MSimon wrote:When the M/F ratio goes above 1.05 or below .95 relations between the sexes change. Birth control and porn operate only at the margins of the larger biological systems. Too many women - girls gone wild. Too many men - pedestalizing of women. Colleges these days with ratios running from .9 to .5 are the happy hunting ground for men. Also any city where the numbers are skewed. Wash., DC fer instance.
What changed? Birth mortality mostly.
You ignore loss of consequence as a behavioral modifier.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
MSimon wrote:When the M/F ratio goes above 1.05 or below .95 relations between the sexes change. Birth control and porn operate only at the margins of the larger biological systems. Too many women - girls gone wild. Too many men - pedestalizing of women. Colleges these days with ratios running from .9 to .5 are the happy hunting ground for men. Also any city where the numbers are skewed. Wash., DC fer instance.
What changed? Birth mortality mostly.
You ignore loss of consequence as a behavioral modifier.
Reproduction matters more than consequences. If it didn't the sex ratio would hardly matter. Culture was only effective at the margins. In colonial days roughly 1/3 of brides were pregnant. What is different today? The relative certainty of pregnancy. So you don't have to marry the girl. And DNA testing - so you don't have to marry the wrong girl.
I'm sure we will have worked it out in another 100 years or so. but who knows what we will be like then? Perhaps implanted frog eyeballs will be taking the place of tattoos.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:When the M/F ratio goes above 1.05 or below .95 relations between the sexes change. Birth control and porn operate only at the margins of the larger biological systems. Too many women - girls gone wild. Too many men - pedestalizing of women. Colleges these days with ratios running from .9 to .5 are the happy hunting ground for men. Also any city where the numbers are skewed. Wash., DC fer instance.
What changed? Birth mortality mostly.
You ignore loss of consequence as a behavioral modifier.
Reproduction matters more than consequences. If it didn't the sex ratio would hardly matter. Culture was only effective at the margins. In colonial days roughly 1/3 of brides were pregnant. What is different today? The relative certainty of pregnancy. So you don't have to marry the girl. And DNA testing - so you don't have to marry the wrong girl.
I'm sure we will have worked it out in another 100 years or so. but who knows what we will be like then? Perhaps implanted frog eyeballs will be taking the place of tattoos.
You might be right. (If we make it that far without descending back into barbarism.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
New piece of information. Fits into my theory/worldview perfectly. Neither Adam Smith's invisible hand, nor the Disembodied hand of the bible, will be denied!
Researchers examined 271 throat-tumor samples collected over 20 years ending in 2004 and found that the percentage of oral cancer linked to the human papillomavirus, or HPV, surged to 72 percent from about 16 percent, according to a report released yesterday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. By 2020, the virus-linked throat tumors -- which mostly affected men -- will become more common than HPV-caused cervical cancer, the report found.
I argue that the surge in throat tumors were the result of a widespread change in morals/morality. Practices which were not the norm decades ago, became the norm. Had we not the technology to learn why, future generations would have been told these people died because of "wickedness." And thus humanity used to learn and pass on the knowledge of what not to do.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Ok, I partially retract my point - it's not just social pressure vs. be yourself. MSimon has an important point with the ratios. Most of the time changes to the ratio between sexes above 1.05 or below .95 do tend to have the effects he suggests.
Seems that world wide, the NATURAL average birth ratio is about 1.05 m/f. There are a FEW countries that seem to be selectively aborting females and have a significantly higher ratio.
But in a large number of countries, despite a normal BIRTH ratio, and even a reletively normal teen ratio, the adult ratio can be as high as ~2. This suggests either something is killing off females in their late teens/ early adulthood... or they are leaving in droves. Since the countries in question are all Muslim, I suspect it is the second. (Since Iran doesn't show this pattern, I also suspect the countries that DO show it must be wealthy and free enough for the women to escape).
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Ok, I partially retract my point - it's not just social pressure vs. be yourself. MSimon has an important point with the ratios. Most of the time changes to the ratio between sexes above 1.05 or below .95 do tend to have the effects he suggests.
It is axiomatic that the ratios would have an effect. My point is that they are not the ONLY effect.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
KitemanSA wrote:Seems that world wide, the NATURAL average birth ratio is about 1.05 m/f. There are a FEW countries that seem to be selectively aborting females and have a significantly higher ratio.
But in a large number of countries, despite a normal BIRTH ratio, and even a reletively normal teen ratio, the adult ratio can be as high as ~2. This suggests either something is killing off females in their late teens/ early adulthood... or they are leaving in droves. Since the countries in question are all Muslim, I suspect it is the second. (Since Iran doesn't show this pattern, I also suspect the countries that DO show it must be wealthy and free enough for the women to escape).
Actually, it is neither. The countries in question have huge populations of foreign workers residing in country, doing the work the country's natives cant/wont/are too rich to do, most of these foreign workers are males, which is where you get that hump of males of working age.
KitemanSA wrote:Seems that world wide, the NATURAL average birth ratio is about 1.05 m/f. There are a FEW countries that seem to be selectively aborting females and have a significantly higher ratio.
But in a large number of countries, despite a normal BIRTH ratio, and even a reletively normal teen ratio, the adult ratio can be as high as ~2. This suggests either something is killing off females in their late teens/ early adulthood... or they are leaving in droves. Since the countries in question are all Muslim, I suspect it is the second. (Since Iran doesn't show this pattern, I also suspect the countries that DO show it must be wealthy and free enough for the women to escape).
Actually, it is neither. The countries in question have huge populations of foreign workers residing in country, doing the work the country's natives cant/wont/are too rich to do, most of these foreign workers are males, which is where you get that hump of males of working age.
That is an interesting thought, but what makes you think that such workers are counted in the population of that land? The fact that the 65+ age bracket is still WAY biased toward males when almost every other land is biased the other way suggests you are mistaken. But ICBW.
KitemanSA wrote:Seems that world wide, the NATURAL average birth ratio is about 1.05 m/f. There are a FEW countries that seem to be selectively aborting females and have a significantly higher ratio.
But in a large number of countries, despite a normal BIRTH ratio, and even a reletively normal teen ratio, the adult ratio can be as high as ~2. This suggests either something is killing off females in their late teens/ early adulthood... or they are leaving in droves. Since the countries in question are all Muslim, I suspect it is the second. (Since Iran doesn't show this pattern, I also suspect the countries that DO show it must be wealthy and free enough for the women to escape).
Actually, it is neither. The countries in question have huge populations of foreign workers residing in country, doing the work the country's natives cant/wont/are too rich to do, most of these foreign workers are males, which is where you get that hump of males of working age.
That is an interesting thought, but what makes you think that such workers are counted in the population of that land? The fact that the 65+ age bracket is still WAY biased toward males when almost every other land is biased the other way suggests you are mistaken. But ICBW.
They are counted because they are legal residents, not illegal immigrants.
