Men are also the victims. Read this analysis of a recent paper in human population genetics: coincident with the rise of agriculture, there was a drastic bottleneck in the effective population size of men, but not women — the interpretation is that there was a massive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few men, who basically used that power to put all the reproductive rights in their hands, and the hands of their sons.
There is a nice infographic to explain the concept.
Biology says all men ought to be raging democrats, opposing the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few. Psychology, unfortunately, says that most men are stupid and imagine they are one of the few.
I’ve just been reading “Debt: The First 5000 Years” by David Graeber. It has some very interesting things to say about the social changes that appear to have turned a comparatively egalitarian Sumeria (where some women, though less frequently than men, could be merchants and politicians and independently wealthy) into the much more patriarchial society that dominated the next few thousand years. I’ve no idea how reasonable it all is as I’ve not had the chance to look at the source material yet (I’ve not even finished the book), but it makes for interesting reading nonetheless.
Turns out that turning women into chattel is something that lots of men got behind, seeing the benefits to themselves but not the consequences. And so here we are.
Fuck the few.
I am not special.
I am the faceless statistic.
I am the skull beside the road.
Extreme? Perhaps. But accepting that opened my eyes.
We’re all in this together, us little people. Love and cherish widely, for our only hope is to be as many as we can.
/offtopicbedtimerant
WAit wait wait, important things first. Men were harmed??? SEE IT WAS MISANDRY ALL ALONG!!two!
#FTBullies #GamerGate #RedPill
This definitely sounds like an MRS issue. Women as a commodity hoarded by a select few, that men feel entitled to. Definitely characteristic MRA way of looking at the issue. The only controversy seems to be whether to imagine themselves as the Alpha males controlling women or to be outraged at such people for hogging up all the women. Treating women as property though? No issue.
You know the MRA response to this information is simply going to be “hypergamy.” Don’t you know that absolutely everything is the fault of women?
… but not in the number females.
Even nice infographics need proof-reading.
It’s a bit like the huge numbers of people who are never going to be financially secure, much less well-off, but who keep voting right-wing because they’re deeply convinced that they’re really “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” …
MRAs seem to see the immediate apparent advantage to them of women-as-chattel while failing to notice that in reality this just means another sphere of existence in which most men are inevitably done down by other men … while still contriving to place all the blame on women, of course. While conveniently forgetting that women are people.
… what I meant to say, but failed to, is that it’s a pity more men don’t see that doing away with the fundamental premise of women-as-chattel just ‘appens to be to their own advantage, as well as being the right thing to do.
I figure MRAs will misrepresent this infographic and argue that misogyny is one of civilization’s oldest and most important technologies, like writing or agriculture.
But, but, but, there can’t have been so many more women reproducing than men because we have always had one-man-one-woman marriage, which we know is absolutely crucial to reproduction. Obviously this “study” is the work of biased liberals faking data to get grant money…
Beware of successful farmers (especially those with lots of sons)! I’m watching you, Ol’ McDonald!
Not farmers. Kings and priests who skim off the benefits of the farmers’ work.
Or corporate/political oligarchs in the modern day.
No: their response will be:
‘”Sooooo, old days’ aristocrats had harems so large or molested so many housemaids that they spawned bastards numerous enough to visibly affect the gene pool: Keeeewl that’s what I wanna do when I’m a grow up too.”
The hypergamy bullshit will come later when they’ll realize that people are pointing finders at them whispering “fucking would-be parasites”
***
Or lucky soldiers and thieve-kings who “conquered” huge swath of lands by being bullies with swords, pikes and axes (laters riffles and canons, even later tanks and warplanes and drones) facing farmers and artisans.
This reminds me of something I learned in an anthropology course many moons ago: polygamy genetically benefits women, not men. Concentrating female reproduction in prosperous environments means that the children which are created and survive will come from many mothers but not that many fathers. To simplify, a rich man with 8 wives means 7 men are SOL. Genetic dead ends.
Also, more wealth = more good reason to join together and try to take it. Couple this with the fact that invading hoards and armies will often kill off all the men but take the women and there’s fewer and fewer men reproducing but the number of women stays the same. They may not have been treated well, but they likely lived long enough to leave children.
another example of analysis of actual data differing common sense understanding the situation.
