Genetic researchers have, for some time, known that in pre-historic times the number of adult men fell to about 1 to 17 women. Called the “Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck” scientists at first theorized the shortage of men was due to the way early humans explored new territories and settlement patterns, known as the “founder effect.”
Now, a new study proposes that it was ancient tribal warfare, where the men were slaughtered and the women enslaved by the conquerors. This tradition of genocide probably was all well and good to the winners, but the lack of genetic variety it created in the genome almost lead to our own extinction. More
ya know what they say about ‘almost’ not counting … ‘cept horse shoes & H-bombs
… good thing Planned Parenthood wasn’t around then, huh?
btw, isn’t ‘Tribalism’ what the progtards are pushing now?
Thankfully We’ve outgrown that
Now If You’ll excuse Me…I have to deliver Nuclear Weapons and Cash
to Iran..
#Groktoo
Warring factions wiped out the men…now they are just using soy and femininization to turn our men into women.
Not a “study”. And nothing here is “known”.
This is just a speculative essay. Just a hypothetical based on presumptions, assumptions, and guesswork.
An extended “what-if”. With an added PC anti-male premise.
Proof? They describe “ 1 man for every 17 women” like that’s a BAD thing.
Original sin
17 women for every guy? Sign me up! That’s way better than Surf City!
Can you just imagine the serious cat fights over men especially during women’s fertile time?
I imagine some men dying of exhaustion.
“A tribe is a group of people connected to one another, connected to a leader, and connected to an idea. For millions of years, human beings have been part of one tribe or another. A group needs only two things to be a tribe: a shared interest and a way to communicate.” – Seth Godin
This sounds like more junk science intended to show how warlike and violent males are. Then they can push their “females should rule the world” narrative and point to this as “proof.” I hate progressives.
Questions, questions. Winners in tribal warfare should not have had the same decline as the losers. If these so-called researchers don’t have the data on the decline for winning tribes, losing tribes, and non-combatant tribes, they have only conjecture that the loss was due to tribal warfare.
Also, if the winners kidnapped the losers’ women (e.g., Romans kidnapping the Sabine women) the winners would be expected to have a spike in births, perhaps enough to balance off the losers decline.
Whatever happened, I admit to guessing, which is a lot less than the social anthropologists claim, or whatever these “scientists” say they are. They may say “it’s possible”, but then proceed with 100% certainty.
When scientists publish papers on how humans developed thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago, I read it very critically.
Modern scientists are today’s version of 19th century “doctors”: peddling snake oil.
Not exclusively warfare. Look at African kings that have dozens or hundreds of wives. After a few generations, every male will be descended from one king.
As a winner in this battle, bring me your womenz. Well, only if they’re domesticated. Honestly they scare me. Keep them.
Death by Snu-Snu!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti5AkLup1mI
Its true.
This was not said by Conan…….
It was a Quote attributed to Genghis Khan; which Conan said as his own.
Genghis had asked his warriors “What is Best..??” When they came up with personal things like a good horse or a falcon to hunt with. He gave them his answer.
Genghis also said that Cities were Useless…..They simply stood in the way of grasslands for his horses. If any City rebelled against him…..he massacred everything in it including the men, women, and animals.
You have to realize that Genghis Khan came up the hard way; when everyone else’s sword was against him. Trying to analyze him with 21st century morality is useless the same as trying to analyze Dracul-la; the son of the Dragon; when everybody else was trying to kill him to seize his throne.