There is this interesting piece of science that has often popped up here in TRP. It seems that in the past only 1 man reproduced for every 17 women. This has been hailed as a confirmation of "Red Pill Theory": "See? Alpha male got all the women, betas got none."
Thing is, Red Pill is not a "theory". It is a "praxeology".
Truth be told, TRP is not so much about the truth, as about what works. And focusing on Alpha traits is what works today, irrespective of how things were in (pre)history. For instance, having your woman be submissive works for having an enjoyable relationship for both. Why is that so? Well, the "why", the premise, is of lesser importance than the actual conclusion and its practical implications.
Now, there is a problem with the premises when you try to build a proper theory. The need for women to be submissive (which a conclusion - and a truth) could be e.g. "because Jesus said so" (a premise). Problem is, Jesus also said that you have a moral obligation to be faithful. Which is, of course, false.
As it turns out, the 17-to-1 meme is (in a way) wrong. Invoking it in TRP leads to these two wrong theories:
1. About only 5% (1 in 17) of men is genetically "Alpha", the rest are "Betas".
This is of course blatantly wrong, and it is not difficult to see why. If only "genetic Alphas" reproduced, almost all of the male population would be "genetic Alphas". Sexual selection converges lightning-fast compared to natural selection. It doesn't even need tens of thousands of years, let alone the hundred of thousands that is the human evolutionary history. It would take only a few generations for these "genetic Alpha genes" to be ubiquitous in the male population.
2. (this is the interesting wrong theory:) It was always the case that some men dominated over others so they got all the women.
This is the gist of the matter. I needn't delve deeply into the relationship of dominance and sexual success, I think we all understand how close that is. So, a 1-in-17 men ratio of reproduction would mean that in the past there was quite a big power gap, among men. Which is a fact. But, how far back in the past was that?
The 1-in-17 ratio refers to societies about 8-10.0000 years ago. These were the agricultural societies, where social stratification was extreme. However, the most interesting fact, is that further back, in the primal hunter-gatherer societies, the ratio of reproduction was only 1-to-2! This points to a much more egalitarian society. Nowadays, a society where 50% of mthe en are "alphas", would be unimaginable. But it seems that something like that was the fact in the evolutionary era that defined the human genetic makeup.
What this all comes down to is that the almost absolute sexual power that females nowadays have is a socially enforced situation, that came about when class society emerged, around the Agricultural revolution. Modern feminism is the culmination of a process that started about 10 millennia ago, and that gave power to few men and all women. No modern theory about the human nature can be correctly calibrated, if it doesn't take into account that fact.
TRP has often been accused of harbouring a "bogus" Evolutionary Psychology theory, thus having schematic "alpha" and "beta" categories. This is unfair. Evolutionary Psychology itself, as a science, is bogus up to a large part. Its parent from the '70s, Sociobiology, suffered from this schematic view, namely that social class was always a fact in human societies.
Luckily, things are beginning to clear up - although a lot of smoke is still thrown over the truth. A telling example is a brilliant scientist, Laura Betzig. In her dissertation, "Despotism, Social Evolution and Differential Reproduction", which you may have glimpsed at if you read The Red Queen, she took the view that there was a more or less linear progression of societies from more primitive to more advanced class societies. There was no "tipping point", no "revolution" taking place in human history. Nowadays though, she does acknowledges that there was a cutting point in social evolution - which is precisely the 1-in-2 to 1-in-17 transition.
Equipped with this, more correct, theory, we can have a more precise view of the sexual landscape. Let me briefly give you two concrete examples:
Example 1:
Women are ungrateful. Nothing you can do will ever satisfy them, not marriage not anything, and they'll always demand more from you. Why? According to the new perspective, it is because they never had the security of marriage and the 18 years of child support in prehistory. They got a few years of a man's investment, and evolved so at to milk whatever resources out of their current man, until they get to the next one. Greedy, short-term algorithm, hardwired.
Example 2:
Most men are Betas. This means, they try to get sex by providing. The TRP view is that there is a beta-ization social process going on, which is partly true. Another part of the truth, and a big one, is that providing actually worked in prehistory! It was about a goat leg per fuck. (Interestingly, the cost of a goat leg at the butcher's is about as much as it costs to get paid sex, in many countries.)
