>> Of course polygamy is bad for most males, but it is better for the species <<
Not at all clear to me, at least when one factors in things other than visible physical characteristics like brute strength and spear-throwing prowess.
For example, as mankind has advanced from the most primitive hunter-gatherer culture to agriculture to our modern technical civilization, IQ has became more and more important. So who’s to say that in the modern world, the high IQ geek’s contribution to the gene pool is less important for human survival than is the contribution of the big and handsome football captain who impregnates multiple girl friends?
Moreover, who can say that the “geeks” will never have certain evolutionary advantages in terms of genetic immunities against various diseases? I should think high diversity in a community’s gene pool is a better long-run strategy for survival than the strategy inherent in a “polygamous” social structure — one that limits the male genetic contribution to maybe one-third or one-fourth of the available studs.
Also, even though I’ll grant that a certain amount of polygamy may initially increase a given community’s evolutionary fitness, there easily might be a “crossover point” at which this community’s level of endogamy begins to produce an unacceptable and unsustainable percentage of offspring with genetic defects — due to double inheritance of recessive genes.
In other words, it’s not too difficult to outline a scenario where monogamy and marital fidelity can contribute to the human species’ evolutionary fitness — whether or not one takes account of traditional religious/moral/ethical strictures.
“Not at all clear to me, at least when one factors in things other than visible physical characteristics like brute strength and spear-throwing prowess. For example, as mankind has advanced from the most primitive hunter-gatherer culture to agriculture to our modern technical civilization, IQ has became more and more important. So who’s to say that in the modern world, the high IQ geek’s contribution to the gene pool is less important for human survival than is the contribution of the big and handsome football captain who impregnates multiple girl friends?”
The definition of fitness hasn’t changed much in the primative and modern world, basically, it involves being attractive to women. That usually means being successful and/or good looking. Being a large hansome male is attractive, so is being able to provide food, shelter, protection etc.
As far as IQ goes, if being intelligent translates to being a good hunter or provider (ie successful) it has value. If you are smart and starving, without a place to live, that’s not attractive to women. Poor ugly geeks with an IQ of 140 don’t attract many women. IQ is only important if you use it to become successful.
I am not arguing that there are no advantages to monogomy, only that polygamy is not necessarily a disadvantage. For example in inner cities women mate indiscriminately with poor quality males, producing many children of questionable quality. In such a situation, it would be better for them to mate with a few high quality males, than alot of loser males.