A Feminine Touch

[Scyzara]

You still don't get the point.

If your hypothetical river can be crossed after 100 years (4 generations), the 48-2 population will of course outnumber the 25-25 population, and it's possible that most of them are still "healthy enough" to kill the 25-25s.

(Side note: Doing that is INCREDIBLY stupid as the 25-25s are the only genetic long-term saviour for the 48-2s :roll: ).

But if, on the other hand, your hypothetical river can only be crossed after 1000 years (40 generations), then the 25-25 population might still be quite healthy while the 48-2 population is either already extinct or consists of a few drooling numb nuts that are too degenerated to even hold a spear in their hands.

It's not very helpful to have an initial population burst if everything goes down the drain after a few hundred years of unavoidable inbreeding, is it?

[EternityTide]

You still don't get the point.

If your hypothetical river can be crossed after 100 years (4 generations), the 48-2 population will of course outnumber the 25-25 population, and it's possible that most of them are still "healthy enough" to kill the 25-25s.

(Side note: Doing that is INCREDIBLY stupid as the 25-25s are the only genetic long-term saviour for the 48-2s :roll: ).

But if, on the other hand, your hypothetical river can only be crossed after 1000 years (40 generations), then the 25-25 population might still be quite healthy while the 48-2 population is either already extinct or consists of a few drooling numb nuts that are too degenerated to even hold a spear in their hands.

It's not very helpful to have an initial population burst if everything goes down the drain after a few hundred years of unavoidable inbreeding, is it?

Unfortunately people don't seem to understand that many people prefer a monogamous relationship for a reason - emotional stability.

Sure, the population might grow enormously in a 48-2 society, however no one will feel particularly close to each other. Open relationships might well work in the short term, but in my opinion they would lead to an impersonal "family" unit.

There is no real intimacy nor romance, hence people will see procreation as either producing more kids, or simply recreational.

A situation where people no longer feel "special" or wanted specifically for being themselves will lead to a huge wave of psychological depression, to the point that suicidal thoughts and other mental diseases may occur.

Although emotional factors are sketchy, and my preferred cold logic approach to such things may not work entirely well, the open relationship scenario would result in mass suicides and/or fragmentation of the social group. Polygamous relationships only work in isolated cases, and would also be a breeding ground for various STDs.

The traditional family unit has survived for so long because it works. If it didn't Homo Sapiens would have died out long ago.

Although I'm fairly certain that the 48-2 situation is playing into the hands of a male fantasy, logically it would have too many repercussions genetically, sociologically and generally to actual profit.

[exeexe]

Although I'm fairly certain that the 48-2 situation is playing into the hands of a male fantasy, logically it would have too many repercussions genetically, sociologically and generally to actual profit.

Its not a fantasy - its how most mammal families are organized because they have figured out that it works.

lions live in large groups called "prides," consisting of about 15 lions. Related females and their young make up the majority of the pride. A single male, or sometimes a small group of 2-3 males, will join a pride for an indefinite period, usually about 3 years or until another group of males takes over.

According to your analogy lions should be a mirage because if they were real they would all had committed suicide and become extinct.

There is usually one dominant mature stallion (stallion = a male adult horse, mare = adult female horse) for every mixed-sex herd of horses. The dominant stallion in the herd will tolerate both sexes of horses while young, but once they become sexually mature, often as yearlings or two-year olds, the stallion will drive both colts and fillies from the herd. Colts may present competition for the stallion, but studies suggest that driving off young horses of both sexes may also be an instinctive behavior that minimizes the risk of inbreeding within the herd, as most young are the offspring of the dominant stallion in the group. In some cases, a single younger mature male may be tolerated on the fringes of the herd. One theory is that this young male is considered a potential successor, as in time the younger stallion will eventually drive out the older herd stallion.

Another quote:

Each group (of wild horses) consisted of several females and their offspring, and 1–3 males. Group 1 consisted of 11 animals, including 1 male; group 2 had 19 animals, including 1 male; group 3 had 25 animals including 3 males. All horses were individually identified by their brands and colouration

http://www.rug.nl/research/behavioural- ... a_bp14.pdf

Also horses is a little cute magical and adorable mirage. And i could go on and on

[Scyzara]

I give up on you, exeexe.

You either just don't WANT to understand (what is allright, but further answers would be a complete waste of my time) and/or lack even the very slightest understanding for population genetics (what makes me somehow sad, but can only be fixed by yourself).

Those animals with one dominant male per group don't suffer from inbreeding depression BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY DAMN GROUP WALKING EARTH. Gosh.

Single lions or horses or [insert any other animal on the planet you like] change packs/herds from time to time. In addition, their offspring is very likely to migrate to new areas where they join company with other groups. Plus, the old males in such groups usually get killed (or replaced) by younger males from different groups every few years.

Even though there might be only one male per group at a given point of time, there are THOUSANDS of males in the overall genetic pool of the species.

I'm out here, obviously wasting my time if you still don't understand why your 48-2 idea is doomed to fail.

[exeexe]

I give up on you, exeexe.

Those animals with one dominant male per group don't suffer from inbreeding depression BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY DAMN GROUP WALKING EARTH. Gosh.

My post focused on the postulate that 1:1 families would be superior to x:1 families due to suicide rates and not on genetics

[EternityTide]

Humans are a lot more emotionally fragile than the animals you mentioned. And suicide tends to be less common in the rest of the animal kingdom than it is amongst humans.

