alt history harem,what would the modern age be if most of the world's men were killed off with an muetated sptrain of the spanish flu in 1919.would the world be an better place if women were in charge?
alt history harem,what would the modern age be if most of the world's men were killed off with an muetated sptrain of the spanish flu in 1919.would the world be an better place if women were in charge?
Women have the same emotional sets as men. They may not fight as often as men, but when they do, it's with a viciousness that men cannot compete with.
I don't see it ending any better. Or being better off.
i understatnd that, but studies have proven woman work better together and that are willing to comparize so both sides get greater benefits.males tend to want to win and prove themselves the better man when dealing with other men
but studies have proven woman work better together
Really?
So studies showing that all-women management teams are worse than men for using psychological weapons against each other (men seem to prefer violence) are bogus?
If you want a starting premise for a female-dominated society, fine. And using fake science to justify how well it works is fine too. But that's writing what's interesting, not what's accurate.
AJ
but studies have proven woman work better together and that are willing to comparize so both sides get greater benefits.males tend to want to win and prove themselves the better man when dealing with other men
Not about to accept this without extensive citations.
alt history harem,what would the modern age be if most of the world's men were killed off with an muetated sptrain of the spanish flu in 1919.would the world be an better place if women were in charge?
That actually had pretty much happened in that time period. Even before the Spanish Flu, over 6% of men in the UK died during WWI. Hence, it being called the "Lost Generation".
Might as well just write a steam age version of "Children of Men". Most men die, population crash, lack of genetic diversity likely leaves humans near extinction within 50 years.
Most men die, population crash, lack of genetic diversity likely leaves humans near extinction within 50 years.
Why? One man can impregnate a thousand women, or more, in a single year, if he's dedicated to the job. Just because the children that come out of those thousand women are half him, when they grow up, their children will start to vary. Twenty thousand kids in twenty years, with twenty thousand different women, provides more than enough genetic diversity for future generation, as the negative traits will cull themselves out.
as the negative traits will cull themselves out.
Just like they haven't in the real world?
AJ
Just like they haven't in the real world?
In a genetic sense, due to the reinforcement of certain negative genes. Unless you're English royalty, of course.
Haemophilia doesn't seem keen on culling itself soon. Neither do the genes associated with breast cancer and prostate cancer.
AJ
Haemophilia doesn't seem keen on culling itself soon.
Women are passive carriers of the gene and while they have it, tend to not bleed out. Men are active carriers and DO tend to bleed out.
It's also a severity thing, which may sound odd, but from my understanding, there are varying degrees of hemophilia. I had a friend in high school whose mother had it - she actually wrecked her car one day right in front of me, so when I got there and she was bleeding, it was still normal. Her son was in my class and while he freely bled, it would eventually clot after a while.
Also, I was primarily referring to the primary genetic issues of close relatives procreating based upon the scenario envisioned by the OP. You're not going to have a society that keeps severely physically handicapped children around after birth because the society itself isn't going to have the infrastructure that allows for it in the ways we have today.
Also some genetic conditions that are generally treated as defects may in fact be adaptive under the right conditions.
An example of this is sickle cell anemia. It's not just a problem for those of African decent, it is prevalent in all populations of all races in areas where malaria is endemic.
Why? Because sickle cell anemia makes you more resistant to malaria.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804388115
Haemophilia doesn't seem keen on culling itself soon. Neither do the genes associated with breast cancer and prostate cancer.
The only genes that get culled are the ones that hamper a person's ability to procreate. Breast cancer, prostate cancer and most types of cancer manifest themselves mostly after a person has had kids and passed on the genes. If prostate cancer affected kids, then it would have disappeared long time ago. I'm sure that in the past some mutations have caused many types of cancers in kids, but we have no idea about them because no carriers survived long enough to procreate and pass on those defective genes.
Evolution doesn't care about how 'good' or 'bad' a mutation is to individuals of a species. Evolution only cares about a species ability to procreate.
The only genes that get culled are the ones that hamper a person's ability to procreate.
Homosexuality?
AJ
@John Demille
The only genes that get culled are the ones that hamper a person's ability to procreate.
Homosexuality?
There are a number of gene know to have different affects in males and females.
I have seen it suggested that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality that the gene that causes homosexuality in men increases fertility in women.
Note: This was based on a study from the UK of women with homosexual sons. The study in question had a ridiculously small sample size.
The only genes that get culled are the ones that hamper a person's ability to procreate.
Homosexuality?
Homosexuality isn't genetic. Few studies has shown that the amount of testosterone a baby gets in the womb hugely affects their brain's maleness/femaleness and their future sexuality.
Baby boys with too little testosterone exposure in the womb turn out feminized and even homosexual.
Baby girls with too much testosterone exposure in the womb turn out butch.
For example, mothers with PCOS give birth to an inordinate percentage of lesbian daughters. PCOS causes the female body to produce too much testosterone.
Neither do the genes associated with breast cancer and prostate cancer.
Huge difference here.
In the vast majority of those with those traits, they do not crop up until adulthood, often after they have had kids and passed it along.
Why? One man can impregnate a thousand women, or more, in a single year, if he's dedicated to the job. Just because the children that come out of those thousand women are half him, when they grow up, their children will start to vary.
It does not work that way, and lack of genetic diversity is a serious problem.
They are called "population bottlenecks", and can devastate an animal lineage. As others have said, reinforcing negative genetics, and even causing some that are beneficial to die off.
This is why when we try to bring an animal back from the edge of extinction, we try hard to breed them as far apart as possible, and to add in any new genetics that we can find.
With artificial insemination a thousand pregnancies a year is quite low. And why would impregnation end in 20 years? Women from their mid teens to late forties and sometimes later have not lost their ability to have children.
With severe populational disbalance, reproduction would simply shift from "christian marriage" sceme to something else. If it happens like OP said, then "children" would become state/industrial matter. Sperm banks, atrificial insemination, huge child support, huge kindergarten/school support, some legal action on number of children per woman. Tracing lineage is fairly simple, so genes mixing would be avoided.
Don't forget, stuff like eugenics was very popular mid-century.
If it is only one time impact on gender balance, in 3 generations it would be restored completely without a trace. Would be a healthier in physical and mental state population too.
1918 spanish flu only effected men
I think it's rather ironic that if the Spanish Flu only effected men, that means there would be no more women, the opposite of what the OP intended ;-)
AJ