/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5431728]

Do you think it'd be a good idea to try and skew the world population for 75% females and 25% males.

Making 3 girls to every one guy?

Yay or neh?

[Anonymous No.5431733]

>>5431728
well no, why would you want to fuck with it? It causes all kinds of problems.
>china
>singapore
>north korea
These are countries who messed with their population stats. Let me tell you, it didn't work well.

[Anonymous No.5431735]

Better than the opposite.
But I still think 50/50 is best.

[Anonymous No.5431736]

>>5431733
didn't they have to many males though? This is mostly females.

Picture completely unrelated.

[Anonymous No.5431739]

>>5431733
>china
how so? Plenty of free salve laborers to undercut the global economy who families willingly disowned.

[Anonymous No.5431740]

OP, do you have any reason to skew it, or are you just high?

[Anonymous No.5431747]

>>5431728
No those extra women would most likely turn lesbian and the hetero girls would still chase the same guys they always have. I don't see Dyke-World being all that much better than the Planet of the Dicks we live on now.

[Anonymous No.5431748]

>>5431740
These. >dat feel when no Gf

Plus 3 fermalse to every one guy, By definition 3 girlfriends to every one guy statistically.

Also think about it, Girls don't really start any wars, and they're pretty good at three ways....Well, that's what porn taught me.

[Anonymous No.5431751]

Shit threads on /sci/ all day everyday.

[Anonymous No.5431757]

>>5431728

only if polygamy was legalised.

very quickly, earth's population would be dominated by those who have no problem with polygamy, because the polygamists would very quickly outbreed the monogamists, and the polygamists would also have the advantage at school and in most areas of life, as they have many relatives they can rely on

[Anonymous No.5431758]

>>5431748
ok, everyone needs to take a step back and realize we just put WOMEN in charge of leading the human race

Yeah, discussion over? it's over

[Anonymous No.5431760]

>>5431728
Advantage: Enough chicks so there's less "settling" for an ugly slag
Disadvantage: None of the women can be picky and will have to settle for your fat autistic asses.

[Anonymous No.5431761]

>>5431758

the WOMEN who would want control, would reject polygamy. they would become a minority extremely quickly, simply due to the fact that a man can father one child per day if he has enough wives, but regardless of how many husbands a woman has, she cant have more than one child every 9 months.

[Anonymous No.5431765]

>>5431760
WIN/WIN

[Anonymous No.5431770]

>>5431761

cont.

it would basically reverse the current situation

right now, men rule the world. but the WOMEN DECIDE WHICH TYPE OF MAN RULES THE WORLD.

with a 3/4 population of women, the MEN would decide WHICH TYPE OF WOMAN rules the world.

in other words, we'd trade the chance to compete for the driver's seat, with the chance to decide who gets to be IN the driver's seat. we go from being powerless to oppose the assholes in charge.

[Anonymous No.5431774]

>>5431770

cont
>stupid fucking thing cut off the last bit of the post

we go from being powerless to oppose the assholes in charge, to having absolute power to determine who gets to be in charge.

[Anonymous No.5432421]

>>5431728
you must be insane to want that many women around.

[Anonymous No.5432427]

>>5432421
>this nigga knows his shit.

[Anonymous No.5432574]

>>5432421
He has a point, have you ever been around women? So much nagging. Unless we can change them to actually talk about things that matter then I do not support OP's proposition.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.5432602]

It'd be like the USSR after WW2 then.

[Anonymous No.5432604]

I'm good with 75% female, 25% male.
Makes the wiminz hungry for cock

[Anonymous No.5432613]

>>5431728
Being a beta male, I approve this message.

[Anonymous No.5432614]

>spermbanks and lexbians

[Anonymous No.5432617]

>a world of spermbanks and lesbians

[Anonymous No.5432620]

>>5432574
I think when there are too many women they become less bitchy because... ..lol

[Anonymous No.5432640]

lol go do some exercise if you want to improve your odds op.

[Anonymous No.5432653]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae#Aftermath
> Within just three campaign seasons (20 months), Rome had lost one-fifth (150,000) of the entire population of male citizens over seventeen years of age.

I see no problems with having more females to males... One male can impregnate many females... However, a female can only carry the seed of one man every 9 months...