And if polygamous relationships work so fantastically well for humans, why have humans almost exclusively adopted a monogamous pairing system? Throughout all recorded history, despite numerous groups of humans being available, humans have chosen to be largely monogamous?

If a child is born to a group of people as "parents" instead of just having the standard binary system, They wouldn't get the attention they require to develop. So emotionally they become stunted, and then you have emotional problems that arise as a result.

Because human success largely centres around intellectual development, and not rapid reproduction, you cannot compare our procreation system to that of herd/pack animals.

And when I said the thing about it being a male fantasy, I meant it in the manner that many overly promiscuous males have the fantasy of living in a group of easily available females, being able to mate as they please.

But what @Scyzara says is very true. Your understanding of genetics is extremely limited if you believe that a 48-2 breeding population will not suffer genetically after the f2 generation.

[exeexe]

Your understanding of genetics is extremely limited if you believe that a 48-2 breeding population will not suffer genetically after the f2 generation.

And your understanding of letters are extremely limited if you think that, that is what i am thinking

[EternityTide]

And your understanding of letters are extremely limited if you think that, that is what i am thinking

[deep breath] It seems your own "understanding of letters" is not so great either, but let us not stoop to Ad Hominem attacks, it just renders both arguments invalid.

Now if I remember correctly, you were vouching for the x:1 relationship model, as denoted in your comment:

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Now it seems you've suddenly turned around on that, and started vouching for the 1:1 model? forgive me if I am misunderstanding your wording, especially in this vague statement:

My post focused on the postulate that 1:1 families would be superior to x:1 families due to suicide rates and not on genetics

It seems you can't quite get your story straight. Now you can blame me for not reading it as you wanted me to, or you can go back to your drawing board with your argument and return with one that is worded in such a way that no error can arise from alternative interpretation or ambiguity on the part of your grammar and syntax structure.

[exeexe]

And your understanding of letters are extremely limited if you think that, that is what i am thinking

[deep breath] It seems your own "understanding of letters" is not so great either, but let us not stoop to Ad Hominem attacks, it just renders both arguments invalid.

Now if I remember correctly, you were vouching for the x:1 relationship model, as denoted in your comment:

No if you have 48 females and 2 males its much better than 25 females and 25 males

Now it seems you've suddenly turned around on that, and started vouching for the 1:1 model? forgive me if I am misunderstanding your wording, especially in this vague statement:

My post focused on the postulate that 1:1 families would be superior to x:1 families due to suicide rates and not on genetics

It seems you can't quite get your story straight. Now you can blame me for not reading it as you wanted me to, or you can go back to your drawing board with your argument and return with one that is worded in such a way that no error can arise from alternative interpretation or ambiguity on the part of your grammar and syntax structure.

Wel if you on purpose dont want to understand what i write then i cant take you serious, and so i wont answer your questions because it would just be a waste of time.

[EternityTide]

If you cannot convey your argument properly, no matter how valid your argument is, it becomes irrelevant. The burden of ensuring your argument is coherent is your responsibility. I'm trying to understand what you are saying, but your reasoning is either extremely flawed or you are just writing it in an incoherent manner. Either way, it is not my fault that I cannot understand what you are reasoning, but you yourself hold the responsibility of making your argument clear to all.

If it can be understood readily by most, then maybe your accusation would have grounds, however I think I am not alone in the belief that you are making your argument more complex than it needs to be, and combined with your blatant disregard for a faithful syntax structure means that your statements are borderline unintelligible.

If you wish to drive your point home, respond with an outline of what you are saying in a clear, concise manner, without the aggro, please.

Getting angry on forums just makes you look like an utter plonker.

[Admin]

Warning to all... please don't get into a flame war or we will be forced to restrict or remove accounts. Debates are fine, but personal attacks against users are not allowed .

Thank You

[BigJayA]

A baby seal walks into a club... but it had a 20:1 family ratio and committed suicide.

Stop clubbing, baby seal. The music is loud and can damage your hearing.

[Amateur Bushcrafter]

Why are we talking about animals taking suicide? If that was possible then my cactus would take suicide before dying of thirst in my spiderweb infested window. (Don't ask, i just like spiders)

[EternityTide]

I don't know. Someone claimed to know something about genetics and then got it completely wrong, then tried to back out, unsuccessfully.

Anyway, moving on.

[BigJayA]

Why are we talking about animals taking suicide? If that was possible then my cactus would take suicide before dying of thirst in my spiderweb infested window. (Don't ask, i just like spiders)

I like to impale the dead bugs I find in my window on my window cactus. :twisted: It's like an ear necklace of victory for the little prick. :lol:

[EternityTide]

Why are we talking about animals taking suicide? If that was possible then my cactus would take suicide before dying of thirst in my spiderweb infested window. (Don't ask, i just like spiders)

I like to impale the dead bugs I find in my window on my window cactus. :twisted: It's like an ear necklace of victory for the little prick. :lol:

Ever heard of a Shrike? we have them in Great Britain. they're predatory, and they like to impale their prey (bugs, small mice, sometimes other small birds) on gorse bushes as a "larder".

[toebar]

Ever heard of a Shrike? we have them in Great Britain. they're predatory, and they like to impale their prey (bugs, small mice, sometimes other small birds) on gorse bushes as a "larder".

I've seen them.. Predatory songbirds -- Northern Shrike is the species in most of Canada.. Loggerhead Shrike occur a bit in the south

[BigJayA]

THAT is a cute little bird! The whole 'impale other animals' thing is a bonus.