Improperly understood, sexual disparity has caused mass murder, mass killing, poverty, starvation and very inefficient social contract etc. All in the name of things that don’t make sense like religions, racism, etc.
What’s the point of being productive, if you don’t make more money? What’s the point of making more money if those with power, rather than money, decide who lives, who die, or who can reproduce. Think about it.
Isn’t it normal then that so many are still killing each other rather than productively earn wealth?
First I will answer the opposite of the question. I will show how sexual disparity can actually be very positive if left to free market, or near free market system to operate. Then I’ll answer the question of what usually goes wrong with it.
Sexual disparity has a VERY IMPORTANT POSITIVE aspect rather than negative if we properly understand it. However lack of understanding of it has caused huge amount of suffering, which is the answer to the question.
Think about it. Sexual disparity is the MOST HUMANE way to evolve!
We will evolve. There will be winners and losers in the gene pool. Somebody will successfully breed and others will go extinct. It’s been like that for trillion of years. It won’t change any time soon if ever.
In fact, that’s the true purpose of life, all life, namely to outbreed your competitors. Okay that part was arguable.
However, we are descendants of those who out breed their competitors and you can bet your ass, that’s our nature. That’s what we will do whether we want it or not. That’s what all living things will do.
You can read Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene for more. All the genes that we have are there simply because those genes help us reproduce. Think about it. Our will, our self, our nature, everything is made up by genes that only want one thing, reproduce.
We can’t defy our true nature. Richard thinks we can and should but that’s where I disagree with him.
Even if you, out of sheer will, scream, I won’t be like that, it won’t make much different. Someone else will. Whoever does that will reproduce and be majority. If there is anything that all living things don’t usually fail to do is reproduce.
We will evolve. That’s our nature.
The question is, how should we evolve?
1. Killing each other like genocide?
2. Let the poor starve?
3. Let government decide (enforce monogamy, prohibits sex outside marriage, prohibits women from working, prohibit women trafficking, justified by religion, etc.)
4. Sexual disparity?
These are the economic equivalent
2. let the poor starve. Won’t work either, just look at arab revolution when people are starving. People won’t just starve to death if they think they can rob richer people out of starvation.
3. command socialist economy (monogamy is effectively sex socialism)
4. and free market.
Obviously the 4th is the way to go. Being a moderate I would put 5% on third bucket but seriously. Only free market can truly provide working solution.
The key here is properly understood. If not properly understood, if we didn’t understand what the real game is, then things can go really wrong.
The truth is we are very close to totally abundant economy.
Think about it. Sexual disparity for males correlates very highly with wealth. In short, women prefer the rich. Now, in western civilization welfare program pretty much lessen that. In Asia, wealth=sexy is pretty much the absolute norm. In Chinese dating websites, men would actually display their salary to attract women. It’s that simple.
Left to the market, Bill Gates will have tons of concubines; we will evolve into homo bill gatus. Poverty will be gone.
Is this desirable? I don’t know. Should we embrace that fully? I don’t know. I’ll let you decide that. But at least 2 of our main goals that most of us can agree with, namely elimination of poverty and maximizing prosperity is within a very easy grasp just through market mechanism.
It’s important. Humans have very few goals most of us can agree with. Terrorists want islam to be the world’ religion. Many want more religious freedom. Some wants bigger government, the rest want freedom. It’s normal. Gene pool survival, and hence the creed of our very nature, is almost a zero sum game. When some want something, you can be assured that most will wanting the opposite.
Only wealth, and prosperity it represents, is not zero sum game.
Now imagine if some people vote wisely for their country and their country through free market, mixed economy, proper alignment, or whatever, got prosper. Then men in that country will attract women from the rest of the countries. Then poverty will be gone again in all countries because
1. All males will want their country to be rich too. They would change their ideology to whatever work. Free market, or whatever.
2. Should 1 doesn’t happen, they’ll be so depopulated richer countries will buy their land. Imagine a country where all the hot women emigrate to another country. The ugly is unused-able and usually are feminists anyway. The pretty are out. You see how that will affect population growth?
See. That’s a vision I have for years. I see, as many of us want, to increase humans’ prosperity through ways that fit our nature rather than against it.