[Anonymous No.5432688]

Nah, 50/50 at the least. A world with mostly females will be good at first, more peaceful, more calm, more productive, more sex (for the guys), etc, but eventually it'll just get too boring. All the sex in the world won't be able to cure that boredom.

[Anonymous No.5432690]

>>5432653
Ergo the argument that females are biologically more important than males and that males are more expendable. Except in 2013, where there are more women than men on this planet, that argument is impractical.

[Anonymous No.5432702]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0

watch the video OP

[Anonymous No.5432708]

>>5432688
Remember, literally all you enjoy is dopamine and serotonin.

[Anonymous No.5432713]

>>5432653
I beg to differ. Yes, there might be a problem.
>woman does usually need some sort of support during pregnancy and so on, which is usually facilitated by a male that has (or thinks that has) impregnated her
>reduction in competition between males would arguably result in passing on more genes of lesser quality and resulting to have settle with males who are capable of minor support or no material support at all(like a sperm-bank donor).
>...
Yes, an advanced society would compensate for this by many means: by offering single mothers support etc., but it would probably still be a patch, not an equivalent solution compared to a ~50:50 state.

[sage No.5432719]

>>5431728
ITT: OP suggests a strat that'll lead to horrible outcomes, but everyone will get laid.
Everyone who's horny agrees, everyone else disagrees.
If everyone went to masturbate now, the discussion would be over in 10 minutes when people returned.

[Anonymous No.5432726]

nay
im a straight male and all. and desperate

but women... not the sanest demographic.

[Anonymous No.5432745]

vapid, dull, no hobbies or interests aside from gossip and drama, manipulative, drama queens, complicated, emotionally unstable, irrational

the average women fit at least one of the descriptors. there are exceptions but they're not common.

plenty of men are overly aggresive, dickish, moronic simpletons but the majority of men are fairly stable and decent in comparison to the majority of females.

also, the same men that get laid all the time now would just get laid thrice as often. pathetic forever alones will always be forever alone, no matter how many women there are. and even if every forever alone got a gf it would still not be worth putting mostly crazy bitches in charge of everything

[Anonymous No.5432755]

>>5431728
>Making 3 girls to every one guy?
Since about half the female population is not attractive to men, and since given the choice, most men would try to go for the more attractive women... I think men would stay monogamous and just concentrate on getting the best girl of the three.
Which means that half of the women or maybe more would not reproduce, and humanity's fertility rate would drop.

[Anonymous No.5432788]

>>5432713
If you look towards the animal kingdom, there are many examples where the adults of a 'pack' consists of only females with the sole exception of a SINGLE male (which is the father of all the juveniles). Examples include many African felines (such as lions and cheetahs), and even some primates (gray langurs). There's no reason why humans need to be a special case (females can work and kids can go to child care...)

[Anonymous No.5432838]

>>5432755
I, personally, have fairly low standards when it comes to attractiveness.
If what they say and what they do and what they think gives me an emotional/intellectual/physical hard-on (in whatever combination you might imagine) then, honestly, I don't give two shits if they're plain as hell as long as they don't have some kind of obvious hygiene problem or downs syndrome thing going on.

When you're in a long term relationship with someone, you gradually stop seeing what people look like, and people's faces and bodies become more like symbols to you, anyway.

[Anonymous No.5432847]

Depends. If American women, the vapid, self serving, capricious creature that they are, then no.

If fine, loyal and pure Norwegian women, then yes.

[Anonymous No.5432849]

>>5432788
Well, if you look at it very loosely it would make sense. These packs only work because the females does all the actual work, while the male is just there to protect his area. And seeing as women all got their own jobs now i could live with sitting at home.

[Anonymous No.5432966]

I have to assume that it would have a positive effect, globally speaking, of there being much more women than men, then nature would have found a way to do it that way.
I have no clue about population dynamics, but I'm fairly sure that the more or less 50/50 is a Nash equilibrium.

(+2 internets for the first anon who finds a cinematic relationship between Jurassic Park and A Beautiful Mind.)

[Anonymous No.5432974]

>implying any woman would fuck you, even if you were that rare.

Nice try, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5432979]

>>5432974
This.

I'd rather become lesbian than dating a beta.

[Anonymous No.5433000]

>>5432702
This was almost exactly what I was implying.

[Anonymous No.5433007]

If it were an option. Absolutely. Think about how much conflict is about men trying to get pussy. We have thrice the libido anyway. It would be great.

