A British study suggests that human tendency to be mostly monogamous is in fact likely biologically natural to our species, not a "social construct". >As such, human mating patterns produce sibling distributions that very clearly cluster with socially monogamous species such as meerkats (Suricata suricatta, 59.0% full siblings) and African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus, 85.0% full siblings) rather than non-monogamous species such as chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes, 4.1% of siblings).https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article/292/2060/20252163/363965/Human-monogamy-in-mammalian-contextThis is also supported by archeological findings that suggest that ancient humans since the hunter-gatherers and early settled humans were overwhelmingly monogamous.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-monogamy-has-deep-roots/
Now test non-human niggers/faggotchimps
I think a study like this would fail to take into account how often there would be a disproportionately higher number of females than males. Men kill each other. They die sooner due to engaging in dangerous work.
>>18241326sorry chud, that can't happen. It's biology.
>>18240820Are you 15.
>>18241326Women also often died from childbirth
>>18241931Not as big of a cutdown as war and higher male mortality. If you survive the first one complications are rare
>>18241326There
>>18241948here's your civilization bro
>>18241938Childbirth mortality rate was very high throughout almost all of human history, it very likely would have met or exceeded any war deaths.
>>18240815>human tendency to be mostly monogamousMost societies were historically polygynous.
>>18241993only for the elites
>>18241997Because the povvos couldn't afford more than one wife.
>>18241999what are the genetic origins of wealthy people? I mean, they're all related.
