What on Earth makes you think that men consider the Stone Age to be some kind of Paradise?
I suspect some of the MRA types might.
Or, as we Mel Brooks movie fans know, It’s good to be King!
I think there’s a misperception that Stone Age = stone[COLOR=Red]d age.
One is about scrabbling in dirty wilderness areas, trying to find decent plants and good stuff to munch on.
The other is about a period thousands of years ago.
[/COLOR]
–G!
You think getting stoned is paradise?
Not to the winner of Shirley Jackson’s Lottery!
Maybe 16 out of 17 wore their loin cloths too tight.
Oh so you’re just making shit up to hate on people. That’s cool.
Shockingly, I agree with you. Hopefully the…individual…in question is showing us her worst with this post.
Look guys, the Shaman-Chief understands your concern, but the Sky Gods were very clear they only want him to have sex with the tribes Women for a while. You remember yesterday when a hell of a lot of that wet stuff was falling from the sky and there was those really loud bangs and flashes we were all terrified of? Well the boss says that was because the Gods spotted some of you having thoughts about the ladies, so cut that out OK.
Stone condoms. It was no picnic, but it was all they had.
Heavy, man.
What an actor!
Well, if you’re the partially disabled ‘elder’ who can’t hunt anymore and have to stay back with the women, you get a lot of tail. 
Wow. I had a friend who said that a few times like 30 years ago and I had no idea where it came from; I thought it was an original comment.
I see it was from the movie “Night Shift.”
Flintstone did okay, but Rubble had to adopt.
Reading multiple sources about this article I do have to state that the op and the cited link do a piss poor job of representing the article.
There was a sudden and dramatic decline in male diversity between 8 to 4 thousand years ago that correlated mainly with the onset of agriculture and increased population density. That dip last 2 to 3 thousand years and then came back to more typical levels.
The preferred explanation in the article and in many informed takes on it is that it correlated with a dramatic status stratification in patriarchal societies with those that had using their greater power to rapidly become the proverbial one percenters and enforcing that social order by means as harsh as necessary. If you were not of the families that had the resources you were effectively slaves to those who did.
It may also correlate with the onset of the plow over the hoe, in that the plow may have contributed to patriarchy. Plow agriculture was male dominated work. Groups of closely related males fought and defended the land they were farming and plowed it (a task that required strength). With the resources they then had their choice of a wide variety of females and were able to afford multiple wives, think the Bible stories but sure, a cite.
So then the question is why did the bottleneck open back up?
Must have been a great movie. :dubious:
It is also ubiquitous in hunter-gatherer societies, so that is no explanation at all.
Speculating, but possibly *because *agriculture was still being adopted, so there were still resources up for grabs and alternatives for those who didn’t have resoucres. you still see this in parts of Africa and New Guinea where HGs live alongside farmers. Those men who can hold good agricultural land practice agriculture, and as a result they can support more wives. Those men who don’t own good land become part-time HGs and part-time farm labourers. The actual number of men in each mode of life is fairly evenly divided. While this system exists the farmers will be producing far more sons each generation.
Eventually, technology in most places evolves to the level where there isn’t any room for being a HG. the farmers have cleared, grazed or otherwise claimed all the land that is even marginally productive. At that point all men are farmers. And while the nobility in such a system will always have more children, they make up such a small percentage of the population that they aren’t statistically significant. While 50% of men are farmers and farmers are having twice as many children, it’s really easy to detect discrepancies between male and female fertility. When 99% of men are farmers and have the same number of children, the 1% who are nobility don’t really contribute.
This was probably further exacerbated by the effort involved in establishing farm land. Male farmers need an established farm before they can marry. It can take decades before a man has managed to establish a farm from a patch of forest, so men would be reproducing much later than the women. Once all the arable land has been cultivated, there is no particular reason for a peasant man to wait until he is 30 before he marries.
-
No, it isn’t. Polygyny is quite limited among hunter gatherer societies. According to that article, less than 20%, with a conclusion that “[o]ur phylogenetic results support a deep evolutionary history of limited polygyny and brideprice/service that stems back to early modern humans.”
-
The other required element is a highly stratified by status patriarchal community. Hunter gatherer societies are generally not highly stratified. That and strong patriarchal inheritance emerged with having the ability to deprive others of resources.
That bit about nobility becoming such a small percent that it no longer has a large statistical impact seems like a reasonable speculation.
No, it doesn’t say that at all.
Simple test, if you think the statement “polygyny is ubiquitous in hunter-gatherer societies” is wrong, then all you need to do is name the HG society that doesn’t/didn’t practice polygyny.
Just one.
And if you can not, then it is indeed ubiquitous. That is what ubiquitous means: found everywhere.
My apologies.
We are then not disagreeing as the ubiquity of polygyny means nothing as to how frequently it occurred and is a fairly completely irrelevant bit of information.
One man out of five hundred having had two wives counts that society as having had polygyny but would not result in a Y bottleneck.
OTOH 100 males of the 500 having 5 wives and 5 kids per wife, most of who survive to reproductive age and beyond themselves, while the many of the other males do not survive far into reproductive age (early onset of back breaking labor, poor nutrition in early agriculture, lots of new diseases form crowding and proximity to farm animals, the poorest most at risk for all in a stratified society) and those poorer males who do make it to reproductive age not having the relative resources to attract mates and certainly not more than one, and then being more likely to die before having very many kids … (the survival bit that you cogently pointed out) … that results in a Y bottleneck.
Prevalence, magnitude, and differentiation according to social strata in a patriarchal society of polygyny are of import; “ubiquity” or lack thereof is immaterial. The fact polygyny of limited prevalence, of limited magnitude, of limited differentiation according to social strata, and not in a patriarchal fashion, was ubiquitous in HG societies all (to the best of my limited knowledge) does not diminish the impact of polygyny as an explanation at all.