References: (google them)
-
8,000 years ago, 17 women reproduced for every one man - Pacific Standard
- XO in XY: History unfolds in our genes - Laura Betzig
For a deeper discussion of these issues, grab my book,
The Empress Is Naked: From Female Privilege to Gender Equality and Social Liberation
Mildly_Sociopathic 5y ago
Yes, we know about the 1:2 thing. It's literally on the fucking sidebar under Misandry Bubble.
JamesonWong 5y ago
"Another part of the truth, and a big one, is that providing actually worked in prehistory! It was about a goat leg per fuck. (Interestingly, the cost of a goat leg at the butcher's is about as much as it costs to get paid sex, in many countries.)"
​
I love it!
[deleted] 5y ago
[deleted]
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
Your post is exactly the kind I was trying to dispell with my op. It's an anachronism, using future ideas and situations to reason about the past.
ForeverDivided 5y ago
WRONG. It's 1-17 cavewomen to 1 caveman.
The manus-sapiens cavemen practiced monogamy and others practiced polygamy. Meanwhile, most of the Neanderthals practiced same sex marriage.
Stop revising history.
[deleted]
Vikingcel 5y ago
Could you link that study?
​
The truth is that if you go far back enough, we are all related. I, as a man of EE descent could very likely trace my heritage both to Charlemagne and Genghis Khan.
KeffirLime 5y ago
Viewing a 1:2 or a 1:17 ratio in isolation doesn't tell us much.
I think rather we need to assess the shift from 1:2 to 1:17.
The agricultural revolution evidently magnified a part of our biology that is inherent.
To understand it further one would need to consider our 3 biological pillars(eating,sleeping, procreating). The agricultural revolution sought to solve two of those pillars. Eating and sleeping(shelter). Freeing up one's pursuit of the 3rd pillar, procreation.
We also need to account for the fact that the Alpha doesn't necessarily mate with all the women, but rather has first selection on the best women.
With food and shelter taken care of to some degree or another, and a stationary base, limiting the tribes mobility, the Alpha is free to engage with as many women as he deems himself capable of.
A mobile, food and shelter scarce tribe would not allow any man to reproduce in large numbers with the survival responsibility of functionally providing for food, shelter, protection. While being mobile.
I would surmise that pre agriculture, an alpha would select the two best women for procreation. Anymore would inhibit the tribes survival chances, especially in relation to mobility, food, protection.
Post agriculture, would allow for further seed spreading. The lack of mobility and greater abundance of food would allow for a larger selection pool for the alpha. 1:17 as the stats reflect.
Same biological drivers, different environmental pressures, different result.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
tempolaca 5y ago
I don't think TRP is anti-feminism. TRP seeks to better men and to teach behaviors that ultimately, will make women more happy with their relationships.
Feminism, on the other hand, give power to women, but that only makes them more miserable.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
abstractplebbit 5y ago
I almost tagged you in a comment to show you this but I’m not surprised u got here first.
I just realized how heretical it is to call the redpill a praxeology. Did the reddit admins already succeed in commandeering our agenda without us noticing?
I’ve noticed an uptick in the average levels of autism around here since the quarantine
dogenes09 5y ago
Your ego is showing. North Americans are the ones who literally developed the red pill. Let's focus on the issue at hand.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
yeah cuz the rest of the world aren't little pussies too scared to put women in their place, thus they don't need it.
dogenes09 5y ago
Europeans are some of the most feminized, harangued, and generally beaten down people there are. Lol. “Chaddeus_rex”. Seriously, next time you hear grown folks talks shut the mouth and open the ears “Rex”.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
LOL. Says the American. Americans invented feminism, not Europeans.
Without googling, can you tell me what Rex means? I bet you can't because you are American.
dogenes09 5y ago
Ugh. So defensive. You are the “Chad King.” That’s the screename you chose. Congrats. You understand nothing about basic psychology and are projecting so hard you are standing beside yourself.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
lolz. I am impressed with your googling skills.
Thanks for acknowledging it though.
And you do? Teach me sensei!
Methinks you doth protest too much.
dogenes09 5y ago
Yes- no one knows what the Rex of T Rex is except you. You are like a god king amongst us mortals....
There surely is nothing i can teach a super adept like Chaddeus Rex about psychology.
