On Apr 22, 12:59 pm, help bot wrote:
On Apr 22, 8:33 am, samsloan wrote:

My research tends to show that most men had no children at all and a
few men had very large numbers of children, some men producing more
than 20 children.

My question is: Would the human race have survived at all and would
any of us be alive today had it not been for those few men who
produced large numbers of children?

I think this is wrong-headed thinking. Were it not
for these "over-achievers", those men who had no
children at all would very likely have gotten in on
the action.

This is quite correct. Laws forbidding polygamy can be considered to
be a form of sumptuary law, with a socialistic purpose; to equalize
sexual access among males.

By reducing the number of unhappy males, it provides for a more stable
society, with less productive effort channeled into policing. Ancient
societies that permitted polygamy, or which had other policies, like
primogeniture, that created a large class of dispossed men, usually
needed them as cannon fodder, and they had the hope of acquiring land
and wives through foreign conquest.

So we can welcome a ban on polygamy as part of human progress.

At the same time, though, it does have one negative consequence; it
reduces the selective pressure on humanity, creating a less eugenic
breeding pattern. If the men with the greatest achievements had the
most children by far, the breed would improve more quickly.

John Savard