/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12418525
Most males are worthless.

>>12418528
You misspelled "females".

>>12418525
Polygamy is natural in the same way being fat is. We have natural, healthy desires that become unnatural and unhealthy when unrestrained and unbalanced from other desires.

a man can have sex all the time, while a woman needs to be pregnant for 9 months

>>12418525
The more successful you are the more women you can impregnate. Seems logical.

After war there were more men than women .. compensation i guess

>>12418667
I meant more women than men of course

>>12418525
higher reproductive cost for females

>>12418545
have sex
>>12418525
limited resources. If they are even more limited you may even see polyandry like in some remote parts of Tibet.

>>12418525
Why you save for decades to raise a human being, the monkey entertainer in that picture would do 20 more and then will beg or resort to all types of crimes to make even more. Then they will come at your door and rape and kill your family because its in their culture. Thanks science!

>>12418545
this desu

>>12418525
>>12419271
Why is polygamy lauded for rappers but banned for normal hardworking folk? Shit ain’t right

look at animals, most are polygamous.

>>12419285
Because they are being propped to be the most excellent slaves. Extreme consumers, vain and easily selling out their people and easily controlled.

>>12418525
god that is disgusting

Does Polygamy lead to uglier women?
even the munters get to breed with desperate men instead of being rejected?

>>12419322
the average women is a 5/6

It's males who are ugly.
Ugly people don't reproduce under sexual capitalism.

Look up how ugly are indians, who use arranged marriages.

>>12419322
No, stronger selection in men leads to a healthier population full stop. One of the explanations for gender existing *at all* is that it allows for half the population to bear heavy selective pressure while preserving parental investment in children.

Consider a situation where all humans are selected strongly, regardless of gender. A tenth of people have some ten children, and everybody else gets no kids. Sure, we'll have a strong gene pool, but there's less investment in child rearing because every parent is balancing their 20 kids.

Alternatively, you could have weak selection across all people regardless of gender. Everybody only replaces themselves, fully investing in child reading but relaxing selective maintenance of the gene pool.

Gender (female mate choice in particular) gives you both. Women have between 1 and three children while only the most fit / desirable men have 3-6 (or more) kids.

>>12419271
>>12419285
This is in Africa, where polygamy is common and socially acceptable

>>12419103
>limited resources
no. unbalanced resource and power distribution. women are attracted to it. our insistence on monogamy is mainly a traditional european thing.

>>12418525
leads to violent societies, maybe porn and xbox can help with some of the leftover men's misery, but checking out has other negative effects on culture

>>12418652
this

>>12418525
how can you not work this out lmao it takes a couple seconds of thinking

good book worth a read
https://archive.org/details/onpoweritsnature00injouv

What is the effect of polygamy on level of inbreeding?

>>12421182
Well if you marry your three female cousins it's pretty bad.

>>12421193
if you have like 10 wives and 50 kids surely there's an increased chance of them meeting

>spend whole life searching to make a better world
>giving all our science for less pay than a new-hire coder
Why shouldn't scientists and engineers take power for themselves?

>>12418525
If you a man and you can get away with polyamory, congrats you have disproportionately passed on your genes, and the next generation (that is going to be based off your genes, and other men like you) is going to inherit your preference for polyamory.
Also if you are a women, it may be in your best interest to share a top man, rather than downgrading a less fit male, with less resources and worse genes. Also through out our evolutionary history, 60% of men did not leave off offspring but only 20% of women didn't, see: https://www.livescience.com/47976-more-mothers-in-human-history.html

also >>12418652 is correct

The evolutionary explanation for polygamy is pretty obvious, why not ask evolutionary explanation for monogamy

>>12421237
the eugenic increase in intelligence in europe was under monogamy imposed by the christian church

>>12421251
yes, also monogamy increases intragroup cooperation

>>12418525
That men like to boink as many women as possible?

idk

>>12418525
In a world with less humans and more distance between all of them some women could not get married (widowed, too old, disabled, divorced, stuff like that)

>>12419103
Hope she reads this, bro

allowed for men not for women

>>12418525
>What is the evolutionary explanation for polygamy?
There isn't one. It's cultural.

>>12419329
The average woman uses a ton of makeup and they have insane frauding techniques

>>12423576
Nah, me thinks it's natural. If you look at natural communities Alpha males (mostly Black men) breed multiple women while the other guys don't get to breed.

Atm we are going back to this pattern in the west thanks to increased migration of Black alpha males to western countries

>>12423626
Yet according to the stats blacks are getting dumber?

>>12423919
As I said, evolution by itself does not give a damn if offspring is smart or dumb as long as it survives. And currently Blacks have a massive evolutionary advantage, especially Black man.