It is my understanding that groups of people who are primarily hunter gatherers do not as individuals posses a lot of personal property. You can not own much more than you can carry. That they must think and act as a group and for the group. All the resources are naturally shared among the group with everyone freely contributing their skills and knowledge for the survival of the group which is seen more as we see the family.
It is not just women as property but private property itself. It is agriculture that makes it possible to hold more than can be carried from place to place. It is agriculture that makes it possible to entertain the idea that we are different from the rest of the plants and animals on earth that we can control things.
agriculture makes it possible for authority to flourish to a greater degree than is tolerable in the hunter/gather society were consensus is more the rule.
uncle frogy
PZ Men are also the victims.
This cannot be said enough. Ironically, it is so fucking obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said at all!
Truly, humanity is the victim, so much time and energy wasted.
Unfortunately, 99% of MRAs are convinced they’re the Genetically Superior 1% who would have access to dozens of “mates” if not for that eeevil female sexual agency. (And they’d all be billionaires if not for “welfare queens” siphoning off their money, and would be flying spaceships around Rigel if not for political correctness diluting Manly Science with quotas of female researchers and professors, et cetera, et cetera.)
So while this SHOULD be a good argument for MRAs to care about equality and justice, in practice they’ll just see it as vindication of their keystone belief that Women Are Always To Blame.
pocketnerd @ 17 Well women are to blame!
How dare they have standards!
When you look at population inheritance studies you find people like “Niall of the 12 Hostages” and Ghengis Khan had wildly disproportionate numbers of descendants. As Mel Brooks said, “It’s good to be the king!” After all, power is not worth having unless you abuse it. I’m surprised the MRAs haven’t figured this out: the 1% have done more to put them down than feminists ever could.
Not farmers. Kings and priests who skim off the benefits of the farmers’ work.
Isil. Boko haram. Rape as a weapon of war also unbalances the “playing field” wildly for males that aren’t rapey and violent. MRAs ought to see that as a threat except they seem to psychologically align with the rapists. Telling, isn’t it?
“7 men are SOL. Genetic dead ends”
Except for the sneaky and/or inordinately cute ones. Indication that the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife was an interpolation by members of the elite.
It probably started with a handful of societies developing hereditary warrior castes specializing who lived off and eventually dominated their populations. They then went on to conquer other villages and areas to consolidate kingdoms (and the first civilizations), and even areas they didn’t conquer were forced to adapt by developing their own warrior caste nobles and stronger kings in response.
Hell, we might have seen a version of it happen in relatively recent history. I remember James Loewen in Lies My Teacher Told Me talking about how the wave of diseases and European invasion waves greatly strengthened chiefs in native American societies, giving them power they hadn’t had before as well as a greater emphasis on combat capabilities.
Exactly how the US poor keep getting tricked into voting against their own interests.
Pz, democrat…really? Is that REALLY the best approach/party to ending ‘inequality’? Isn’t inequality a necessary consequence of capitalism? Aren’t Democrats a capitalist party (albeit accepting some reforms). Come on, remember what LeGuin said:
We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings.
Why settle for an obviously corrupt pro business party?
anarchobyron: read carefully — PZ was talking about democratic social structures, not the specific US political party called the Democrats.
That’s a reading of the quote. I don’t think that’s explicitly what he’s saying thought.
The divine right of kings did not get replaced until a better alternative was developed.
Right now there has not yet been found an alternative that is demonstrably superior to a properly regulated mixed capitalist economic system. We’ve fiddled with different levels of regulation, but all the successful first world nations, all the world’s progressive democracies, are still using economic systems that are essentially capitalism with a leash. (The length of the leash varies from place to place).
If we do find a superior alternative, the switch will be automatic and inevitable. Regressive elements may do whatever they want to delay the transition, but people aren’t stupid. They will choose the systems that provide them with the better quality of life.
They’re saying up to 19/20ths of males didn’t reproduce. That’s a staggering figure, and as far as I can tell has no counterpart in any present or historical experience. You’d think something like that would have left some trace in oral traditions.
WSDEs are a viable alternative, to name but one.