[Anonymous No.5433012]

>>5433007
>Think about how much conflict is about men trying to get pussy.
I agree, men would be to incompasitated from snoo snoo to even start an argument.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433018]

>>5431728
why the fuck would that make any sense??

in a society where people generally pair off and get married and shit, that means ultimately the 25% that are men would pair off with 1 third of all women, leaving 2 thirds of all women as foreveraloners

50/50, is ideal

as it, is, it's a bit skewed.
like 52/48 or some shit like that.

that only leaves 4% of the population as women as foreveraloners (ignoring dumping-re-dating), which is A LOT better than 50%

[Anonymous No.5433019]

>/sci/ nerds knowing nothing about women
Should have been obvious.
Even if there was a 1:3 male:female ratio females would still exclusively gravitate towards the top few percentage of males. Allowing polygamy would only amplify this effect.
So even in a world with more women than men, you would still be a ronery virgin. 40% of males would still have no luck with women. All that would happen is the top 10% of males would have even more women for themselves.

[Emma No.5433024]

>>5433007
>>5433012
It's a bit unfair of nature, that there are guys who get lots of pussy and guys who don't get any - while it's more constantly distributed amongst women.
Nevertheless, I found that always to be a good thing, the competition I mean. The motivation is procreation, something biologically trivial, but the consequence is that men compete and I feel this leads to good results, competence etc. E.g. sexual desire definately leads me to be a more successful (job wise) healthier (working out wise) person, etc. Might be that women don't feel that preassure, which sometimes makes life seem pointless to them. You know, because life IS kinda pointless, and only if you work towards something, you actually feel good. My argument also is that if all men (who have more obvious libido) would actually get all the sex they want, society wouldn't be as advances.
That's just speculation here of course.

[Anonymous No.5433027]

>>5433024
I have similar speculation

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433034]

>>5431733
>china
>singapore
>north korea

dont forget india
fuckin shithole

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20863860

basically because of their stupid assed fucking religion, they have like a 'dowry' shit, where one family pays money to the other, meaning it's better to have a son

if you give birth to a daughter, then when she gets married you have to pay a fuckload of money, wheras if you have a son, when he gets married, you GET a fuckload of money from whichever stupid fucking whore he marries.

because indians are kikey jew bastards, they understand this, and they want sons coz they want money
so if it's a girl on the ultrasound, they abort it.
or if they didnt have ultrasound and didnt know teh sex of the baby, they might even kill her after she's born.

because of this, sex ratio is horribly skewed, leading to not enough women to pair off, and a lot of really angry sexually frustrated males in fierce competition with each other.

basically culminating in india being the rape capital of the world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301
so theres a pretty thriving sex-slave trade in women.
you know, coz horny rich males
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301

shit sucks

[Anonymous No.5433035]

>>5433018
>what is polygamy?

[Anonymous No.5433039]

>>5433034
at least that will breed some good males.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433042]

>>5433019
>40% of males would still have no luck with women
when the sex ratio is skewed that badly to make them a minority??
ha, absolutely not.
only the absolute fugs would be forever-aloners for males. less than 1%, definitely.

apart from that, the rest would have a pretty easy time dating. so many choices, so little competition.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433045]

>>5433035
aint currently practised in most cultures (or very rare, certainly)
but yeh, i suppose society would have to switch to that model if the sex ratio was 3:1.

[Anonymous No.5433048]

>>5433042
dont you see what happens in animals that practice polygamy? some males dominate the rest and take all the females.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433051]

>>5433039
>breed some good males.
depends how you define 'good' seeing as 'angry rapist genes' would be passed on rather than 'i-wish-i-had-a-girlfriend-but-i-respect-the-personal-space-of-women-anyway genes'

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433067]

>>5433048
thats coz if you fuck with the alpha-male sea-lion he'll beat the living shit out of you
>handz off my womenz, nigga!

humans are generally slightly more civil.

also, keep in mind that most women usually like to keep a guy to themselves, if they have the option to.
and 21st century women aint as easily dominated, we wont fall in line into a fucking harem quite as easily as those centuries ago did.

[Anonymous No.5433070]

>>5433051
go-getter gene or passive-loser gene...

so hard to choose...

