8000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every one man

ReddittFeist · 2016-12-07T02:23:15+00:00

This guy riffs off the fact that reproduction ratios were 17:1, and that this ratio corresponds to reproductive ratios in some other primate species.

The end conclusion: feminism is a symptom of much larger trends in sexuality, not a cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wpca1ZDIRQ

bowie747 · 2016-12-07T01:33:39+00:00

The reason reproduction is (approximately) 1:1 these days? Society benefits with more reproduction, but more importantly society benefits when all men are participating. They wouldn't participate if they weren't getting laid would they?

So they introduce marriage as this societal pinnacle of life achievement, call it "true love" and sell it to us. Then all men are getting laid (at least a little bit) they subsequently work hard and don't revolt against the government.

However, with the Sexual Revolution, open hypergamy and 80/20 coming back we are seeing more and more men not getting laid and not participating in society (see MGTOW and other 'radicalised' young men). There's plenty of men who go their 20s without getting laid and then think they've struck gold when some 30yo, 50+ n count post-epiphany phase woman throws them a bone. So these men are stupid enough to keep participating while receiving little to no sex. Many more are waking up though. Soon it may become a big enough problem that the government actually has to do something about it.

Eyeswears · 2016-12-07T05:39:25+00:00

And then Genghis Khan came along and made it like 1000:1.

dr_warlock · 2016-12-07T01:04:25+00:00

Polygamy + cuckoldry.

Also keep in mind that a monogamous beta can get more sex than an alpha. While with beta bob, woman sneaks off to fuck the alphas gaming her during her most fertile periods, then returns back to beta bob til next cycle. This means alphas had more reproductive sex (for no commitment or resources), but less overall sex.

Today, the same situation is happening except the alphas arent reproducing anymore and the system induces artificial selection via beta farming, diluting the population. Betas arent getting much sex and the alphas now are, but the alphas make sure they never get the girl pregnant. Now mostly betas are doing most of the breeding sprinkled with the occassional Chads spawn that he unkowingly raises.

Another common situation is chad knocks a girl up, the relationship ends, but beta bob the scavenger recovers the carrion, provides for her and the uterus turd, then pumps a few more beta kids in her. So beta kids = 3, chad spawn = 1. Again, betas are outbreeding.

The conclusion you're deriving from this study will no longer apply to western society if they aren't outbreeded by migrants first.

Cynewald · 2016-12-07T13:58:45+00:00

Many men lift and improve and put themselves out there but all that's available to them is some rolley polley fat ogre girl - most men would rather be alone if there's no prospect of a fit / slim girl. These guys are grounded by their height, bone structure, face etc. That's how its become. Its like a silent mass extinction of non-attractive men.

NikoMyshkin · 2016-12-07T01:15:44+00:00

makes you wonder what's going to happen to our gene pool now

ThorMonkey · 2016-12-07T04:23:57+00:00

17:1 is 95/5. Today's 80/20 is easy mode by comparison.

victor_knight · 2016-12-07T04:09:04+00:00

This was back when reproduction actually mattered to people. Today it's mostly just about getting laid, isn't it?

jugenbund · 2016-12-07T11:48:48+00:00

Now now 17 women fuck for every one man. Birth control ftw.

Soarinc · 2016-12-07T12:43:58+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCn8zs912OE

Someone downvote or upvote this immediately so OP can see it. (this video is PURE GOLD in support of his argument)

dejour · 2016-12-07T13:47:37+00:00

There's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison here. 17:1 probably isn't the true ratio of men who were reproducing to women.

The article says that 17 women still have descendants alive today for every man that still has descendants alive today.

So if a man from 8000 years ago had 8 children (two lived to be adults), and 3 grandchildren (1 lived to be an adult), and 0 great-grand children, he would be considered someone who didn't reproduce (to have descendants alive today). But of course he still had lots of sex, and he still had many children.

It could be that for any generation the ratio might have been more like 2 or 3 women to 1 man. But maybe rich, wealthy men had many more descendants than poor men. And those rich, wealthy men had the resources to prevent their children from dying, so more of their descendants reached adulthood. And the descendants of rich men would have been richer (and thus more likely to find suitable mates). And the descendants of poor men would be poor and more likely to end up soldiers (who die). And the rich men might be able to pay for medical care for their grandkids, while the poor men couldn't.

Anyways, the point is the ratio is skewed, but there are a lot of factors which determine who has surviving great-grandchildren besides who is having sex.

Cantloginhere · 2016-12-07T14:25:35+00:00

Farming was the catalyst for trades, professional armies, cities, longer lifespans and being able to support more children. Hunter gathers were nomadic and restricted to what they could carry and support - a couple of kids at most.

I don't buy into the polygamy thing totally, more likely it was Henry the 8th lifestyle. A distinct set of higher society re-marrying a fresh crop every couple of years cos they could - 18 months is the usual honeymoon period. Plus female slaves will have been popular too.

The elete's progeny will have had a natural advantage in society as well.

TheInkerman · 2016-12-07T01:58:17+00:00

Doesnt help with any sexual strategy, but good to know when telling stories at the pub

smokecheck1976 · 2016-12-07T06:41:16+00:00

8000 years ago? So more or less the end of the last ice age and about the same time as a series of volcanic eruptions lowered global temperatures (shorter growing seasons) was happening.

