Mathematics of your polygamous dystopia, part 1 of 2

Consider this a deep dive into the sexual component of the Pyrrhic cycle, where the economic considerations are ignored.

P_1 = Population of first generation
P_2 = Population of second generation
M_i = Male population of generation i
W_i = Female population

P_1 = M_1 + W_1

You can either assume that women and men reproduce at approximately the same age, so that P_2 = M_2 + W_2, or if you’re Mycroft you may change this detail of the simulation. However, we will be assuming an ideal case where the number of male and female births is the same (empirically, we see that humanity and nature both prefer slightly more male births).

A_m = Male polygamists
B_m = Male monogamists
O_m = Male losers (slaves, incels, or people who otherwise engage with the group but fail to have sex)
D_m = Male castoffs (men who die young or are boiled off from the group, such as young soldiers who die in war or criminals in a lawful country)

Using the same designations for women, p_w, m_w, s_w, c_w, we have for each generation…

M = p_m + m_m + s_m + c_m
W = p_w + m_w + s_w + c_w

I want to dispel the Manichean utopias imagined by self-ingratiating thought leaders who think you can have *some* sleeping around and not be a 3rd-world country. To do this, I’ll demonstrate the delusion of their position by allowing them to choose their own variables for the society they want to live in, subject to the empirical observation that female divorce rate depends on number of sexual partners. So…you get to choose the number of partners you want to have as an Alpha male, what proportion of men in your society are Alphas, Betas, Omegas, and killed off, how many partners you want your polygamous population of sluts to have, and what proportion of Alpha males you think should settle down and have children.

Then we’ll try to distribute the consequences of your immorality among the slaves, the dead soldiers, and the divorce rate, and see if it’s mathematically possible to imagine the sort of society you’d want to live in. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that Alpha males who externalize responsibility and blame Betas and Omegas for their civilization’s woes are extremely disingenuous, because the only peaceful, prosperous society which can support polygamy would require them to be polygamous only with female dregs and we all know they would never do that.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Mathematics of your polygamous dystopia, part 1 of 2

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Interesting findings Brilliand, I’ll recheck it. I’ll point out that in traditional societies like Yemen, the mean age of marriage for males is 35, not 33, so that is historically plausible. It takes a man that long to really get socially and financially established.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    I sent you a fix just now for the daughters-only-in-fathers-dying-year bug. It didn’t affect my results appreciably, but it was present in more cases than just the 2 children per woman case, so glad to have it fixed. Thanks for finding it.

    Subject to critiques already mentioned here; which ones are those? It may appear late for the man, early for the woman, but that lots of traditional societies operate exactly this way. And where monogamy is “official”, like in Catholicism, the extra women end up being mistresses, generally a man marries in his 20’s, then takes a mistress in his 40’s. I see this as socially degrading and not good at all. Every child should be the legitimate heir of his father.

    You are also right about population growth. I put in a figure of 8 children per woman, as I come from religious communities where that was actually a reasonable norm. As birth rate falls, the surplus of women shrinks (but is always present).

    As for the male/female birth ratio, I used the best available data; a straight 50% ratio isn’t realistic. And note, during times of high population growth, a large portion of births would be during the time when a man has more sons than daughters.

    Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

  3. Heaviside says:

    The whole reason why you have to fork over your cash every April is because our current income tax system was instituted during WWII to control inflation.

    “This means, first, that the new Revenue Act must help to check inflation, for nothing in the economic field can interfere with the war effort as much as an uncontrolled rise in prices. An inflationary price rise is a source of grave social injustice. It undermines morale and impedes war production.” — Henry Morgenthau

    http://www.taxhistory.org/Civilization/Documents/Fiscal/HST29036/29036-1.htm

    “Under the new tax system, the number of individual taxpayers grew from 3.9 million in 1939 to 42.6 million in 1945, and federal income-tax collections during the period leaped from $2.2 billion to $35.1 billion. By the end of the war, nearly 90 percent of the members of the labor force submitted income-tax returns, and about 60 percent of the labor force paid income taxes. In 1944 and 1945, individual income taxes accounted for roughly 40 percent of federal revenues, whereas corporate income taxes provided about a third—only half their share during World War I. Mass taxation had become more important than class taxation.”

    W. Elliot Brownlee, Federal Taxation in America: A Short History

  4. Brilliand says:

    The critiques mentioned here are that it’s a long time for the man to wait (which you’ve already given your answer to), and that it works only during times of population growth – if the population goes into decline, waiting longer won’t make more women available. (Though, probably the solution in that case is to go to war, which both kills off men and gains resources to possibly reverse the decline.)

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    Brilliand, I did the simulation originally to show the spergs and betas that NO, polygamy doesn’t mean “some men won’t get a wife!” With that established as fact, now we can wargame more scenarios, and see how different moralities play out. Of course, I believe in Team Bible; God’s way is always the most kind and benevolent for everyone. So, once you break the mental barrier of polygamy == poor betas never get a wife! then you can progress to the Biblical marriage model where polygamy is allowed so excess women get “soaked up” by the marriage system instead of becoming destructive cat ladies, and so that the occasional alpha male doesn’t turn the nations virgins into whores. And depending on population growth rate, economic pressures keep the system humming, as much or as little polygamy as circumstances dictate.

  6. Mycroft Jones says:

    To expand on the previous comment a bit more, IF EVERY MAN can have TWO virgin brides, and all they have to do is marry at a later age (but still young enough to enjoy vigorous sex in every aspect), then the logical followup is, well, if one man in ten has 2 wives because he is some super sexy alpha male, that doesn’t stop other males from marrying at age 22 or something. But tying down the “alpha males” with two or three wives stops them from deflowering 20 or 30 virgins in the promiscuity system we have now, and when you try to enforce monogamy you get the same thing in a sexual black market of secret trysts and assignations. Because women are impossibly feral and instinctual. It takes a village to raise a child; it takes a whole society to make a woman into a wife.

  7. bonniejohnson says:

    Not enough people use math to tackle social issues. I think that this format makes math more accessible to those who otherwise wouldn’t be interested. I think trying to really figure out the consequences for actions in a society is great exercise to get a glimpse of where we are heading and which variables need to change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s