"Methinks you doth protest too much." Lol- you aren't even using that right. Just stop replying and I will too. This is embarrassing.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Don't know about that link. I do know that European media is more or less controlled by the state. Enjoy your high reading level propaganda. Also, your so-called culture won't be operating at such a high level for long. Soon you'll dumb everything down for your hordes of low IQ migrants, as we've had to do for ours.
And finally, that idiot European Stephen Hawking says that philosophy is pretty much a joke and outlived its usefulness when we learned how to do science. I guess we'll just have to somehow get by with our hundreds and hundreds of nobel prizes in science, math, economics, and other hard fields while you prattle on about philosophy. Stop culturally appropriating our computers and internet.
dulkemaru51 5y ago
You took the European vs American thing as an argument when it was meant as a borderline sarcastic example of the underlying philosophical issue at hand which was that TRP is an ideology. The fact that it uses knowledge of objective reality to further its' goal doesn't make it not an ideology... it's not as if the feminists don't know what they're doing, and even if they didn't (ok, sure, most probably don't), their destruction of the world works because it knows how to fit the cubes in the square holes: shame weak faggots so the shamer can have an easier life; as unconscious as it may be, the action completes the job...
Scientific literacy present in certain American individuals still doesn't make Americans philosophically literate as a whole.
Turing was a Brit. The Abacus is Mesopotamian.
abstractplebbit 5y ago
To reject philosophy is to reject the notion that anything in life has meaning
Vikingcel 5y ago
So nihilism isn't a philosophy
abstractplebbit 5y ago
If you didn’t realize that had nothing to do with nihilism you don’t know what nihilism is.
You also probably don’t know what philosophy is either
Vikingcel 5y ago
You just implied that rejecting philosphy makes you a nihilist
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
ardu- 5y ago
The media is controlled by the tribe, which also controls the government through lobbying since they also control the banks.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
No, it's not. Stop making absurd comments with no basis in fact.
Every post you make demonstrates your limited cognitive ability. Your writing is absolutely awful btw. Most of your posts are borderline impossible to read.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
Haha digging through past Reddit posts... always a sign that you are getting crushed.
Now you're insulting Trump supporters as well, otherwise known as about 50% of this sub. Is there any group that this mental midget does not feel superior to? Let's see, you've insulted white Americans, you've insulted people who support our president. Any other major TRP constituents that you want to shit on for no particular reason other than to make yourself look good, or are you just about ready to wrap it up?
No dumb dumb, it should be "Pretty sure you're confusing..."
[deleted]
dogenes09 5y ago
lol, keep telling yourself that, maybe it will make up for your war-shame.
Trump was before Brexit, and the fact that the EU was always a sham destined for failure is dogma. Go vent about your hatred of Americans somewhere else, we are trying to have a convo here about how to breed losers like you out.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
lol what war shame? it was the Russians who beat the germans.
the 'muricans entered the war only after the Russians did the hard part, cuz the 'muricans are little pussies. that's why murican men are currently so feminized
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
You are the one who took a shot at "North American beer whites" for no apparent reason. It legitimately has no relevance to this post. Something tells me you knew that someone would respond to that and you were fishing for an excuse to throw your weight around because you know you can insult people and you can always get the last word because of that tag.
Also, pro tip - it's probably best to clean up your punctuation, grammar, misspelled words, and dense difficult to read writing style when accusing others of stupidity.
[deleted] 5y ago
[--removed--]
Imperator_Red 5y ago
You are insulting me as a "beer and football White" (white should not be capitalized here by the way) and you know literally nothing about me. How do you make it through your daily life in such a profound state of stupor?
idrinkyour_milkshake 5y ago
It's not true that if only alphas reproduced in the past then all males would be alpha today. The only way we can define alpha is by comparing it to beta, and vice versa. In other words, if any man were alpha then nobody is alpha. Alpha connect exist without beta.
JoeyOreally 5y ago
the mistake here is thinking its an A and B thing. Any "alpha" guy can get chopped down via context by putting them in an area with a guy who could kick his ass/kill him easily in pre-history evolutionary humans, or someone with higher social power in modern society. society allowed men things besides fearless hunter skills to rise through the ranks. we took over the earth because of the selective breeding of past alpha male types. now anyone can essentially reproduce by being slightly above average in the world around them. Because of society we have essentially stopped evolving physically. we reached the top apex predator position and life itself has no reason to improve us further. leave us to play the game of modern society
RealisticKiwi 5y ago
Also random things happen. Just because two übermensch create a baby it can happen that he baby will have genetic problems.