White women feel that and are intrinsically drawn to Black man

>>12423943
post nose

>>12423943
Ya know... except the vast majority aren't.
Sneed harder,and take the yalmaca with ye.

>>12423969
A small minority that makes up Black alpha males (of 2 billion Blacks) still trumps a few dozen million of white males.

You know it's true. In my uni for example most of the top tier girls all date Black only (Paris)

>>12418525
If a male chooses to be polygamous (and there are females to satisfy his polygamous desires), his evolutionary "fitness" is far greater than any monogamous male since the polygamous male can have many more children in a given time frame as compared to the monogamous male.

>>12423984
>(Paris)
suddenly everything makes sense
burn in fire

>>12423984
>of 2 billion Blacks) still trumps a few dozen million of white males.
whites and blacks have currently the same amount you dumb cuck

>>12423943
nice try shlomobot 3000

>>12424473
Äh yes, only kikes are allowed to point out how more and more white women are breeding with Blacks only and that it's quite common to see highly educated attractive women (for example models in Paris) to prefer Black men.

>>12424644
Why do asian women seem to like white guys so much?

>>12418575
Knocking up different chicks is natural taking care of all of them isnt

>>12421182
africans are highly outbred

>>12418525
Asking the question this way will only lead to just-so stories...

>>12418525
>Masters
>Slaves
>Why does the master has multiple slaves ?

>>12418545
Females have inherent value.
Males need to work for it.
>>12418528
this fag's right.

>>12425471
bullshit, their tribes are inbred as fuck

>>12418545
No, their value comes from producing males

>>12418525
>What is the evolutionary benefit of having a lot of children
Actual retard hours on /sci/ right now

>>12426834
You still have to balance that with drawbacks, like supporting 30 kids is hard and other males may chimp out and kill you

>>12419329
The average is always 5 you retard. Saying otherwise is like saying average IQ is 110

>>12419415
Why would some mammal and avian species evolved to be monogamous if polygamy is so much better from evolutionary standpoint?

>>12427500
If in a population there are more females than males it is advantageous for a female to breed males because he will spread the genes more then a female. It is true in the opposite direction also. The species in which there is no balance have also a big sexual dimorphism. That's what I remember anyway, there is a Wikipedia page on the subject

>>12427500
Because one male taking care of many females and offspring is very costly. In a monogamous set up, there will be more overall offspring, because it distributes the load of child bearing across more individuals who will have 2 kids, while also boosting parental investment making the offspring more fit.

>>12424424
He's larping.

>>12418525
Psychopathy its why muslims and jews are the most inbred groups no matter the race.

>>12418525
>No bevvey of beautiful black biddies to bone to balloon with babies
Why even live

>>12418525
It's not a solely genetic tendency. Although some primates use it as a means of carrying on the best genes, as the dominant males can have as much sex as they want whereas females cannot, for humans, it's been prominent at different stages of history, depending on our productive levels.
Read pic related.

>>12429625
>Engels
no thanks
read Bertrand de Jouvenel's "On power, its nature and the history of its growth"
https://archive.org/details/onpoweritsnature00injouv

>>12421209
because scientists can easily be replaced by Engineers

>>12421256
source faggot

>>12431058
>a few guys in one tribe monopolise up all the women,
>the rest of the men decide to invade other tribes to steal their women
I wonder

>>12430913
I included engineers. When you're working in applied science/R&D the lines between engineers and scientists get very blurred. It's only when you compare pure academics and pure design engineers that you have a large gulf.
Engineers work more hours and for less money than coders. Why do they do it?

>>12421251
There was an increase in intelligence, and it was due to monogamy? On the continent where only 1 male per 13 females reproduced?

I think you need to back that claim up boyo

>>12427494
No, you're assuming a symmetrical distribution

>>12418545
No they aren't worthless till 40.
Most men are meant to be cannon fodder or underclass. Only alphas allowed to breed and young women will fight for their chance to be one of Chad's harem.

>>12432694
Under mostly Roman Catholic doctrine monogamy was enforced, concurrently the average IQ of europe increased.
child mortality was much much higher, male mortality was much higher and the rich often still had mistresses and many men buried several wives that died in childbirth , some divorce was permitted under some circumstances, one of the largest causes of female death was birthing.
yet the system overall was monogamous and this greatly reduced antagonism.

>>12421256
I was going to write a long post about why we adopted monogamy and I'm quite pleased to see that explanation nailed down to a single sentence

Holy shit, this nigger is going after a huge legal trouble for him, yet, nothing new, black people are not know to be very bright.

>>12424455
Mark Hunt vs Stephen Struve vibes with this one