Archive

Archive for July 27, 2010

Intra-Group Fratricide and the 80-40 ratio

July 27, 2010 13 comments

One the most infamous piece of pop-research quoted on a number of blogs and books involves the ’80-40′ issue, such as here.

The contention is that:

While 80% of women left offspring, only 40% of men did so.

This scrap of “research” is supposed to justify the “way the world is”- aka white man fatalism. We are supposed to believe this “research” because it based on “DNA studies” and statistics by clever “ivy league educated” shysters. While I will dissect the scientific aspects of that “seminal” turd in another post, this one is dedicated one of the issues ignored by ’80-40’ers.

The nature and effects of fratricide on any 80-40 scenario.

For the uninitiated, wikipedia defines fratricide as-

Fratricide (from the Latin word frater, meaning: “brother” and cide meaning to kill) is the act of a person killing his or her brother. According to the Bible and the Qur’an, fratricide was the first type of murder committed in human history.

I would add that fratricide, and killing close blood-relatives, is also a driving force in Indian Epics such as the Mahabharat. So why would fratricide- either blood brother, half-brother or cousins be so widespread and common, even in ancient times?

What were they fighting over?

Could they be fighting over women, and what does this have to do with the 80-40 ratio? The answer is a bit complicated, but is linked to a combination of two peculiar and unique aspect of human beings.

1] Human beings are almost unique amongst animals in actively and deliberately killing siblings past infancy. Lions, wolves and your favorite pack animal examples for ‘alpha, beta and omega’ do not do that- either at all or at the level seen in human beings.

2] Humans use tools and other extensions of the mind, including stealth and treachery to kill other humans. Strength is material in only face-to-face military style conflicts, not murders.

Combine that with human horniness, the necessity to maintain a functional group and the lack of external law-and-order. Is it just me or do you also see the problem with achieving a 80-40 ratio?

Simply put, if only 40% of men got laid- they would have big targets on their heads + the tribe/group would become non-functional. Nobody can look out for every act of treachery and murderous intention, every single minute of every day. It makes the whole enterprise of surviving unworkable.

Now this does not imply that women lack hypergamous tendencies.

I am simply suggesting that even with their hypergamous tendencies, not sleeping with 60% of men would also have made them and their kids targets for retribution. While it is certainly possible that some men left more kids than others, it is unlikely that access to sex was a big issue through most of human history.

A more realistic model of human hunter-gatherer societies, and even most agricultural societies, would therefore have almost all men getting laid with some men having (and leaving behind) more kids than others. While cheating, cuckoldry and affairs have likely always been a part of the human condition, not getting laid is a fairly modern development.

This development has been facilitated by feminism, ‘white knights’, the law-and-order industry and a lot of spineless married men. It is a foregone conclusion that this recent development will have severe and lasting repercussions.

Comments?