Even ‘mixed’ economies have not been sustainable in the long term, there’s constant crises that have faced every capitalist system across the globe, so that’s just a false claim. But let’s look the real oncoming problem in the eye: capitalism is predicated upon constant compound growth, and the planet has finite resources. You cannot square infinite compound growth with finite resources, and expect for an indefinitely thriving human species. What’s going to give first? The planet? Or the fact we are too scared to try something else, because regulated markets work well for 5-15 years?
If WSDEs are a viable alternative, then sooner or later some nation will adopt it, and that nation will become so successful using it that all other nations will follow suit.
Even if regressive nations resist, and go as far as to go to war to stop the WSDE nation(s), eventually the WSDE nations will win the war(s) on the strength of their superior economic system, if WSDEs really are a viable superior alternative.
And then we will see if WSDEs are truly sustainable in the long run at large scales, because so far, NO economic system that humans have ever come up with is truly sustainable in the long run, and it is uncertain if ANY possible economic system is actually sustainable in the long run.
wtf is WSDEs? ah thanks goggle: Workers’ Self-Directed Enterprises (WSDE’s).
Ya, see, that is something that is possible in a capitalist mixed market system. People just have to get together and do them. Soooo?
You seem to be defining “unsustainable” rather weirdly. It’s currently still working, so it has sustained itself thus far.
Ya, we always need to adapt in the long run. f n red herrings.
Winston Churchill’s statement about democracy “it’s the worst of all political systems, except for all these others that have been tried” applies equally to mixed/regulated capitalism.
Also, holacracy is supposed to be this new system that adapts to any situation to produce the organization model that fits best. Of course, it’s new, and thus largely untested. But I’ll be keeping my eye on it. (The concept of “meta organization” is certainly neat in two situations: when it is a noun and when it is a verb))
Of course, it’s still operating in a capitalist market whatsyoumacallit.
The human species is 150,000 years old. Capitalism is approximately 200. It’s environmentally unsustainable, consistently lends itself to egregious forms of inequality, goes into crises every 5-15 years, frequently allows for both overt and covert corruption of politicians, and yet we cling fast to it like it’s the only game in town, and worth defending. Come the f on.
Anyone, my point was not to get into an anti-capitalism debate, but to press PZ on his democrat claim. If you want to be a progressive capitalist (or a jumbo shrimp) fine, but that doesn’t mean showing support for one of the two major ruling parties is justifiable.
@anarchobyron
I’d be interested to hear more detail of your views in Thunderdome if you want. Just reading about WSDEs right now and it seems fairly neat.
But I don’t particularly see how it will be better for the environment, politics, or crises. It looks like it could be better for wages and working conditions, though.
And I also think it is a subset of capitalism, not an opposition to it.
Yes, on a small scale you’re quite correct. But extrapolate to the entire reorganization of the economy from one of private ownership of the means of production, to a collective WSDE ownership, and we would have a radical change in the political and economy landscape. One I would imagine would be much easier and more compliant towards shifting away from necessary growth (but outward and internally), and thus planetary wise more prudent, and for a boon for democracy overall. Isolating democracy to just the state, and not the workplace, is actually the huge flaw in that Churchill slogan.
If you’re interested read Richard Wolff’s book. It’s short. Sweet. Easy and crystal clear. Non-technical. Etc.
@35Anarchobyron
Capitalism is older than 200 years. The earliest joint stock companies go back 450 years, banking goes back to the medieval era (at least), trade is even older than that, etc. We stick with it because most people like a lot of things about a capitalist market economy even if they don’t like everything, and because market economies and polyarchy/democracy go together extremely well.
As for WSDEs, workers are welcome to go start them now. There’s lot of cooperatives out there, and even more partnerships. Yet they tend to be much less popular than traditional firms and solo proprietorships, which tells you something about how much people actually like working in a collectively-managed set-up.
Right, I almost added in: or 400 years depending on how you want to argue history. We could say X existed in year Y, but it takes more than this or that X to make capitalism. A bank, a stock company, etc., does not make a society a capitalist society. Just as the fact our society has a few artisans doesn’t mean we live in a feudal society. Anyway, 200-400, juxtaposed to 150,000 doesn’t change that it’s a fraction of our history.
