An interesting conclusion from the #Polyamory thread: in the past, even societies had significant differences in fertility between different people. This was partly achieved with a huge infant mortality rate mediated by wealth (horrific, but also #eugenic) https://twitter.com/rob_mose/status/1346215227973517312

We also know that historically most men never reproduced, but most women did. The ratio varies between about 2 women who reproduce for every 1 man, to as high as 17:1.

Christianity in Europe was a form of sexual communism (one woman per man), but infant mortality and wealth-mediated fertility meant that there was still an element of selection. And extra-pair couplings would have been with genetically or economically superior males.

The introduction of welfare states and the contraceptive pill broke this: now everyone can reproduce unconstrained by economics, and all men ostensibly get one woman. Contraception is also highly dysgenic as it decouples reproduction from life-outcomes like wealth, success, etc.

It may be the case that #Eugenics under the guise of rainbow flags and Polyamory comes to the rescue.

Low value males get a vasectomy and a Nintendo Switch. Others sire the children. It's much more socially acceptable to sterilize gamma males than to let children starve to death

In the long-term it's hard to see how #Polyamory isn't a form of #Eugenics. Women will always be preferentially attracted to men who are successful, healthy and higher in masculinity.

It was only traditional sexual norms that were keeping women from doing the choosing.

This will all happen hushed-up and in private within these poly arrangements. Nobody will advertise it as a harem for successful men, but it's hard to see how it doesn't become that.

Even arrangements like the Soylent Fivesome shown below are eugenic. The woman in pink is absorbing the genetic contributions of four extremely low-value men and bottlenecking them through a single uterus. That's good!