In this environment, men, especially young men, are going to be taking on a lot of risk to bring in the supplies needed for survival. The women are going to be working just as hard but usually closer to the settlement. In these conditions, no woman is going to give time to a man that doesn't bring anything more than his dick to the table. These young men are going to have to prove themselves, and that meant that often enough 14 and 15 year old young men died while fighting the environment or some other tribe's young men. In this environment, alpha ain't really as much as you think, death is more or less relentless and completely non-discriminatory.

memphisjohn · 2016-12-07T10:33:25+00:00

Something has to be wrong with the data. What this would mean is that on average a man who would breed would have to kill 17 other men. On average! Or do you think those lesser men would stand on the sidelines? 8000 years is not such a long time ago, they would have language and be able to gang up on the top dog. Not to mention there would be no way for him to have the time and resources to protect his women from rape even if the other men were disorganized. Further there would be incentive for the other men to kill the women or their children at their convenience since they would be competing for resources.

17 to 1 would only be possible in a tyrant scenario, and those kind of societies do not organize without monogamy.

DoubleTappp · 2016-12-08T10:50:44+00:00

"Men are wired for achievement, and people are wired to recognize it."

Fuck man. This nails it.

Lord_Trajan · 2016-12-07T04:05:02+00:00

That is misleading to put that on "upper class men getting more women". Men hunted back in the day, hunting without modern weaponry is dangerous, and most of them men were dying way faster than the women...

[deleted] · 2016-12-07T04:08:36+00:00

[permanently deleted]

zephyrprime · 2016-12-07T07:48:50+00:00

Very interesting that the researchers only mention power and resources as factors in which men successfully passed on their genes. No mention of Chad like traits and one could safely assume that if it was Chad who produced most of the children then we would be overrun by Chads and half Chads, thereby reducing Chad to an average member of society. 1:17 is a massive difference in ratio. I am struggling to reconcile it myself but the power and resources argument is compelling. Given that infant mortality was so high before modern medicine it was probably Pharoahs and tribal chiefs with their many concubines and servants whose children survived in significant numbers. Just when you thought we had it bad now, imagine our poor brethren building the pyramids.

zephyrprime · 2016-12-07T15:25:48+00:00

"we were optimistically representing the most equal time in history!" Yes, the modern farming era is the most equal in all of history. Before the agricultural revolution ~10K years ago, women used to be way more hypergamous.

[deleted] · 2016-12-08T02:14:58+00:00

Did any of you read the article? This talks about wealth, power and culture. Not about alpha/beta mechanisms. It says that a very small amount of males managed to reach a very high level of wealth. With this wealth came power. They could pay guards to protect them... And to also prevent other men from taking women away from them. They could build a harem of women to have sex with and no matter how alpha or not the other men could have been, this was irrelevant.. This wealth and power was then not inherited based on merit, but based on heredity. It was given to their son no matter how alpha or not could be. The entire premise of the article is that men who reproduced a lot weren't even necessarily alphas. Except for the first dude who built the wealth and power, it was mostly a matter of luck. Being lucky enough to have the tribe's leader has father. While I don't completely disagree with the theory of 80/20, this article in itself doesn't prove it in any possible way. In fact it kind of disproves it by claiming that men who reproduced were mostly just lucky and not necessarily alphas.

GOATmar · 2016-12-08T04:02:49+00:00

8000 years ago rape was a display of extremely high value (still is today).

This was a couple of guys fearlessly running around plowing bitches and spreading their seeds to as much women as possible. Those that didn't have the testosterone/fitness to rape, didn't get laid.

ArkAngelEV · 2016-12-08T21:08:43+00:00

Does the 17 take into account women/infant who died during gestation/childbirth? That number may be even higher !

tolerantman · 2016-12-13T23:06:41+00:00

the 80 to 20 rule sometimes is the 17 to 1 rule, damn!

[deleted] · 2016-12-07T09:16:19+00:00

Or it could have been just an effect of big war that killed 16 out of 17 males

[deleted] · 2016-12-07T16:09:13+00:00

[permanently deleted]

conquerlifegroup · 2016-12-07T12:42:09+00:00

Lotta Cucks and MRAs back then!!

harsheehorshee · 2016-12-07T09:43:02+00:00

Will women recognize Asians that lift? Or will they be so brainwashed by Hollywood media that they still think we are some patriarchal oppressive anal dick aliens? Or am I in the wrong sub where ppl will automatically dismiss me to be a "whiny Asian beta" for even asking

Hjalmbere · 2016-12-07T16:42:13+00:00

Couldn't the explanation have been that the genes of the other men who also procreated died out due to not being immune to certain diseases?

Title	8000 years ago 17 women reproduced for every one man
Author	TW_RPAwake
Upvotes	347
Comments	174
Date	December 7, 2016 12:02 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/5gwil9/8000_years_ago_17_women_reproduced_for_every_one/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/8000-years-ago-17-women-reproduced-for-every-one.65127 https://theredarchive.com/post/65127

Comments