WSDE’s like most viable alternatives to a privately owned means of production market are not ‘welcome’, and are often shut down by all kinds of nefarious tactics. It’s not surprise or aberration that large companies will lose money to shut down alternative competition, to retain overall market-share/dominance. Or they’ll get their friends in the state department or CIA to do it for them (e.g., the 9/11/73 could of Allende).
Show me a viable (electable) alternative. That is what is missing from your ideology.
A lot of learned speculation has it that the thing that kept the men from reproducing was war and that classical marriage, one man and one or more women, was a handy way of rapidly making good losses and growing a formidable military machine.
So early on wealth, greed, and war were already firmly connected.
Nerd, I’m not required to do such a thing. There was no ‘viable’ alternative to kings, queens, slave masters, autocrats, etc., until there was one. But at no point does the lack of an immediately pragmatic alternative justify support for whose in charge. We don’t need to look for alternatives, since they don’t exist. We need to make them. And starting on the process requires something more than supporting democrats (or princes, or heirs).
(although I mean, it’s not as if there aren’t third parties you could vote for…)
Of course it does. If you had overthrown the kings, queens and autocrats back in the days before there was a viable alternative, you would have created a situation of anarchy in which the total suffering and harm to innocent individuals would have massively dwarfed the harm created by those kings, queens and autocrats. Or the system would have reverted to the even older and even more oppressive systems that had existed before the monarchic system came into being.
Keep in mind as well that the system that accrued divine right to kings, queens and autocrats was NOT the first system of government control, nor the most oppressive and autocratic. The divine ruler’s privileges were in fact circumscribed in this system, by both the expectations of the religion and the power of aristrocrats. He or she had responsibilities to the well-being of the people he or she ruled and there was significant social pressure applied on him or her to conform to these expectations. Some were even encoded into law, and a king or queen could in fact be REMOVED from the throne if he or she violated those laws. He, or she, was not, in fact, an absolute ruler. Some checks did in fact exist to ameliorate the potential for abuse of power. This system displaced an earlier system that was more autocratic and oppressive. It represented a stepwise improvement in the wellbeing of the ruled and an incremental increase in the rights of the common man. It persisted until an even better system arose to replace it.
Had it been overthrown before the improvement was available, the system would have most likely reverted to that which existed earlier, which was even more oppressive, and thus the lot of the commoner would have been made WORSE.
You support the AVAILABLE alternative that results in the least harm to the fewest, and greatest good to the most, even as you recognize the imperfections in the system and seek alternatives and improvements.
In every generation there are revolutionaries who revel in carnage. These people are not the ones who advance the cause of human justice.
Actually you are. Either you provide an alternative, or you shut the fuck up.
I’m a scientist, and we don’t just jettison a theory if there are no alternatives that are better. Until you offer something better, you have nothing. And you are wasting your time here merely complaining and whinging.
And if the problem we have is one of corrupt politicians that consistently have a nefarious relationship to capitalists, Democrats are not that AVAILABLE and VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. It’s like saying no to the king in favor of the queen. It’s still monarchy. In this case it’s still the big-business party (that sometimes throws a few concessions to the working-class.
I don’t need to point to a viable alternative to raise consistent and legitimate criticisms against existing institutions, parties, etc. All the criticisms of slavery and monarchy were as legitimate then as they are now, with or without opportunities for revolutionary change.
But again, I don’t want to turn this into an anti-capitalism thread. I’m just wondering why PZ, who is very progressive on many issues, and frequently does a great job pointing on the flaws in peoples presumptions that present conditions are both natural and NECESSARY, would stoop to saying we should be democrats…. They’re just as contingent, corrupt, and ultimately damaging to real lasting progress as the other reactionaries he so cogently critiques everyday.
@anarchobyron
There’s thousands of co-operatives out there in the US and elsewhere. No one’s trying to force them to shut down – they’re just not that popular compared to regular firms, presumably for the same reason that partnerships are less common than single proprietorships. All of the risks of entrepreneurship, plus the extra risks of coordination problems and somebody running off with the firm’s funds.
And I’m pretty sure PZ doesn’t support democrats unconditionally. I don’t either. I support them because they’re better than the alternative, and they could be even better still if progressives took a note from conservatives and started pressuring Democratic candidates more heavily in the primary elections.
