>>13093453I'm the amazon female small male guy. You seem to be a biologist so I want to hear from you.
For the polyandry amazonian thing, I wrote something here
>>13092808The groups will have higher investment with each other because they will all be making children with multiple different men and women. Why do I care if the women have litters of kids from different men so long as I also get some of my kids in there? I'll work to care for all the kids equally, as will the other dudes, and all the amazon women. The entire group then becomes like a pride of lions and has increased investment with each other. They will expand way faster (because the amazon women have the ability to make litters easily) while higher higher in group preference and investment with each other and lower resource/energy costs.
Why does it imply polyandry as opposed to polygynandry? Polygynandry tends to go towards equal sized males and females too, right?
If there are two competing societies of humans, one of which is a polygynous society where only a few men monopolize a lot of women and the males are very large and energy inefficient and there is a class of males that are constantly angry and there is constant intra-societal competition and violence towards each other for mating and small women who can only have one child at a time, vs a society of amazon women and small males who are polygynandrous and produce litters of offspring at a time and who's males require far less resources to survive and are superior in technocratic environments and can run a military industrial complex for fewer resources, and who have basically no intrasocietal competition because their sexual strategy doesn't tend towards it,why would the polygnous society win? It wouldn't stand a chance.
The only other alternative isn't traditional marriage, it's genetically engineering your society to produce more efficient males and females i.e. small males and amazon females. They will outcompete other societies.