We can’t eliminate poverty out of altruism. Altruism is not our nature. It just won’t work. Too much forced altruism (=socialism) and the productive will go John Galt. Actually they have more lucrative option than going John Galt. Ayn Rand live before globalization. Now, the productive can just go country shopping, picking the country with the most meritocratic rules. They do not need to go John Galt.
Now back to the question. What’s the negative of sexual disparity?
Well things can go really wrong, and in fact have been very wrong because we do not understand it.
Hell most of us do not admit it.
We keep lying to our self that love is blind, that money doesn’t buy love. Then using that lies we justify stupid solutions, like bigger government regulating sex.
So how do we deal with this sexual disparity now? Well different culture does it differently.
In western civilization, the main way is to simply ration females in equal share for everyone. Namely monogamy. You do not have to be a libertarian to see that this is a highly inefficient solution.
Just like money socialism has caused hugged poverty in china, monogamy is the biggest market distortion and the main cause of poverty in the world. Our GDP is 300 times our ancestors’ GDP before wealth of nation is produced. The cause is simple.
The poor outbreed the rich. Before, with much less money, poverty is still in check. That’s because before the rich outbreed the poor, as expected. Now the poor outbreed the rich. Before, a mere 2% tax from the rich is enough to feed all the poor. As the poor outbreed the rich, even if the rich were to spend their whole income to feed the poor it won’t be enough.
Also it’s not going to work as well anymore anyway. Free sex is legal. Women don’t want to be rationed. Predictably as free sex becomes more and more “legal” marriage is simply in decline.
The rich are moving their money to China. Socialism is over. Period. Money socialism is dying. So is this sexual socialism.
The arabs have a more conservative solution. They prohibit sex outside marriage and allow polygamy. That means only those favored by the states, get laid.
That means the rulers in Middle East are pretty much the pimp of all women. Saying no sex outside marriage is like saying you can’t reproduce without my permission.
That means everyone will want to rule everyone else. Humans will kill each other to decide who should be leader, what religion is true, and what variants of those religions are true, etc. That’s what happen in middle east.
I am not saying the 2 solutions are totally wrong. Hei we built things based on what used to work. But c’mon. The justifications for all these sexual rules are religion. Think about it. Do we ask religion when we want to lower or raise interest rate? Do we open the bible when we decide how much money supply is?
No. Why not? Because we understand economy. We do not understand sexual disparity. We keep denying it. So we lie. So we use religion.
Properly understood, we can make better social contracts. We can, for example, tax head rather than income. That’ll eliminate poverty in like one generation. In addition, we can, for example, provide free cash to those without kids. That’ll ensure that only those who are
1. Rich enough to afford kids
2. Attractive enough to attract mates.
3. Want to make the baby enough.
This is also another solution for pro/against abortion. Imagine if all kids have rich smart biological dad, would mom want to abort?
Currently monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. As sex outside marriage is more common, I expect many males to be shag less. Solution? Prohibit sex outside marriage? Well, that won’t work again. There is a far more efficient solution. Why not import them from poorer countries?
What about porn? That’s like mass produced females right?
Obviously some will scream on how I “demean women”, even though it’s not what I am trying to do. But that’s the reality. We do not understand sexual disparity. We do not understand that ugly women are not sex objects and hence, it doesn’t really make any sense why they keep bitching about women shouldn’t be ones.
If we understand, we should see that humans are naturally bigot when it comes to intersex competition. Males like to kill males and women like to kill women. The ugly that can’t be sex objects of course insist that the rest cannot too.
But we don’t understand it. We simply believe the fairy tales of feminism because we don’t understand humans’ true nature.
There are so many things we can do to use sexual disparity positively.
Improperly understood, we will just keep lying to each other, kill each other, and try to rule each other.
This is some samples of what can and have gone wrong:
Currently, ugly but diligent males are forced to support childs of the sexy through wealth redistribution. If this happen they’ll vote for conservatives that’ll eliminate welfare. No wonder they want to prohibit porn. No wonder they opposes freedom for so many others.
Without welfare, many will starve, and they’ll rebel like in the middle east.
Another that can go really wrong is that it’ll motivate people to prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage, which can result in bigger government