Y’know, I read the “democrats” in the OP as “firm believers in the benefits of democracy” rather than as “members of the Democratic Party.”
It’s not like this research is American-specific.
Maybe that’s just me, though.
That was how I read it too.
You don’t have one, so shut the fuck up. Hushfiled due to terminal idiotology and stupidity.
Nerd, that’s an exceptionally bellicose and rude thing to say. I don’t know why the conversation has to devolve to that level. It’s unfortunate that it has. Perhaps instead of calling me names, and demanding I “shut the fuck up”, you could engage the substance of my posts – no matter how daft you may think they are, amicable conversation is a surer way to enlighten men, then hostility.
I think a distinction needs to be made Brett between support and voting.
“And I’m pretty sure PZ doesn’t support democrats unconditionally. I don’t either. I support them because they’re better than the alternative, and they could be even better still if progressives took a note from conservatives and started pressuring Democratic candidates more heavily in the primary elections.”
I never said don’t vote democrat. Strategic voting in certain elections is no doubt important. But there is a large difference between, I’m going to vote for X, and I support X. Often with the latter there is praise involved, justification, acceptance, embracing, etc. Whereas I’ve voted Democrat before, while being vocal that it was less of two evils tactical decision and not one of support. But saying vote democrat this election is different then saying you SHOULD be a democrat, no?
Esteleth, Maybe you’re right and I misread it. I’m open to that suggestion. I don’t think PZ’s post is explicitly saying what you say it is, but it’s also not explicitly saying support the Democrat party. Thank you for raising this point.
Esteleth @ 48
Ditto. Because PZ doesn’t have a history of a) ungrudgingly supporting the Democratic Party or b) erasing the rest of the planet.
A) seems to be true. I just re-reading this blog in the past 6 months. I don’t know what you mean by B).
anarchobyron @ 53, not all men the world over can vote for the American Democratic Party. It’s the height of American arrogance to make a comment directed toward men in general that only refers to American men.
Or to assume such a comment can only refer to American men, for that matter.
Please remember that capitalism was built on top of hereditary aristocracy; there was no “reset” – we moved seamlessly from divine right of kings to hereditary aristocracy, managed democracy and corporate oligarchy – with inherited wealth and privilege remaining entrenched right along with it. The former aristocracy of Europe, except where they wiped eachother out from incompetence or fleecing the flock so hard they got a tumbril ride, are still wealthy and thus control a great deal of soft power. Until JK Rowling came along, the queen of England was the wealthiest woman in England due to a mix of the Windsors looting England and monopolizing the remains of the opium trade (they still have huge financial interest in the legal opiate market). Capitalism enshrines and perpetuates the aristocratic kleptocracy while downplaying it by pointing at the noveau riche that ascend to its ranks … Like the oil barons and the relatively rare capitalist wunderkind. We have to remember that billionaires like Warren Buffet are newsworthy because they are exceptional and rare, compared to parasitic monarchs transitioning into banking and capitalist roles. It’s easy to become a wealthy capitalist if you’re a member of the house of Saud.
I like sea-lions!!! Let me throw you a fish.
Winston Churchill’s statement about democracy “it’s the worst of all political systems, except for all these others that have been tried” applies equally to mixed/regulated capitalism.
Winston Churchill, a plutocrat who inherited wealth and power, who made choices such as continuing the meat-grinder at Gallipoli – his idea in the first place, killing hubdreds of thousands – rather than risking his political career by admitting his mistake? That Churchill? How was he qualified to comment on political philosophy, other than as a bloody handed coward and despot?
anarchobyron @50
Nerd, you’ve been well and truly tone-trolled by anarchobyron. Who I notice still has yet to give an example of a viable alternative to whatever it is xe’s complaining about.
Substance starts with “this is what I think, and this [link] is the evidence to back it up”. You have no evidence, hence nothing but your own views, which I don’t have to take seriously without evidence.
Up your game, or go away.
Do you dispute the validity of his statement? Do you have reasoned arguments to support that dispute?Whether he is or is not a bloody handed coward and despot has no bearing on the validity of his statement. Just because he is dead doesn’t make an ad hominem against him (a true ad hominem!) any less valid an argument.
