/sci/ - Science & Math

The gender ratio is repaired by transgenders.

>>15973666
Because there are no expendable males in your model.

>>15973666
Equal sex ratio gives more opportunity for natural selection to operate, as some males will be fitter than others.
In your retarded model of sex ratios, a couple of retarded males or males dying prematurely could absolutely destroy a small population

>>15973666
The tribes with more males would simply overpower and rape the female-heavy tribes.

>>15973681
Being raped and having children is still evolutionary success for the raped, you can only really call it morally wrong if you believe in a moral universe which necessitates again God

>>15973684
Sure, but whatever genetics cause the high female sex ratio will eventually be diluted by the rapist genes that produce more males.

>>15973684
You're overlooking a point he's making: a tribe with more males has genes that produce more male offspring so raping a tribe with less males may increase the male / female ratio of the total human population.

>>15973666
Women are very vulnerable for a large portion of pregnancy, morning sickness alone can be debilitating, let alone the impaired mobility whilst heavily pregnant.
And even after the child is born, it is so heavily dependent on the mother that she can barely leave its side.
An equal sex ratio means that there are enough males to provide food, shelter and security to mother and child.

>>15973666 (Satan)
First, men are more expendable so you're supposed to have at least slightly more.
Secondly, it takes time and effort to raise and educate children. Our survival strategy is not the same as rats.
Thirdly, evolution doesn't have to make sense. You still have an appendix in your intestine and wisdom teeth in your mouth (though no wisdom within your skull, apparently). Shit happens and evolution kinda rolls with it.

>>15973698
Imagine the faggots coping with their own non-scientific answers like they are the diocese discussing the nature of god. Coming up with a pseud theory doesn't make it so.

>>15973666
There's more to survival than reproduction dumbass

>>15973666
Because it's basically random like a coin toss. So the outcome is approximately 50/50 over enough samples

>>15973765
>Coming up with a pseud theory doesn't make it so.
this is everyone in this thread, including OP

>>15973666
Because it's not an evolutionary stable strategy.
That would be optimal in terms of numbers, but is easily exploitable. Consider if I had a male child in such a situation, he could potentially give me hundreds of grand children, whilst a daughter -- though perhaps guaranteed to give me at least SOME grandchildren -- is comparably limited. So then genes "for" creating more male offspring will spread like wildfire, shifting the balance.
Same principle behind the famous hawk:dove strategy.

>>15973666
>Why did natural selection lead to an almost equal distribution between male and female births (in fact even favoring male births slightly)
the genetics of whether a boy or girl embryo are made is 50:50, but more girl embryos die.

>coomer hypothesis

>>15973666
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle

>>15973875
>Suppose male births are less common than female.
>A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.
Hamilton is a blue pilled normie.

>if this were not so and the total expenditure incurred in producing males, for instance, were less than the total expenditure incurred in producing females, then since the total reproductive value of the males is equal to that of the females, it would follow that those parents, the innate tendencies of which caused them to produce males in excess, would, for the same expenditure, produce a greater amount of reproductive value; and in consequence would be the progenitors of a larger fraction of future generations than would parents having a congenital bias towards the production of females. Selection would thus raise the sex-ratio until the expenditure upon males became equal to that upon females.
Fisher is a blue pilled normie too. The red pill is: a small part of males get most of the expenditure and reproductive value. Another decreasing part of males is needed to provide resources and the rest of males are kept alive by lack of selection pressure in modern society.

>>15973796

I can't believe it took this many posts before someone answered correctly

>>15973963
That's just a nicer way of explaining the same principle as 4th reply >>15973681

>>15973983
Theory crafting like it is a youtube video. It is pure wanking. One might say, the women grow big and strong and now they can't be outcompeted, and their men become msall and feminine breeders working the mines.
May as well be talking about the spawning of star wars huts. Why do they all make up theories instead of citing any sources? Why is this nonsense acceptable?

