On Apr 27, 9:16=A0am, Quadibloc <jsav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 12:59 pm, help bot <nomorech...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
> > > few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
> > > than 20 children.
>
> > > My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
> > > any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
> > > produced large numbers of children?
>
> > =A0 I think this is wrong-headed thinking. =A0Were it not
> > for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
> > children at all would very likely have gotten in on
> > the action.
>
> This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
> be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
> ***ual access among males.
Controling the gender population-amounts of a community --ie having
way fewer males per females-- would contribute to content males.
If we are concerned about 'socialist' fairness for men, stopping the
ignoring-of-female privilege times all society --in pairbonding/ mate
selecting and everything else-- would be a priority.
>
> By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
> society, with less productive effort channeled into policing.
If we were concerend about that, we would outlaw the brainwas... err
the 'confoming' methods that lead to the epidemic of single female
parents (which is a key indicator).
Ancient
> societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
> primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossed men, usually
> needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
> and wives through foreign conquest.
True.
If top men can be sure the 'other valley's' top men would not have
cannon fodder/ left overs, all cannon fodder everywhere can be
eliminated. Thus getting rid of idiotic sheep.
> So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.
Progress is relative and it doesn't all lead to the same place. Eg
some man --alone-- could have a harem of females on a lone space
vehicle and that would still be progress.
> At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
> reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
> breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
> most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.
Future medical technology can be used to make everybody the same, thus
obsoleting the need for standard 'darwinian' methods (which don't
always lead to breeds/results 'we' all agree with). But this is a nit
pick.
|
