Sexual liberation may lead to civilization collapse

I apologize for any roughness in the way the information is presented. I only want to start a conversation, not write a thesis. I'm not criticizing any viewpoint or advocating any kind of policy. But if you know what I know, you will be wondering too. Let's consider the facts.

Originally, humans lived in polyamourous hunter-gatherer societies. (Circa 10,000 BC) There was no concept of marriage or a nuclear family. It was a matriarchal society because few if any of the children in the village knew who their fathers were. Hence, the family bonded around the mother, who was the head of the household. Even the Cherokees, up until European contact, had a matriarchal society where each female head of household would elect a male chieftain who would conduct military matters. Rape was highly taboo, and men would most likely to gain chance at procreation by impressing the women through impressive achievements such as hunting big game or winning a battle.

Hunter-gatherer societies were inherently a primitive communism. The tribe shared all the resources, and parenting was ubiquitous for every child, no matter who the parents were. Hence the term, it takes a village to raise a child. Humans have lived in this form of society for tens of thousands of years.

Then came civilization. Intensive agriculture lead to high population densities and competition over arable land and resources. The concept of private property was established through codified laws, as well as a system for inheritance. Societies became patriarchial, as inheritance of land and wealth became mainly patrlineal. A man tilled the land, built his house, and amassed resources to provide for the family. The father of a young woman would then select the most suitable husband for his daughter, based on his work ethic, resources, and other factors. Hence, because men did most of the work acquiring resources in an agricultural civilization, and he was most interested in making sure his resources went into his own children, the men took incredible interest in guaranteeing that his children were his, and not being cuckolded. Hence, the cultural mores based on female chastity, virginity, etc across almost all civilizations.

Major religions around the world shared common concepts based on sexual morality. A promiscuous woman would be unmarriageable, and in the ancient times, without marriage, a woman could hardly support herself, and this was equivalent to death. This meant, the men were also barred from easy access to sex, because few women except a prostitute would throw away her chances of marriage over a hookup. The fathers of every household would have an iron fist to protect their daughters, and in fact rape was even more heavily stigmatized, even punishable by death in many ancient societies. In order to acquire sex and secure propagation of his genes, every man had to work incredibly hard, even risk death. The easiest way was to join the military and whoever survived would have spoils of war. Either get rich from looting or gain a war bride.

For the civilization, this arrangement was incredibly beneficial. A kingdom would have a population of hardworking farmers, soldiers, trademen, etc who would exchange decades of their labor, health, and resources for the opportunity to marry and start a family. Men were willing to throw into battle, travel long dangerous distances on ships or caravans, knowing that if they survived, they will get women at the end of the journey.

As society progresses, this dynamic hardly changed for almost 5000 years. However, various world trends took an interesting turn. New technology would soon replace much of human labor from wealth creation. Steam engines, electricity, machinery, transportation, etc. would be invented that drastically reduce the need for actual human labor for a lot of society's functions. With every technological breakthrough womens' lives were made much easier, as cooking, washing, cleaning, etc that used to be womens' realm became automated, and personal safety was guaranteed by an efficient government. And this societal progress was also fueled by mens' desire to procreate. Even until the 1900s, conservative sexual values dominated even the most progressive nations, and all the engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs wanted to make a name for themselves to get rich and then have many children with a loving wife that they can provide for. Factories allow women to have a job and earn money and live in urban environments without getting married for the first time. It is only after World War 1, when large portions of men are sent to fight on the battlefield, that women are encouraged by the state to fill the role that men traditionally filled outside the home, making war supplies and running factories. As a result, womens rights gain support and women can vote and do most of things that men can under the law. However, still most of traditional values remain, at least until the 1960s.

Then things would change by late 20th century, and after the turn of the millennium, when an avalanche of disruptive technologies would reshape the way humans live, work, and socialize. The Television, the internet, welfare state, healthcare, corporations, ubiquitous access to transportation, education, etc. Women are almost indistinguishable to men on the job market for office work when it comes to competence, because computers and paperwork do not need muscles. For a time, it seems like gender equality is leading to economic and social growth. If both men and women work, the workforce is doubled, which means theoretically double the GDP and tax revenues. Women do not need a man anymore. Thats right. The feminists are absolutely correct. For the first time in thousands of years, women can live single their whole lives and receive indirect benefits of being married (food, shelter, security) through the market economy and government services. In just about every developed country, some kind of sexual revolution happens and women throw down the shackles of patriarchy, burning bras, being promiscuous and claiming this empowers women. I'm not disagreeing. Humans are designed to seek maximum pleasure and instant gratification. If the only thing inhibiting womens' promiscuity all this time was the fear of becoming unmarriageable/ostracization by society, and that's now gone, what's to stop them? It takes two to tango. Men are also happily lined up to take advantage of the sexual liberation to gratify themselves any opportunity they get.

And then what happens? The motivation that our ancestors had for moving mountains to be able to see the birth to the line of descendants that led to your very own existence is now gone. Attractive men can get sex much more easily and the unattractive men have other outlets of sexual frustration (porn, video games, etc), why slave away at jobs they don't like, that could be dangerous, difficult, or boring. Obviously this doesn't apply to everyone at every time. But the effort and reward mechanism is now broken. Some men and women still desire a family, despite all the white noise of negativity, is this enough?

With less and less people working important jobs, the society's important infrastructure and services will slowly deteriorate. The military is already understaffed, fires not being put out, food and energy prices rising. Homelessness and unemployment unprecedented levels. Has the streets gotten safer over the past decade?

And when men are dropping out of the workforce in record numbers, are women prepared to take up the mantle? There is a reason women are less likely to pick serious, high-paying fields that require a lot of dedication and time. Because the winning female mating strategy has been maximizing her youth and beauty and marrying a financially secure husband, while the winning male mating strategy was amassing resources and skills during his 20s to provide for a woman in his later years. Hence there will always be less women willing to spend her "best years" saving money and building a career in her 20s so she can support a younger man to start a family with when she is in her 30s. You won't see women joining deep sea fishing boats to make bank, or drilling oil, mining in coal fields, etc no matter how good the pay is.

In the past, the head of household was willing to die to protect that family, and encouraged by society to do so.

But now, where is society headed? Back to hunting and gathering.

Despite the developed world being most gender-equal and progressive than ever in history, we are seeing a massive decline in birth rates, even while countries like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan are expected to grow by 85% by 2050. The population implosion in every progressive country is bound to lead to a major fall in the economic system as the elderly will not receive their pensions with so few of the younger generation to pay for the social security tax.

Is a modest movement towards sexual conservationism necessary to prevent civilization collapse? Or is it better to let things fall apart and pick up the pieces from there?

Thank you for reading. I'd be happy to discuss or elaborate on any points.