>>15973999
>One might say, the women grow big and strong and now they can't be outcompeted
Because in real life there are trade-offs. The race of big strong women that don't produce many men still have to deal with the burdens of pregnancy and childcare if their higher reproductive rate is going to give them a numbers advantage. The small minority of men in this population need to work much harder to provide food and security to the women. The tiny male population has less genetic diversity than a 50/50 sex split population and can be devastated by losing just a handful of males.

Why aren't humans just self-fertilising women? Why have sexes at all? It turns out that the genetic variety of sexual reproduction is a huge advantage in the changeable world we inhabit.

>>15973999
>Why do they all make up theories instead of citing any sources?
believe it or not there are people who are educated enough on controversial subjects to discuss the hypotheticals surrounding them with others. you are not such a person, so you wonder why nobody is "trusting the experts!", when in reality it is currently mainstream to deny that natural selection has any significant effect on human populations. there are subjects where people literally can't continuously cite sources because it's currently taboo to do studies on the subject. gender dimorphism in humans does happen to be such a subject.

>>15974047
Again, no sources. Just made up BS. Stop man. You don't get a license to "history" because you slap "muh evolution" on it.

>>15974074
You want a source for the idea that women are somewhat physically inconvenienced by pregnancy and childbirth, that babies and young children require inordinant amounts of care and attention, that women in such situations benefit from having a man to provide food and security for them?

If your tribe got almost eradicated by sabre tooth tigers and you have got Only a few men and women left, the chance of tribal survival is higher when the least amount of offspring can procreate further. And the golden ratio is 50/50 here. Technically you'd only need two people to save the tribe this way.

>>15973666
>It's actually only men that matter at all in terms of increasing the carrying capacity, but we need 50% women because they're too retarded to have the ideal 5+ kids each

>>15973909
>Fisher is a blue pilled normie too

You're a fucking retard. It's about the mathematical equilibrium which forms because of the advantages when the sex ratio shifts from one to the other.

>>15974132
>You're a fucking retard.
No u. Your
>mathematical equilibrium
Assumes a different game than is currently played by the human species.

>>15974097
I agree with you on the whole, but to be fair, many animals don't have males helping the female during pregnancy, the females deal with it anyway. You should have to explain why in humans it's necessary while it's not the case for spiders.

>>15974139
The current game played by the human species is women using birth control and men waiting on artificial wombs

I think this has more to do with the fact that men have x and y chromosomes, so there is a 50/50 chance that either gets selected. Why do men have this, you may ask, maybe because of completely unrelated reasons that have nothing to do with mating and more to do with storing some kind of dna information specific to men more efficiently.

>>15974150
Human children are helpless for YEARS after being born, whereas the young of most species can find their own food almost from birth / hatching.
Statistically, most wild creatures die in infancy / childhood. The notable exception is mammals which produce fewer young but invest more resources.
Do I got to explain r/K selection to OP as well?

>>15974152
That's part of it. One can say that's unnatural but it's reality nonetheless. If an increasing amount of males don't reproduce and even kill themselves because they are considered worthless then there is no pressure, no scarcity, no increase in value or decrease in expenditure to push the ratio back up. The future equilibrium will be a lower male to female ratio. Of course that makes blue pillers angry. Such pessimism is too much to bare.

>>15973667
fpbp

>>15974097
Nice way to dodge that fact that you are making up bullshit about a hundred million years of "evolution." Because what? Because of an artificially contrived notion of modern humans. You literally want goku versus superman conversations like a complete idiot.
>hr hr no technically this is better because fictitious unsupported bullshit
>hr hr no you didn't think of octopus human hybrids laying clutches of millions of humans at the bottom of the pacific with a single mating hrdr

>>15974725
You harbor a secret double standard because narratives need not only be tested by observation but also by consistency relative to other narratives. You present no alternative narrative that is more consistent nor do you provide observational data that verifies / falsifies one narrative or the other. I

>>15973666
What would be more efficient is if the gender ratio is as you said but also the gender dimorphism between men and women was lessened significantly to the point women can reliably physically compete with men.

>>15973690
That’s not really how it works bro

>>15973684
>Being raped and having children is still evolutionary success for the raped
not if they die after being born, dumbass. this is kindergarten shit