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433075]

>>5433070
ha, personally i prefer the non-rapist
but each to their own

[Anonymous No.5433086]

>>5433075
>tfw you will never be raped by a semi-attractive woman ;_;

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433096]

>>5433086
oh?
<<<

(actually fuck that, she's clearly a munter...)

[Anonymous No.5433121]

Yeah, but only because I kinda have a being forced into sex by a woman fetish and this improves the chances.

Ignoring that, hell no.

[Anonymous No.5433218]

>>5433045
> aint currently practised in most cultures (or very rare, certainly)
Only if cheating wouldn't be considered polygamy.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433223]

>>5433218
it's not
in polygamy they all live together
its like 1 household with a husband and 3/4-w/e wives, every wife knows the others
in cheating, you dont know, and if you find out, you get pissy about it.

some similarities, but theres differences in openness/honesty about it.

[Anonymous No.5433235]

>>5433223
>>5433218
if the five knows the husband is cheating and lets him, is it polygamy? becasue lots of people do that still. after all, it was the norm until around 100 years ago for a person (especially of high birth) to have a wife he didn't chose, so he had some fun on the side. And the wife knew that, and the mistress.

[Anonymous No.5433240]

>>5433235
>five
*wife

[Anonymous No.5433241]

Even with that ratio, you still wouldn't have a girlfriend, OP.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433249]

>>5433235
it kinda is, but technically:
"Polygamy (polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "many married") is a marriage which includes more than two partners."

the mistress aint in the marriage, so it isnt official polygamy.

it's almost the same tho

[Anonymous No.5433252]

>>5433045
"According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry."

[Anonymous No.5433254]

1/2
>>5432788
>far fetched reductionist analogies ad absurdum
I can see a promising career for you in psychiatry. Now humor aside:
>If you look towards the animal kingdom, there are many examples where the adults of a 'pack' consists of only females with the sole exception of a SINGLE male (which is the father of all the juveniles). Examples include many African felines (such as lions and cheetahs), and even some primates (gray langurs).
Oh yes, feed me the Zoology.
... ducks and swans form pairs, and numerous other species have it that way. In social insects like ants and bees, there are drones who do no job, save for the fertilization (Although bees have less males than females overall, the colonies generally produce more fertile males(drones) than fertile females(virgin queens).). Some deep-water fish species have a male as basically just a parasite-like sperm-sac attached to the 1000 times more massive female. Shall we mix in some parthenogenesis now as well? I think I'll pass. Let's just say there is a great number of reproductive strategies and M/F ratios present in the Nature.
But that alone really is a weak argument to support the idea, that any other, than approximately current gender distribution would work well in the global human society. So weak, I am not even sure if I need to provide any direct counter arguments to your consecutive
>(females can work and kids can go to child care...)
suggestion,
like: The fact how much attention human children need from its parent compared to other species and how do the qualities of this attention compare to your 'child care'. And how does male CNS differ in form and function from the female one (not to mention other predispositions like physical strength, stamina and so on) and the resulting work performance implications showing questionable scientific validity of your
>There's no reason why humans need to be a special case
belief.
Due to the 4chan post letter limit, continued bellow, pic unrelated.

[Anonymous No.5433269]

>>5433223
A matter of definition.
"polygamy (plural polygamies)
The having of multiple socially bonded sexual partners at the same time"
No word about living together or knowing about others.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433282]

>>5433269
define 'at the same time'

because technically someone who fucks someone, breaks up with them, and then fucks someone else, has
>'The having of multiple socially bonded sexual partners at the same time"
well...not exactly the same time (double penetration, anyone? =p) because that doesnt usually happen, but in a short time span i mean.

so where do you draw the line?

as far as i was aware, polygamy was specifically referring to marriage, not just 'socially bonded sexual partners.'

[Anonymous No.5433285]

>>5431728
If history is accurate it would not be a good thing. Periods in history when sexual demographics heavily favored women tended to be marked with high amounts of all violent crime. Relationships are often destabilized and volatile. Politics become heavily skewed towards left leaning liberal ideals (which may be good or bad based on your own agenda) and sharp increases in mental illness among women became much more prevalent.

When demographic shifts favor men, crime rates go down, families are more stable, and conservative values dominate.

