use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
On the Origin of Species
Apply for Professional or Enthusiast flair here.
Websites Books Videos If you have a link that you think should be in one of these lists, please message the mods.
If you have a link that you think should be in one of these lists, please message the mods.
/r/paleonews /r/ConvergentEvolution /r/SpeculativeEvolution /r/EvoGames
account activity
This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
questionWhat percentage of men actually reproduced throughout human history? (self.evolution)
submitted 2 years ago * by Ghutom
For most of human history it seemed like only 33% of men reproduced: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/21/11/2047/1147770/Genetic-Evidence-for-Unequal-Effective-Population
In the most selective environments there was a 1 to 17 ration of reproductive success in men: https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success.
But what is the best guess for male reproductive success (MRS) overall and during bottlenecks in human history? Were there substantial differences in the rates of MRS across Europe, Asia and Africa?
What traits were common among the men who successfully passed on their genes? Low genetic disease load? Physical prowess? Social competence? Assertiveness? Being part of the in-group? Good instincts (or impressionistic thinking)?
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 23 points24 points25 points 2 years ago* (12 children)
It's worth noting that the percentage of men in the population who were actively reproducing has varied a lot through prehistory and history.
With the advent of agriculture a much smaller percentage of men were able to reproduce than previously, and it remained that way for a long time.
Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same. "It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes. Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.
Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.
"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.
Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man.
Here's the research paper:
[+][deleted] 2 years ago (7 children)
[deleted]
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (6 children)
If that was a criticism it would be a poor and unfounded one to make as that criticism implies a lot of false assumptions.
[–]maxmacks 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (1 child)
As does the theory they were replying to…
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children)
Fewer than the assumption that globally everyone lived in a clan system with the same sort of social behavior.
The genetic study at minimum can point to actual genetic evidence that’s linked with changes in behavior in both place and time.
That criticism, as presented here, doesn’t have any evidence to back it up.
[–]Whatifim80lol 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (2 children)
Can you specify which ones? The pattern of women moving to their new mate's clan seems to be a often argued and well-supported position in the literature. Most of the comment rests on that "assumption" and I think it's tough to prove that one wrong.
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
The assumption that globally everyone lived in clan based societies with essentially the same social structure is one.
Even if we take that premise is true, then you have to account for why the genetic evidence points to a change in specific places and times, instead of ongoing through all of prehistory. That ‘clan based system’ would have existed before and after these genetic changed happened, which indicates that simply being in a clan based system doesn’t explain the changes.
The changes occur around the time agriculture is adopted in a more widespread manner. Correlation is not causation, but the adoption of agriculture is associated with a number of significant social changes, many of which line up well with the sorts of changes the genetic data indicates.
[–]maxmacks 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children)
[–]DeliberatingManager 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (3 children)
This is very interesting. Note that it's possible that these males were having offspring but that these descendants (their lineage) did not fare successfully afterwards. I.e that the original males themselves did reproduce.
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 4 points5 points6 points 2 years ago (2 children)
That's true, but given how widespread this seems to be that's less likely.
[–]DwarvenTacoParty 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
Is it not possible that the "descendants not faring well" was also widespread?
It’s possible, but given the breadth of the study (110 different populations around the globe) that’s an unlikely coincidence.
[–]MarinatedPickachu 5 points6 points7 points 2 years ago (3 children)
What is it today?
[–]TheFactedOne 7 points8 points9 points 2 years ago (2 children)
I googled this question. It really varies by site and opinion. One site, maybe quora says 72% of men, another says 40%. This tells me either I googled the wrong thing, or we just don't know right now.
[–]Ghutom[S] 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (1 child)
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fertility.html According to this, roughly 60% of men become fathers by the time they're 40.
[–]NearABE 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children)
For y chromosome survival wouldn't you need the number of men who father boys? As opposed to mitochondrial DNA measuring the nu.ber of women having girls.
If 100% of men had exactly 2 offspring and one mutation then 25% of them would not pass on their y chromosome mutation.
[+]The_Bagel_Fairy comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points 2 years ago (6 children)
May I ask what is the value of this information? Genuinely curious.
[–]updn 6 points7 points8 points 2 years ago (5 children)
The implication is that women are historically the ones selecting men for mating, and have been very choosy at certain periods in our history for reasons we don't fully understand. That a lot more men didn't leave descendants than women would have created shifts of selective pressures in our evolution.
[–]KiwasiGames 12 points13 points14 points 2 years ago (2 children)
Choosy females is one hypothesis. But it’s just as likely to be domineering males. A series old fashioned rape and pillages could have a similar effect.
[–]updn 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children)
true, I hadn't thought of that
[–]NearABE 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children)
Also disease.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
Um… are you familiar with human history? After the development of agriculture, the ability of women to freely choose their mates seriously declined in most human societies.
In much of the world today (India, much of the Muslim world) that’s still the case. Female freedom in mate selection is reliably found today mostly in the West. And it’s a recent development there too.
The implication is that powerful, socially dominant men appropriated more fertile women for themselves. Men lower on the hierarchy didn’t get to reproduce.
[–]updn 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children)
Yeah, you're right. Someone else pointed this out to me as well, I think. Huge obvious blind spot on my part.
[–]No-Eggplant-5396 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (0 children)
Is this related to human monogamy?
[–]Gavin_Runeblade 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children)
The related question: why didn't this provide sufficient pressure to change the sex ratio at birth to favor more women?
π Rendered by PID 23175 on reddit-service-r2-comment-fb694cdd5-rd26c at 2026-03-07 23:33:28.740637+00:00 running cbb0e86 country code: DE.
Reddit uses cookies and similar technologies to:
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 23 points24 points25 points (12 children)
[+][deleted] (7 children)
[deleted]
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 0 points1 point2 points (6 children)
[–]maxmacks 3 points4 points5 points (1 child)
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]Whatifim80lol 2 points3 points4 points (2 children)
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist -1 points0 points1 point (1 child)
[–]maxmacks 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]DeliberatingManager 4 points5 points6 points (3 children)
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 4 points5 points6 points (2 children)
[–]DwarvenTacoParty 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]7LeagueBootsConservation Ecologist 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]MarinatedPickachu 5 points6 points7 points (3 children)
[–]TheFactedOne 7 points8 points9 points (2 children)
[–]Ghutom[S] 8 points9 points10 points (1 child)
[–]NearABE 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[+]The_Bagel_Fairy comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (6 children)
[–]updn 6 points7 points8 points (5 children)
[–]KiwasiGames 12 points13 points14 points (2 children)
[–]updn 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–]NearABE 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]updn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]No-Eggplant-5396 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]Gavin_Runeblade 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)