Re:Explaining Sex Rate Changes
by antisthenes on Monday April 08, 2019 @11:05AM
(#19605820)
Historically, not all men (or women, for that matter) procreated and I think that's OK, given the current state of overpopulation. Many men also died young at war, before being able to procreate. I think we can all agree that less wars is a universally good thing.
Even in western cultures where monogamy was pretty strictly enforced by the church and society, I doubt that more than 80% of men procreated (wish I could cite sources, but there doesn't seem to be good data about this)
We also need to do away with the stigma that you can't have a fulfilling, productive and contributive life without children.
You have significantly over-estimated the procreational success rate of men. Consider this research[1] - in the ancient past, the rate of long-term descendants was seventeen women to one man. Note that this is about long-term, multi-generational success, so the rate was higher in each single generation.
[1] https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success
Re:Explaining Sex Rate Changes
by antisthenes on Monday April 08, 2019 @04:24PM
(#19608678)
Yes, in the ancient past.
If you read my post carefully, you'll see I only estimated the percentage for societies where monogamy is enforced (either through peer pressure, religion, or both)
I also did not cite the source you did, because I consider it of enough poor quality to be unreliable in debate.
In a monogamous society that has roughly equal men and women, everyone has the opportunity to reproduce. We're talking about a specific demographic that is struggling. In other words, those 18-29 men not having sex now (probably) will when they become 30-35. By that age most people are settling down into monogamy. And those men will be (probably) be in a better economic situation and therefore more desirable as mates.
This is an excellent point, and I wish it weren't buried so deep in replies. If dating apps make it easier for "desirable" individuals of both sexes to have lots of partners, then the effect you describe is amplified. That is, being "desirable" is partly about having money to pay for a nice date, a car to pick up your date with, etc. A 21-year-old is less likely to have these things than a 32-year-old (who is still young enough to be desirable to many women in their 20s).
Which is another problem men in their 20s face. They're competing with men in their 30s for the same women. There's simply a larger number of men trying to date a smaller number of women. The numbers mean someone gets left out.