What happened?

what happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

bbc.com/news/world-africa-38795667
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

chad cucked everybody

don't you mean, what WILL happen? The time of the betas is over, the alphas will reign supreme. And the world will reboot again.

Only the alpha was allowed to mate but then they invented monogamy to give the rest of us a chance.
Jokes on them though because I'm still a virgin anyway haha

Chad wins again.

Traditional values were lost, my good sir. Asian women are now the ones you ought to court. *tips fedora*

time travelling posts with dubs confirm our statements which hold true forever

Rape was more common too. Apparently leftists cucks think this is an excuse to cuck themselves and have less children.

Think of yourself as a woman, who would you fuck?

kara boga happened

How would such an society even function? Why wasn't there some kind of large scale beta uprising?

that's how it's supposed to work tho
do you really think beta genes are worth passing?

>b-but wymmyn don't like Chads
lmao

we can all thank based proto Chad to even invent monogamy so his loser friend can get laid too

This also BTFOs the PUA mantra of women going for the small top 20% of men. In reality that percentage is much smaller.

desu it was probably chad's sons deciding to share their sisters between them

>Why wasn't there some kind of large scale beta uprising?

There was, I pressume.

When males are not competing for women, it's easier for them to team up with one specific goal in mind. This way you have advantage over your neighbour Chad the fucker, who was in constant concern of someone trying to kill him to steal his gold and womyn.

Hierarchy of many is always better and more functional than hierarchy of one.

Memes aside because they were cucks. Some have speculated monogamy evolved as a means for women to find partners that would provide for their children, this ensured their partners a better chance for reproduction even if women, once their own livelyhood and that of their children was ensured still had a strong incentive to try and provide the best genes possible for their descendants, hence they would cheat on their partners. Many traditional societies revolved around trying to control/reduce such incentives, this is the reason female infidelity is considered as specially heinous in most traditional cultures. Feminists are actually right in that patriarchy did try to control their sexuality, it was the thing keeping men from killing one another as was often the case in cultures like mine where even in some places today men will kill over you just talking to their women.

If these findings are true it just reveals the sacle to which such attempts at control were unsuccessful, tho in all fairness you'd expect chad's kids would've been more likely to in turn reproduce. Most men who have existed through history have no living descendants today, it only takes one guy to fuck it up so that a struggling line of betas ends.

Chad but I'd sabotage the other women somehow. I'd keep the older ones that get pregnant less often around to raise my children.

*it just reveals the scale
17 to 1 is pretty fucked up

>it only takes one guy to fuck it up so that a struggling line of betas ends.
I'm that guy

>How would such an society even function? Why wasn't there some kind of large scale beta uprising?

the wording and many of their assumptions are misleading, dude. it isn't like it was full of strong men with harems and the rest not even getting laid. of course, it is true that male reproduction has more variance than female but some of those guys take the baseline thinking way too far because they haven't analyzed the specifics

what they're basically seeing is what our mtDNA is more varied than our Y-DNA. but for example, simple conquest of an area by a certain group can lead the local Y-DNA lineages to go extinct (the men and boys are killed) and the mtDNA diversity to go up (the local young women are incorporated). there you go, nothing about betas and alphas. though it does seem to be the case that e.g. chalcolithic - bronze age europe was less egalitarian than neolithic europe (e.g. single, rich graves vs less rich, communal graves)

even then 17-to-1 seems like a wrong estimate and depends on a lot of factors that go into the model. there was some back-forth on this matter on ancient DNA findings. after some criticism of the model, the male-female difference was reduced. and even then it was nowehere near 17-to-1

the one thing that's correct is the final conclusion ("By analyzing diversity in these parts, scientists are able to deduce the numbers of female and male ancestors a population has. It's always more female"), the rest is up in the air

also small differences in reproductive sucess per generation can mean large effects down the lines. so it isn't like in every generation less than 5% of men reproduced. you just need a small difference on average in every generation or some massive founder effects due to conquest, disease, whatever

this is sensationalism that takes bateman's principle to absurd lengths basically

One guy had ownership of the food and all the women wanted his dick

Probably only got fixed by the top guy having too many sons and needing to spread women around to stop conflict

Wars stopped.

A beta uprising happened.

>l differences in reproductive sucess per generation can mean large effects down the line
This isn't implied? I don't think any reading of the findings assumes only 1 in 17 men reproduce in every generation

>simple conquest of an area by a certain group
Isn't this just a larger scale version of the same? Anglos got cucked in turn by Romans, Saxons and Normans and that's just relatively recent times.

*What we today call Anglos, I should have written Britons

AIDS

it isn't the same because conquest by a different group doesn't tell you necessarily something about the conquered group's reproductive patterns

imagine if somehow Yurop got conquered by some outside force and the men were exterminated. wouldn't imply anything about the recent historical reproductive patterns of Europeans which are quite egalitarian by general standards (low cuckoldry, about half of the men in every generation have descendants if not more etc.)

>This isn't implied? I don't think any reading of the findings assumes only 1 in 17 men reproduce in every generation

maybe but it seems badly worded anyway

most male lineagues have died because they were betas, wars, diseases, conquests, cheating, etc.

Most males are generally weaker in terms of dissease resistance than women.
Also you need to take into account most males got killed when a tribe conquered another, while the women and girls at least survive to be sexual slaves.

Read the bible, it literally tell you they went to other tribes and killed every male while they keep their women.

Also there are super males like gengis khan who had like 800 children.

You know, I feel like we're long over due for another Attila the Hun/Ghengis Khan. The next one will probably be born around the end of this century.

I like your thinking

I am not an expert here, but I am thinking the precursor Simian Immunodeficiency virus only recently mutated to involve humans (HIV)

smart man you are sir

>you will never conquer and spread your genes across enormous geographical areas, completely changing the racial makeup of these newly conquered lands
Why even live

bbc.com/news/world-africa-38795667
This is an africa chief with 85 wives.
he has like 5000 offspring right now.

Diomedez dias, had like 28 recognized children and some that he didn't recognized.

It's not uncommon for some males to have dozens of children while a shit ton of them wont have one or just one or two.

Of course this will have an effect over generations where most male lineagues will die and only a few male lineagues survive.

thanks sudan bro.

How are you measuring "low cuckoldry"? Aren't men raising children who are not their biological offspring relatively common compared to other regions of the world? And with birth rates below replacement could Europe be considered any example of a stable population? You're now dependant on what is esentially an unsustainable model of high migration to sustain economic growth as without it you'd have to face up to aging of the population and eventually lower living standards.

>not castrating the males and using them for manual slave labor

wasted opportunity

>what happened?
civilization and patriarchy

>How are you measuring "low cuckoldry"? Aren't men raising children who are not their biological offspring relatively common compared to other regions of the world

sorry for the late response but no, it's actually extremely low in Europe compared to every other part of the world. did you think the economically most well-off and high on social welfare region around would be the highest in non-paternity??

unless you meant adoption, which is a different matter and is low anyway

Some wars resulted in gendercide. That is, the conquerors would destroy the the enemy men and boys to take the women for themselves as spoils of war.