Nerd and Al Dente, let me repeat a point, and if you have a problem with it please let me know.
“I don’t need to point to a viable alternative to raise consistent and legitimate criticisms against existing institutions, parties, etc. All the criticisms of slavery and monarchy were as legitimate then as they are now, with or without opportunities for revolutionary change.”
A criticism’s legitimacy does not rest on the existence of alternatives. It’s legitimate or illegitimate in lights of its own veracity and coherence. To give the most banal example, I can criticize the policies of Obama without advocating a watertight impeachment process. The criticism remains legitimate. Before we can even BEGIN to DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES, we need to know what we need an alternative to. If we can’t even being that conversation, what’s the point in raising alternatives? Or am incorrect? Are you two (or just Nerd) of the mind that critics are to “shut the fuck up” and be called “idiots” and “stupid” because they aren’t criticizing AND drafting airtight blueprints?
By the way I did propose some alternatives. WSDEs. Third parties (it’s not like voting Green Party is physically impossible…). Understand history. Strategically vote, but don’t support, etc. You’re just ignoring these, Nerd, and engaging in invective writing. I no longer feel like your questions are an invitation to a dialogue, but instead an opportunity to exercise anger and hostility.
““this is what I think, and this [link] is the evidence to back it up”.”
You need evidence that the Democrats are one of two sides of the big-business party, and capitalism is environmentally unsustainable?
Okay.
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/totals.php?cycle=2014&cmte=DPC
And:
http://www.amazon.com/This-Changes-Everything-Capitalism-Climate/dp/1451697384/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426731842&sr=8-1&keywords=naomi+klein
I’d be willing to further engage any concerns you have, so long as you show a modicum of human decency and respect, no matter how ‘stupid’ you may think I am.
What the fuck are we going on about? Yes, there is a reason PZ didn’t capitalize the d. “Raging democrats”, in the context of even distribution of wealth and even distribution of power. As in, a contrast to plutocracy or monarchy. As in, not really relevant to the U.S. Democratic Party.
Nope, not the evidence I demanded. A legitimate (electable) alternative with a history or working. Nada, zip, zilch, nothing. Still need work on your comprehension.
I always challenge communists and liberturds for historical data that their ideas work. They are like you, the avoid the subject.
Nerd, you completely ignored the substance of my post, again. I.e., the section on 1) why critique is in of itself legitimate, 2), a precondition of proposing an alternative. We have to be clear on what the problem IS, before we can propose a solution. Nevertheless, it’s not clear – given your tone, and choice of wording – that you are not looking to discuss an issue, but to beat your chest, and talk disparagingly to those you disagree with. Have a goodnight.
http://www.amazon.com/Take-Naomi-Klein/dp/B000CCD1X4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426734179&sr=8-1&keywords=the+take+naomi+klein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sug7bWxTuSo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-at-Work-Cure-Capitalism/dp/1608462471/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426734157&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+wolff
I am quite certain that is how everyone except Byron read it. But that interpretation doesn’t give him a chance to grind his axe.
anarchobyron
You slide very easily between “democrats” and “Democrats”. You do know there’s a difference right?
Honest folk have a name for that; it’s called bait and switch.
Or that would be an option if you Yanks had a preferential voting system.
Also serbian nationalists, Blackwater mercenaries, etc…
68 Colin J
Depends… it may well be the only long-term option barring violent revolution to make any meaningful change. The Democratic party has no incentive to ever care what the left thinks as long as it can count their votes anyway, they will just keep playing the middle/right. Neither party has any reason to work towards finally making the US a democracy rather than the sham they have now.
@67 Azkyroth Drinked the Grammar Too :)
the “firm believers in the benefits of democracy” enterpretation doesn’t entirely seem to fit though?
Thats a socialist sentiment, not a call for democracy in general. Hence the objection that the Democrats aren’t socialists, which seems reasonable.
YOU have a problem. That is obvious. I don’t play your games. Present your viable alternative party, or shut the fuck up. What is it about stupid people that they won’t get to their points /rhetorical.
