5 ms·

But those aren't the two options. If loss of life were equal due to equal participation, you'd get 45% loss of each sex (using your 90% of men figure as the po

But those aren't the two options. If loss of life were equal due to equal participation, you'd get 45% loss of each sex (using your 90% of men figure as the potential loss), which (while still devastating) isn't the same argument for losing the breeding capacity of the country. The reality is that those sorts of rules are very much based on culture tradition ('historic'). It takes a long time for parts of our culture to change. Only a few countries have mandatory service for women (Finland's neighbors Norway and Sweden among them). Israel does as well, but has a large exception on religious grounds. Also, mandatory service doesn't necessarily mean mandatory combat service, although I don't know how those countries just mentioned manage that.

magicsmoke 6y ago
Scenario A: 100 women, 100 men. 100 men go off to war, 10 men return. But with polygamy, 100 women have 100 children for the next generation. Scenario B: 100 women, 100 men. 50 women and 50 men go off to war, 5 men and 5 women return. You have 55 women left in the population and 55 children for the next generation. The limiting factor in human population growth is the number of women that can have children. The cold calculus might be distasteful, but it is there.
- allannienhuis 6y ago
  by adding polygamy into the mix, you're moving the goalposts of what is really just an intellectual exercise here. The reality is that these sorts of laws are put in place based on what the lawmakers feel is culturally acceptable (tradition). Pretty confident the people arguing for male-only conscription aren't putting much weight on polygamy in their thinking. What they're really thinking is that they need male soldiers to win their war or defend their country...
  - jandrese 6y ago
    It's not even official polygamy, it's just people being people and life finding a way. Lots of single mother households raising a bunch of kids. The balance is mostly restored in the next generation.
- LanceH 6y ago
  You do have another 45 men who aren't dead. They appreciate that a lot. You left that out...like it's always left out.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    Poor men, always being left out. Maybe 2020 is the year we finally get a male President in the US. We can dream.
- as1mov 6y ago
  It's a good thing then we don't have any country with just 200 people in them. It's same excuse used when someone asks why safety of women comes before men, conveniently ignoring that the scenario itself is so far out, it's not going to happen.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Do you not understand what an example is? multiple 200 by whatever number you feel will represent a true population.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  The cold calculus is also hopelessly outdated in so many ways given the timescales of modern wars and modern transportation speed and connection. Even in an extended war the reproductive capacity is frankly irrelevant as even 1 million moms can't pop out a fully trained soldier. And it isn't a matter of cannonfodder anyway. Gender ratios and population growth may be resolved better by immigration than enforced by isolation polygamy.

magicsmoke 6y ago

Scenario A: 100 women, 100 men. 100 men go off to war, 10 men return. But with polygamy, 100 women have 100 children for the next generation. Scenario B: 100 women, 100 men. 50 women and 50 men go off to war, 5 men and 5 women return. You have 55 women left in the population and 55 children for the next generation. The limiting factor in human population growth is the number of women that can have children. The cold calculus might be distasteful, but it is there.

allannienhuis 6y ago
by adding polygamy into the mix, you're moving the goalposts of what is really just an intellectual exercise here. The reality is that these sorts of laws are put in place based on what the lawmakers feel is culturally acceptable (tradition). Pretty confident the people arguing for male-only conscription aren't putting much weight on polygamy in their thinking. What they're really thinking is that they need male soldiers to win their war or defend their country...
- jandrese 6y ago
  It's not even official polygamy, it's just people being people and life finding a way. Lots of single mother households raising a bunch of kids. The balance is mostly restored in the next generation.
LanceH 6y ago
You do have another 45 men who aren't dead. They appreciate that a lot. You left that out...like it's always left out.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  Poor men, always being left out. Maybe 2020 is the year we finally get a male President in the US. We can dream.
as1mov 6y ago
It's a good thing then we don't have any country with just 200 people in them. It's same excuse used when someone asks why safety of women comes before men, conveniently ignoring that the scenario itself is so far out, it's not going to happen.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Do you not understand what an example is? multiple 200 by whatever number you feel will represent a true population.
Nasrudith 6y ago
The cold calculus is also hopelessly outdated in so many ways given the timescales of modern wars and modern transportation speed and connection. Even in an extended war the reproductive capacity is frankly irrelevant as even 1 million moms can't pop out a fully trained soldier. And it isn't a matter of cannonfodder anyway. Gender ratios and population growth may be resolved better by immigration than enforced by isolation polygamy.