[deleted]
AutoModerator 5y ago
Just a friendly reminder that as TRP has been quarantined, we have developed backup sites: https://www.trp.red and our full post archive (and future forums) https://www.forums.red/i/TheRedPill. Don't forget to register on TRP.RED and reserve your reddit name today. Forums.Red is currently locked but will be opened soon.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
dr_warlock 5y ago
The real question is what percentage of men had x-number of children during pre-history (before agriculture): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 kids and so on. Then we'll truly see the AF/BB reality.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
I believe that sex deprivation is the main beta-ization device.
So, "paradoxically", the sex-for-meat (beta) exchange, by providing men with sex, would make them more alpha. Factor in the male hunter fraternization. The Alpha/Beta landscape would then be radically different - a much milder pyramid.
The most important difference between then and now, though, is not the alpha/beta ratio. It is the discrepancy in the power of women. I can't help bringing in mind the crazy feminists that wanted to eliminate 90% of men and keep the other 10% as their sexual slaves! They would completely freak out in a society where 50% of men are eligible for sex...
dogenes09 5y ago
Probably verrrry few had only one kid. If you could reproduce, you'd do it multiple times with at least one woman, if not more. The vast majority of men who ever lived had no kids. A small minority had only one or two, a major minority had 3-10000khanstatus.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Studies of modern hunter gatherers show that most men could not breed unless they proved themselves in war against other tribes or in hunting or came from an illustrious father known for his brave deeds/chief.
Young men for the most part, had to prove themselves in some way before their fathers allowed them to bed their daughter. Alternatively they could take a bride from the tribes they raided, if they won her themselves.
[deleted]
redpillschool Admin 5y ago
Trick? Women aren't tricked into sex.
poohead3 5y ago
The Agricultural Revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
adool444 5y ago
I mean we went from a couple of million people to 8 billion.
poohead3 5y ago
More than a couple million, but yes. This population explosion cannot last, and when our globalised civilisation collapses (they all do eventually), there will be much suffering and death.
RealisticKiwi 5y ago
Why do you think anything will collapse? The population growth might stop after like 12 billion people, but why would it collapse?
poohead3 5y ago
Tl:dw We finna run out of oil. It's worth a listen though, I highly recommend.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyh2VymSyE8
[deleted] 5y ago
1- We dont have a globalised civilization, not yet. 2- "Collapse" doesn't have to happen with total genocide. When Romans collapsed, there were no mass-extermination or famine.
poohead3 5y ago
Romans didn't starve because most of them were self sufficient in regards to food. How many people grow or hunt their own food today?
[deleted] 5y ago
I do not think our civilization will collapse because of famine...
Fulp_Piction 5y ago
Your first point is wrong. If a small arbitrary % of all males reproduce then all males may be 'genetic alphas', but only a small arbirtary % of those will then reproduce. That's evolution. For all the purple pills Jordan P throws out, he got the Pareto principle well. Check it out.
Also, I've read as far as your first point. You're frame is that the stuff here isn't necessarily the truth, it just works. But to be honest almost everything here is the truth because it works. It all sounds really exaggerated, but as far as I can corroborate my the message put across by the writers of the manosphere with my own experience, they're true. They don't just work, they're true. Nobody who knows what they're talking about here is lying to you so you act a certain way, thats why it's called the red pill.
I'm talking about ec's, Rollo, Roissy etc., not every story that hits 100 upvotes.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
TRP is mostly (and correctly) focused on practical results, i.e. getting you laid. If that's all you want, kudos, you're all set - no need to read this thread, really.
When you go further, though, to society-wide issues, there is no escaping the need to examine things further.
ZephyrBluu 5y ago
I assume you're talking about the same sort of thing Rollo Tomassi talks about a lot with the Feminine Imperative and such?
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
Indeed. Although I see the Female Imperative interwoven with the ruling class' plans. They both have the moto "Starve them (sexually) to control them. Men will work for sex."
Also, most TRPers are right-wing. Their focusing on self serves men well, in these times - but, in my perspective, limits the scope of change that is pursued.