I wanted to question something in the infographic:
Paragraph 3 states that “survival of the wealthiest” is in opposition to “survival of the fittest”. My understanding is that reproductive success is itself “fitness” in an evolutionary context – that’s the definition of the term. Therefore, if an increase in wealth increased reproductive success, that is (again, as I understand it) by definition an increase in “fitness”.
Disliking the criteria for that selection is perfectly fine, but isn’t the author making a very basic error here?
What? It’s a very reasonable interpretation (especially given his comments in the thread) that it’s not just about literal “wealth” but also social/political power in general. You want to be able to elect people to represent you and in that way have some control over what happens in your life. That is a (or maybe the) concept of small-d democracy or democraticness. (Socialists should not be opposed to this at all.) It’s not a concept that is restricted to economics or economic systems. Neither is the capital-D Democratic platform, for that matter, but until we stop confusing the two, we won’t even get that far in the discussion.
What’s really surprising is that people aren’t questioning the idea that a biological measure of success would tell us anything of the sort. It doesn’t tell us what political or social or economic success ought to look like. I’m (probably) not having any kids, and that is certainly not a straightforward or reliable way to measure whether or not I’m satisfied with my political or social or economic situation. As it happens, I’m not terribly satisfied with those things, but making a baby would not be an improvement of them. So it’s just not clear to me what kind of correlations people are supposed to invoke here to make sense of it.
War (which of course kills off a lot of young men) is also a common justification for, and incitement of, polygamy. Women are pressured into these arrangements because the community “needs” them to reproduce, and maybe they also feel they need the protection.
You can see the neat logic — kill off a lot of pesky competitive young men, which makes it easier to subjugate more women.
Google “polygamy and war”
@Anri #73
That is correct, and it is a very common mistake in characterizing evolution.
I’m sorry to derail the derail, but just to return to the subject of the original post, why did the bottleneck appear and then disappear? Wealth concentration has been very consistent after the advent of wealth-accumulating societies. Why hasn’t that bottleneck persisted if that is the explanation?
Separately, none of this addresses supposed MRA concerns about hypergamy in the least. That is a totally separate argument about possible outcomes of unprecedented modern social changes. I don’t see how anyone can consider themselves in a position to strongly claim that women don’t or won’t produce a similar effect today and in the near future as social stigmas about monogamy continue to weaken and disappear. We are barely a couple generations into this cultural revolution.
The bottleneck probably opened up as the scale of societies grew. If a warlord has a harem of 10 women out of a society of 500 people, it’s going to make a much bigger impact on the gene pool than if he has a harem of 10 women in a society of 5 million. There’s still going to be rare exceptions like Genghis Khan, but that’s also because he had prolific sons and descendants as well.
Anri: “Therefore, if an increase in wealth increased reproductive success, that is (again, as I understand it) by definition an increase in “fitness”.”
That is true only if the ability to acquire wealth is somehow genetically heritable. I mean if wearing a hat equated to increased reproductive success, that wouldn’t necessarily be transmitted.
Well capitalism ensures that the richer you are, the easier it is to stay rich and get richer still; and wealth itself is strongly inherited (inheritance law being designed in the interests of those who have money) … so arguably in practice it’s true that the ability to acquire wealth is itself heritable.
Alas I have completely forgotten where I read/heard this, but I’m sure I’ve come across the suggestion that economic status is – in practice, in the societies in which most of us live – one of the most strongly inherited characteristics.
(meanwhile lots of people cling fondly to the illusion that they live in a meritocracy and pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps … feh.)
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @ 78:
What if the wealth itself was heritable?
In other words, if being wealthier increases your chance of reproductive success, and you were gifted with wealth rather than earned it, would that make a substantial difference? If wealth increases reproductive success, than making money isn’t the issue – having money is the issue.
Wealth would be a fitness-defining phenotype only loosely based on genotype, but substantially based on parentage.
In any case, I was asking a question about the definition of the word ‘fitness’ in an evolutionary context. It was my understanding that ‘fitness’ was defined solely by reproductive success, which might be influenced by, but was not necessarily dependent on, genetics. Regardless of genetic makeup, a mountain lion killed in a landslide before breeding is by definition less fit than one that lives to breed – thats my (possibly flawed) understanding of the meaning of the term.