing to do with less than a thousand years/a few dozen generations.
- lugg 7y ago
  Evolution and natural selection do work on those timescales. Take a look at rapid evolution for examples. I'm not sure how fast exactly human birth ratios swing but I would hazard a guess a few dozen generations would be enough to self select at least partially back towards the norm. How long did it take the worlds population to recover after WW1/2? I'm happy to see evidence contrary but please don't just dismiss things as if evolution is working on geological timescales it's just not.
jlawson 7y ago
The birth ratio tends towards near 1:1 though it is not 1:1, the population gender ratio can be heavily skewed by different death rates, as can reproductive patterns. i.e. did you know that genetic analyses have revealed that ancestrally, only 40% of men managed to reproduce, while 80% of women did? Maybe more relevant to what we're actually discussing.