[Anonymous No.5433283]

2/2
>>5432788
(>>5433254 continued)
Although it would be hypothetically possible to put such a model in place(using some artificial fertilization method or abortions or murders or a disaster etc. in order to skew the natural M/F ratio), it would be highly doubtful whether it would be more efficient/convenient than one with a M/F ratio close to 1.
Your argument really counts as a 'weak analogy logical fallacy' and cherry picking. Shifting your focus rather to your hand picked species than to the one in question while disregarding the specifics of the species in question and its underlying biological mechanisms.

TL;DR
No.

>>5432849
>if you look at it very loosely it would make sense
Yes, if I really tried, I guess I could see it that loosely... maybe with an assistance of some deliriant.

[Anonymous No.5433292]

>>5433254
has that tree got cancer or what

[Anonymous No.5433296]

>>5433292
Its being devoured by a fig vine.

[Anonymous No.5433304]

>>5433296
plants are assholes, thanks for clarification

[Anonymous No.5433338]

>>5433018
>as it, is, it's a bit skewed. like 52/48 or some shit like that.
>that only leaves 4% of the population as women as foreveraloners (ignoring dumping-re-dating), which is A LOT better than 50%
Isn't the difference largely because of the different life expectancy of males vs females? IIRC, there are even slightly more males born. So the surplus females are mostly quite outside of their reproductive period anyway.
TL;DR
More men born, but they die sooner, methinks.

[Anonymous No.5433342]

>this happens
>polygamy is now allowed
>a third of men get 10 wives each
>we still get none
this is what would happen

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433349]

>>5433338
>Isn't the difference largely because of the different life expectancy of males vs females?

yep. most of those 4% are old women divorcees.

>IIRC, there are even slightly more males born.
really? i heard slightly more females, globally.
any sources?

[Anonymous No.5433413]

>>5433349
>IIRC
=Sources: my memory. And my memory source is probably reading wikipedia on life expectancy some time ago.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433464]

>>5433413
not sure how it cant be 50/50 from birth, actually

females have no determination of the babys sex, its down to the male

but males produce equal numbers of Y sperm and X sperm, so it should be exactly 50/50

[Anonymous No.5433488]

>>5433464
Births slightly favor males, in a roughly 52% to 48% ratio.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433493]

>>5433488
that might be because:
>>5433034

female infanticide skews the stats.

[Anonymous No.5433506]

>>5433464
Maybe there was a little higher infant mortality in the first years or something. I don't know. I remember it faintly, that I came to this conclusion after studying the table of male and female counts over the vs. time and I even think it was noted in the description. I remember it as a faint notion that has stuck with me as a contrast to the fact that there are more women than men overall(in places where they don't mass kill female babies like india and china), because of the difference in life expectancy despite in early years there are more males. And it might even seem quite logical as a balancing strategy to counter the higher life expectancy of a female. I am speculating here now.
>but males produce equal numbers of Y sperm and X sperm, so it should be exactly 50/50
You have source on this yourself or you assume it based on some basic cellular biology paradigms?
I think there are cases where there are for instance multiple females born and no male from one father. IDK to what extent this is governed by chance alone.

[Anonymous No.5433510]

>>5433493
Most of the statistical data used to generate the study was drawn from North American and Western Europe, which compared India or China have shown little gender preference.

That said, perhaps lifestyle changes or some kind of environmental effect prevalent in the western world has skewed the sex ratio somehow.

[Anonymous No.5433512]

>>5433493
I would expect that is taken to account and is corrected for the infanticide cases. I assume it pertains to the "natural" state.

[EK !EKFnQG0UBo No.5433517]

>>5433506
>You have source on this yourself or you assume it based on some basic cellular biology paradigms?

yeh, IIRC it's how sperm production happens.
you dont just make one sperm at a time, it splits into 2 during the process, so for each pair you get 1 male and 1 female.

yeh, seems to be right
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_male_meiosis_and_female_meiosis_for_humans

"During meiosis I, the sex chromosomes separate and enter different sperm or egg cells (gametes). Males will end up with one half X sperm and the other half Y sperm, while females will all have X eggs because they had no Y chromosome in the first place."

>I think there are cases where there are for instance multiple females born and no male from one father.

unlikely, but yeh it can happen, its just probability.

its like if you flip 4 coins in a row, you might get all of them to be heads.
gonna happen to somebody

[Anonymous No.5433524]

.