Are we doing the nature a disfavour by allowing so many men to mate?

VasiliyZaitzev · 2021-01-04T06:01:07+00:00

Nope. We were super-advanced when we had nuclear families and lots of dudes reproduced - unless you want to argue that the 18th to 20th Century were technologically inferiors to 10,000 BC (or whatever; the dates need only be relative).

Where we fucked up was letting women vote. Non-taxpayers, really, too. That's what turned everything to shit.

jay_rojas · 2021-01-04T05:48:10+00:00

the real way forward is enslaving and controlling women's mate choices to only produce engineering geniuses

misogyno-futurism

acron5n5 · 2021-01-04T09:23:50+00:00

Yes. These men like me would die if not civilization.

Suck-Less · 2021-01-04T12:35:25+00:00

10,000-8,000 years ago was the beginning of agriculture. The building of the first cities. Although there were warrior states like Sparta, for the most part wars were fought using conscription rather than based on a warrior ethos. 10,000 years ago until just a few hundred years ago, men of the ruling class could sleep with whoever they wanted including new brides.

This was not a Hunter Gatherer, survival of the fittest situation. This was an arranged marriage, situation where one man could have many wives and many men had no wife due to having no social status. Men and women really had little choice, only land and wealth had choices.

10,000-8,000 years ago until about 100 years ago, the ratio of women v men reproducing was the byproduct of wealth - only men with enough wealth to acquire women could reproduce (not to be confused with those men bringing wealth to their illegitimate offspring).

Today, the only difference is that women voluntarily seek out some variation of wealth to reproduce with. (Read RedPill). For some, wealth is skill, some it’s money and status, some it’s looks, for all its a combination.

I would argue that evolutionary psychology has been augmented by 10,000 years of agriculture by adding wealth as a trait. The eons of Hunter Gatherer structures that predates it had no wealth, and status was often earned by skill not by inherent wealth. Remember, you had to cary everything, everywhere. No one cares about shiny rocks, they cared if you could keep back the predators and hunt the game.

I would also add that the modern useless of women is a byproduct of agriculture and not Hunter Gatherer society. Because I would imagine that in HG societies women would have to be just as deadly as men to survive.

AutoModerator · 2021-01-04T05:05:09+00:00

Attention!

IT'S PUUUUUUURGE WEEEEEEEEEK

Booyah.

Once a year there are no rules.

(Well, there are still reddit wide rules. No Breaking THEM or the admins will fuck us up.)

Otherwise go nuts.

For a limited time THERE ARE NO RULES HERE

Explanation of Purge Week

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

SnowHatesWome · 2021-01-04T06:59:19+00:00

Isn’t 80/20 taking care of that?

Lounly · 2021-01-04T05:07:01+00:00

Also, everyone would benefit - alphas would get to breed more women, women would only breed with alphas, children would get the best genes and the vast majority of men being celibate would make it a new normal. Yes, more children would die but that is just an aditional stage for selection, weaker would die young before maturing.

bronzeageretard · 2021-01-04T05:35:23+00:00

Where are your sources for the 1 in 17 claim?

Title	Are we doing the nature a disfavour by allowing so many men to mate?
Author	Lounly
Upvotes	4
Comments	16
Date	January 4, 2021 5:05 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/kq1sdd/are_we_doing_the_nature_a_disfavour_by_allowing/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/are-we-doing-the-nature-a-disfavour-by-allowing-so.730055 https://theredarchive.com/post/730055

Comments