ConscientiousPoster on Nostr: I'll be honest, by the second post I got the feeling I was reading someone's ...

I'll be honest, by the second post I got the feeling I was reading someone's elaborated sexual fantasies (it probably is). Humans don't live in closed, constant environments with constantly known variables nor with resources that are always abundant, or even abundant enough to justify a bust-boom cycle of reproduction (in the way chickens used to be), so justifying polygny through the welfare state sounds short-sighted and impractical, and in the cases where rulers have multiple wives it's made possible through the elaborate cultural institutions he's relying on for power. You've justified this view through the supposed happiness of a single man, sacrificing endless amounts of resources (that come from where?) and even the happiness of the wife. That's the single common thread that's been building up.

I originally wrote a bullet point list of possible avenues to pursue the question of harems, why they do or don't come about, why are (some) humans monogamous, interpersonal responsibilities, where does monogamy develop in nature outside of humans (birds best example), etc, but I'm left with the question of someone who views a woman's jealousy as being a problem that should be sorted out. That's... fair enough but I think it's mean spirited to view wanting a man to provide to them solely as bad and ugly jealousy. I think the fundamental question being asked here isn't related to harems as it is why do humans feel passions that can act to the detriment of others, even those they supposedly love. You'd even carried on this theme with the incel question, but the question of why passions exist is very complex and not one I'm able to tackle with any real rigor.

It's interesting but it's one that can be sidestepped by acknowledging life as something that wants to continue and will find methods of dealing with anything that threatens that, the kind of guy who's able to let things go will be replaced by the type of guy who will get everything he wants without regard to anyone else if the former has no way to reproduce, and if the latter somehow does. This doesn't lead to functional communities. You might as well start talking about replacing men with machines and other forms of technology, if the problem is something equivalent to aesthetic appreciation of certain forms of joy and not one of survival. This obviously has within it the desire to change humanity's natural environment, in this case gender ratios, to better allow for more cooperative interpersonal relationships and reproductive success.

I nonetheless appreciate the thought you put into this. I'm not sure how you've thought of a way to deal with the economic detriment less men would create. I also wonder if the sort of 'charitable alpha man' can come about outside of a culture that necessitates such a man.