8,000 years ago, 17 women reproduced for every one man

[Julkka]

Thats impossible. Maybe in rare cultures, but generally in a natural tribe and enviroment, no man would ever let 1 man take 17 women. In an natural enviroment the men would automatically kill the man if he took all the women. Humans are jealous beings, thats why.

This sort of thing is only possible in cities and states with law and order, otherwise the 1 man for 17 women is impossible. Wealth means nothing in nature, only in modern enviroments. No one cares about money in nature, because it doesnt exist.

Another possibility is genocide or some kind of artificially created power structure. But it would never be the womans own will. Humans naturally speaking are monogamous. Only some retard would agree to be with same partner with 17 other women. I dont know how you people are so gullible.

[Annie999]

These were basic forms of societies, without the modern concept of family. I assume instinct played a big rol, to mate with the top protector/provider made sense.

[jakob]

Thats impossible. Maybe in rare cultures, but generally in a natural tribe and enviroment, no man would ever let 1 man take 17 women. In an natural enviroment the men would automatically kill the man if he took all the women. Humans are jealous beings, thats why.

This sort of thing is only possible in cities and states with law and order, otherwise the 1 man for 17 women is impossible. Wealth means nothing in nature, only in modern enviroments. No one cares about money in nature, because it doesnt exist.

Another possibility is genocide or some kind of artificially created power structure. But it would never be the womans own will. Humans naturally speaking are monogamous. Only some retard would agree to be with same partner with 17 other women. I dont know how you people are so gullible.

There was agriculture and societal structure 8000 years ago.

[Universe]

Thats impossible. Maybe in rare cultures, but generally in a natural tribe and enviroment, no man would ever let 1 man take 17 women. In an natural enviroment the men would automatically kill the man if he took all the women. Humans are jealous beings, thats why.

This sort of thing is only possible in cities and states with law and order, otherwise the 1 man for 17 women is impossible. Wealth means nothing in nature, only in modern enviroments. No one cares about money in nature, because it doesnt exist.

Another possibility is genocide or some kind of artificially created power structure. But it would never be the womans own will. Humans naturally speaking are monogamous. Only some retard would agree to be with same partner with 17 other women. I dont know how you people are so gullible.

This is from 45,000 years ago: "the number of mothers may have outnumbered fathers by around 100 to 30" https://www.theguardian.com/science/...uman-gene-pool

[Katarzyna]

So let’s revive some ancient haplogroups

[Petalpusher]

The average ratio throughout history is 2 to 1 men, or 80% of females reproduced against 40% for men but that's not what is discussed here. As usual with demographic change of that magnitude between ages, the newcomers were taking people's lunch money and their wemen while they were at it, a lot of them for not so many men when almost everybody else was left to die (R1b style). Some were probably doing it willingly too. Having grains would have been the equivalent of bitcoins, while riding a horse, like a red italian supercar. Had they been riding bulls...no nothing.

Dude has never heard about polygamy which is was very common in most cultures, not just tribes in Africa like it's still the case and a few other places but evidences of it in China and everywhere else too. The currency was not money thanks for the breaking news, just ressources or the ability to gather ressources, which was way more crucial at this time as it was a truely a matter of life and death.

Then we invented church marriage because women wanted it. So confusing.

[Universe]

The average ratio throughout history is 2 to 1 men, or 80% of females reproduced against 40% for men but that's not what is discussed here. As usual with demographic change of that magnitude between ages, the newcomers were taking people's lunch money and their wemen while they were at it, a lot of them for not so many men when almost everybody else was left to die (R1b style). Some were probably doing it willingly too. Having grains would have been the equivalent of bitcoins, while riding a horse, like a red italian supercar. Had they been riding bulls...no nothing.

Dude has never heard about polygamy which is was very common in most cultures, not just tribes in Africa like it's still the case and a few other places but evidences of it in China and everywhere else too. The currency was not money thanks for the breaking news, just ressources or the ability to gather ressources, which was way more crucial at this time as it was a truely a matter of life and death.

Then we invented church marriage because women wanted it. So confusing.

Polygamy was better for the elites. But they allowed monogamy because polygamy creates too many angry incels who can undermine peace in a society. An army of angry incels can cause a huge rebellion and threaten lives of the elite.