~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
antwonomous
[removed]
[–]Trumpipede2016 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I love the opener- "from an otherwise worthless 2007 NYT article" haha
[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No hard data, so the discussion is pointless.
today’s human population
Define "today's". 2016? 21st century? 20th? 1500+? And so on.
Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."
Same question. Reproduced when? 50k years ago, 1000 yeas ago? 50 years ago?
[–]mewtwokillsarceus 2 points2 points2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The extra 20% percent probably came from men that were essentially the time's bb as the women were unable to lockdown the af. Once the af left after fucking her (didn't care if he impregnated them or not), the women still needed protection from other men so she'd have found herself the alpha of betas who went onto impregnate her which left the lesser betas and omegas.
Same as now, only af can't get away as much because of the law thereby curtailing his reproduction (leading to increase in acceptable betas) and bb keep pumping out babies with ladies abandoned by af.
The 20% of women that didn't get to reproduce is pretty obvious as to why it didn't happen. Men didn't give a shit about uglies even then.
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In regards to the 20% which didn't reproduce:
More than likely they died or their offspring didn't survive. Pre modern medicine birth fatality rates where much higher and mortality rates of children were also much higher.
In regards to 40% reproducing this is much the same situation. Men would hunt lots of men would die in the process and in turn new leaders would arise regularly. The top 20% is in a state of flux so more than 20% pass on genes.
People regularly didn't live into their 40's for a long time in human history.
Generally speaking the last 3000 years has saw the doubling of life expectancy with drops in infant mortality and birth related deaths only really being reduced in the last 500.
[–]BlindNowhereMan 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
well most here don't want kids so... I guess they are the 60%
[–]victor_knight 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Don't want or would rather not due to the unfavorable circumtances? Very few, I think, are men who would refuse to breed if the circumstances and costs were in their favor.
Women would rather share an alpha or cuck a beta than settle.
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Trumpipede2016 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorJamesSkepp 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mewtwokillsarceus 2 points2 points2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlindNowhereMan 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]victor_knight 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]victor_knight 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link