PaulAJK 5y ago
There's a far likelier explanation for the 17-1 split in reproductive success which has nothing to do with alphas or female mate choices. Think about it for a moment though, there are no recorded sociites with such a stark divide between sexually thriving men and everyone else. Even in shitty third world polygamous societies only about 40% of men remain single, with maybe the top 10% getting 4 or so women, then most of the rest get one apiece. If the split was 17 to one, the 17 would just kill the big guy and share out his women.
​
Where this comes from is in male clan lineages. So people lived in clans where every male was the direct ancestor of the same man, their clan founder. That's quite a natural way to form societies, and there are historical precedents much like it. (Fun fact, just about every man called McDonald is paternally descended from the same man who lived in the twelfth century).
​
The 17 -1 split therefore is the result of larger, more successful clan lineages *killing off smaller and weaker ones.*
​
You welcome.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
My own research indicates that you are correct on the reproductive ratios that you cite, but I have read through this post two times and I cannot determine what your point is. What are you arguing? What is your thesis? These things should be made clear near the beginning of any piece of writing, then supported with evidence in the body, and then wrapped up in a conclusion.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
There is this notion that being extremely antagonistic is "Alpha" on its own, and this is backed by reference to domineering hunter-gatherer "cavemen" and a suitably constructed evopsych.
I'm making the point that this was not the case, and the prehistoric reproduction rates support that.
This means that the current level of intense antagonism among men is a social construct, owing to female primacy, which came about in the Agricultural revolution (class society).
Imperator_Red 5y ago
I think I mostly agree. I have to say though, a 2:1 reproduction ratio is still pretty skewed, at least compared to the enforced monogamy that emerged in agricultural societies that had to move beyond the 17:1 ratio. The 2:1 ratio might not be as bad as it looks though because a higher proportion of hunter-gatherer males probably died in warfare than in agricultural societies, leaving an excess of available women.
I do think your point ties in quite nicely with the explanation for why civilization developed enforced monogamy backed up by religion. If a state of nature is 2:1 reproduction and dawn of agriculture is 17:1, then the latter is obviously completely untenable. The other 16/17 males are going to be unproductive and prone to continuous revolution. These societies would have been very unstable and they eventually developed the concept of monogamy and sexual morality.
Pick two. Because you can't have all three.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
I totally agree on the monogamy issue.
Full warfare, on the other hand, is an invention of agricultural societies, not hunter-gatherers. Why risk confronting a dangerous human, when you can get sex with a goat rib?
All in all, the life expectancy was reduced severely in the transition to agriculture. This points to a greater degree of violence, be it direct murderous violence, or plainly the violence of malnutrition and famine.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
Actually life expectancy decreased in the transition to the industrial revolution.
False. Studies of modern primitive hunter gatherer societies show that neighboring tribes will wage full scale war against other tribes not for resources (they will usually trade for them, unless they are severely lacking in something important like food) but for women to breed with.
pohlrich 5y ago
that problem solves itself if even %10 of males died or sustained wounds
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
not really. if your tribe has no or very few fertile women that all go to the chief, the young warriors need wives too. even if 10% die, there's still not enough.
That's literally the history of ancient rome.
Imperator_Red 5y ago
No, your perspective on violence and warfare is reversed.
Hunter gatherers definitely engaged in warfare - not pitched battles but raiding style warfare There's evidence that this type of warfare results in a greater proportion of deaths because it's continuous and because hunter-gatherer populations are much smaller. We even know that chimpanzees engage in this type of warfare. They will patrol their territory to defend against other troops and occasionally launch raids into neighboring territory.
Well animals are territorial and every territory has a maximum carrying capacity. There are a limited number of goat ribs to hunt in your territory. You go to war to expand your hunting and foraging territory. Or maybe it's not even a conscious decision. Maybe you are just hungry and can't catch anything in your normal hunting grounds, so you take a chance and venture into the neighboring community's lands. They catch you and boom, conflict ensues. Using the chimp example, they are opportunistic. If they encounter chimps from a rival group, they will only attack if they have overwhelming odds.
