Summary: Testosterone had to drop before civilization could arise. The most successful civilization incentivized men to sacrifice themselves for the betterment of society by guaranteeing them exclusive access to a mate. Rolling back these rules is a very bad idea.

Cieri et al. argue in a recent paper that the onset of civilization in human history only became possible through a reduction in testosterone in males, which curbed aggression and increased cooperative behavior. I postulate that racial differences in testosterone level may play at least some role in the relative levels of civilization seen across the world, with Africa having some of the lowest levels, East Asia having maintained a rich civilization continuously over thousands of years, and Europe achieving advanced civilization in the past 400-500 years.

Yet, as is often discussed here, when male testosterone drops, so does his attractiveness to potential mates. So what incentive does civilization provide to the men who sacrifice to construct it? Thinkers, scientists, inventors, and engineers have created the modern world, but their work requires long hours, often indoors, and not a lot of exercise. They cannot be productive in their fields, while simultaneously maintaining a physique like Arnold Schwarzenegger. And yet, with all due respect to Schwarzenegger, it is precisely these men (and less-so Arnold) who need to reproduce and pass along their genes if the forward march of civilization is to be maintained.

The construct of marriage solves this problem. It allows a female to choose exactly one male, who is the only person she can expect support from for the rest of her life. The punishments for adultery have historically been steep, up to and including death. Often, husbands who murdered their wives’ lovers were not punished at all.

As noted on this sub, however, the next problem one encounters is the willingness of females to share a single, very successful male (think of Bill Gates or the Ottoman Sultan). You might have hundreds and hundreds of women gathered around a single such male. And what is the problem with that, you might ask? You then have thousands of males at the bottom of society without a chance to mate, which means that biologically they have no stake left in society: nothing left to lose. This implies violence and turmoil (this is actually happening in China now, where there are far more men than women). There is a second problem too: Nassim Taleb argues convincingly in the Black Swan) that while there is undoubtedly an element of skill and preparedness in success, very great success like that achieved by Steve Jobs and Bill Gates mostly involves luck. And giving lucky men a massively disproportionate chance to reproduce to the exclusion of other productive men who are as intelligent, but not so lucky, is not only unfair, but a poor strategy for the continuation of a competitive civilization.

The Christian marriage, therefore, only allows for monogamy. One man, one woman, no matter how successful the man is. The Islamic concept of marriage allows a little more play: one man may marry up to four wives, which provides greater incentives for men to work hard after the first marriage, but doesn’t allow a few very successful males to monopolize the lion’s share of women.

In conclusion, we can use this understanding to analyze the modern situation. Women, who enjoy all the benefits of modern civilization, have been freed to revert to a primal mating strategy that historically had to be curtailed to facilitate the advancement of the nations. As a result, there is a rapidly diminishing incentive for intelligent, motivated men to sacrifice their own lives to advance others’ lives (for example, through the pursuit of science or engineering), and I believe we are witnessing the early middle stages of the rot and collapse of Europe, America, and increasingly other countries where “women’s sexual freedom” and feminism have made great headway.