What few people understand though, is that hypergamy is a feature, not a bug.

I will insist, that it is neither, it is just a hard coded instruction [emph.].

what I am writing here is mostly my personal understanding, and you can ignore it. I also do not prescribe anything, that will be a different post altogether

Should the parameters be well set, and the environment allows it, it will produce correct output. should the parameters be badly set, and the environment allows it, it will be a disaster.

Undead chronic made several videos on this topic.

It is a hard coded instruction.

Hypergamy is not meant to seek the best option. There are hard coded instruction to look for X. If X happens to correspond to something that will win out in the immediate environment, then the offsprings win, if not then not. This is hard coded, because women's decision is not actually calibrated to current status. They will blindly follow the hard coded commands, like an exercise in Rote learning.

Females do not look for the best mate.

Females look for X, whatever X may be. It can be the most violent criminals, it can be the most nice guy artistic people... sometimes, the same X happen to overlap what is best short, long, or medium term. But extrapolating this X to correspond to an universal best is sleazy pseudointellectual soft-science.

Current feminized society subsidizes women

I did mention, that should the parameters be badly set, and the environment allows it, it will be a disaster.. But currently we do everything to save women out of such disasters. This violates the assumptions of evolution, that a failed organism fails to propagate. But there is no free lunch. In order to make sure, that a Princess Waffle Butt (female warden in prisons like guatanamo bay who - you know did what - to get the waffle shaped imprints of chicken wire on you know where in her anatomy) with a offspring on an Al Queda terrorist ( not an hyperbole. such specimens exist in Rhode Island) can continue, you must make sure that someone else is forced to take the role of a failed organism. Usually, that means, a diligent scientist researching butterflies and paying his taxes will fail in these terms.

You could argue, that this makes the waffle but a successful organism, but such success is actually based on the slavery of the butterfly expert. This triggers the onset of a phase delayed catastrophe - jumping from one "archetype" of the world where such females are successful to another "archetype" of a dystopic wasteland.

But, these things, will lead to two others things in short to medium terms. In no particular order, they are:

Evolutionary debt takes over

I coin the term in analogy of the concept of "technological debt". Many behaviors and traits lie dormant in us. In times of abundance, it may be beneficial in the short term to slide back to such things. I saw in several videos by various [I hesitate to use the best classist term i know of to describe them] - uh, people - including Stefan Molyneux where the claim is that historically only 1 man procreated for every 17 woman.

What they omit, is, that this was a short sliver of time during a sudden onset of oversupply. The study the claim to backs their statement is also very clear about this. This was a short period when agriculture became suddenly widespread. Only then, it would have been meaningful to practice the life of a Bandit, because it would have been easier to steal than to produce.

( Tangent: Someone more smarter than me may want to link this with the lore of Fall from Eden - which allegedly corresponds to humanities exodus from the prehistoric incredibly pleasant swamps that existed between Nile estuary to mesoptemia, in search of newer places to settle. )

So those remnants of a bygone time may have remained in the collective generational memory of women that the modern oversupply and feminism allowed them to fall back to it. But it is important to note, that women seeking those sort of non-cooperative, winner takes all, dog eats dog traits in mates is just one mechanism. This should not be extrapolated to mean that this is a core human trait . However, cultures that are ran by a military industrial complex may be highly primed for it, and men in such cultures might be more prone to sub-consciously accept such extrapolations.

Diversity loss is a bigger concern (personally)

There. I said the word. Women tend to have lower diversity in thought and traits. Social conditioning and trend following is a bigger driving force amongst them. This, combined with the hard-coded instruction, may lead to the emergence of everyone aiming for the top 0.001%.

The result is, in continuing generations, women become less and less diverse in their thought, in their traits, and in their behavior. I personally find that more problematic.

• These last two factors probably drive a sort of resonant/positive feedback loop between themselves, but i dont know enough.

• It is not social media, it is not birth control, it is not immigrants, it is not environmentalists that are driving this. It is women in driving seat of the world, that allow less diverse women to avoid consequences at the expense of men, which in turn makes everything less diverse. These women may appropriate the wishes of environmentalists, immigrants, etc - but all those are just useful idiots for these women. I am saying this as both an environmentalists and an immigrant.

• Nothing I said here is news, but I think we always need to speak about the whole story, not politically relevant sub-chapters

• Banning anything will not solve anything. Although i said prescriptions are a matter of another post, I calculate, that by heavily rewarding diverse women ( and by that I do not mean the Hungarian model, the product of a goldfish brain, that is manifested in N children = M tax credit [which, again, will allow the cost of a bad boys children to be borne by a diligently working single man] ) might be a solution, sort of open market for surrogacy, well controlled access to donated procreational organs (e.g. the womb of a vegetative woman) and development on stem cell and artificial wombs. You probably will need a dedicated government, who sets priority to address the root cause, and not on the vote, be it liberal vote, be it conservative vote, which may not be possible in a large democracy like USA. A tech billionaire in a private island might be able to reach closer to the switch.