Basically a patrol of 10 or 20 male chimps will quietly move into neighboring territory. If they catch a one or a few chimps off foraging alone, they will attack because there is very little risk to themselves. They aren't charging into machine guns for God and country WW1 style. They choose to engage in warfare when it is evolutionarily beneficial. This may seem small in scale, but if your community of 100 humans loses 2 males in a year to raiding, that's a 2% war death rate year after year after year, far larger than any violence rates seen among settled people.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
This is an heated ongoing discussion in the Academia. Counter arguments say that
1) humans are not so much territorial, they would rather move than fight - when moving is possible, which was the case in prehistory.
2) we can draw analogies, but not direct inferences from chimps (or from modern hunter-gatherers for that matter, /u/Chaddeus_Rex) . Further, the chimp populations were heightened violence is observed are not really "natural", they are under intense environmental pressure from human expansion.
In any case, what I want to focus on, is that there was a radical overturning of the prehistoric male-female balance during the agricultural revolution, to the benefit of women. This is the source of many evils.
"Disorder is not sent down by Heaven, It is produced by women." - Confucius
Ludakrit 5y ago
Their point is simply untrue and was produced by a false interpretation of the Yanomami people being representative of early hunter-gatherer tribes. (Simply not the case.)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
Agriculture, Money, Property ownership, etc... Are all the cause of the serious issues we are facing today, not our inherent nature.
The other extremely important thing to keep in mind here, is that in a state of nature the female mating cycle is ~4 years in length. (The time it takes to get pregnant/first few years of the childs life.) Additionally, just because men didn't reproduce, doesn't mean they weren't having sex...
There is extremely good evidence that the shape of the penis is specially designed to scoop out and remove the semen of another man... Which implies multiple mating partners. They didn't have marriage, law, or even necessarily language, their conception of reality and interpersonal dynamics was totally different. Additionally, the cost of violence in a situation without medical care is simply too high to engage in routinely. (A simple cut can get infected and kill you in this case, which you will almost certainly acquire in a fight to the death with another man.)
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
The history of nomadic tribes like the Scythians or Mongols would disagree. They would both move AND fight. The mobility of nomadic peoples (which were essentially hunter gatherers as they did not rely on crops in one area) was what made them dominate ancient warfare.
Why cant we draw inferences from people that lived like our ancestors for the past 6000 years and have been isolated from the consequences of agriculture or industrialization?
I would disagree with the the turn happening with the agricultural revolution. If anything it happened during the Renaissance/Industrial revolution as a response to the ex esses of Christanity. Islam does not have these problems and yet represents agricultural societies.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
if you look at life expectancy, there is a very clear tendency that came about around the agricultural revolution, for men's life expectancy to decrease, and women's to increase, eventually leading to women living longer.
Through prehistory, men lived about 15% longer than women. Starting in the Agricultural Revolution, this trend changes, until today we have women living 15% longer than men.
Chaddeus_Rex 5y ago
On the contrary, life expectancy increased for everyone during the agricultural revolution and decreased with the industrial revolution.
Roman Legionnaries were known to have lived until their 70s regulairly, for example.
Plus stating that men lived longer in prehistory than women makes no sense, given that we know men fought more and hunted. That naturally exposes them to more danger than women meaning they would live less as hunter gatherers.
adam-l Endorsed Contributor 5y ago
Man, you are just hypothising! Get the data, read up. The first farmers lived less than their preceding hunter gatherers.
[deleted]
[deleted] 5y ago
Well the average male alphaness has probably risen over time if women select for alphaness in any way. So the average male will be more alpha than males in the past, depending upon whether that kind of sexual selection was favored in a given context. But, whether you are alpha or not is dependent entirely upon the hierarchy you find yourself in. Among a certain group of males, you will be the most alpha, and under another, you will be the most beta. So, although average alphaness may have risen, even if all men are alpha relative to past male populations, there will always be men who are MORE alpha, and those will be the men selected for. Again, this varies dependent on context and is not super black and white. So over time, with women always selecting the most alpha males to reproduce with, the average population gradually becomes more alpha. What constitutes alphaness is probably contextual, and whether women select for alpha traits is up for debate, but the argument that everyone would be alpha is a misunderstanding. We would all be more alpha relative to past populations, but there will always be an imbalance in alphaness of current individuals, so there is always someone MORE alpha than you..
atheists_are_correct 5y ago
infanticide was more common, and more female babies than male would have been abandoned.
Purple5091 5y ago
not only infanticide,but also men war mongering..so men would start and continue fights between different tribes,killing the men in said tribes and raping,taking the women by force