• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

why are their almost as many males as females?

Schadenfroh

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
ok look at the facts, 1 guy could impragnate a whole lot of women in short period of time, wheras a woman can only be impregnated only about once a year. therefore, in theory, women should outnumber men for this sake. also, most people who fight in wars are males and the untold millions (or possibly billions) that have died in conflict thruought history have mostly been males, so why dont females outnumber males by a large margin?
 
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
ok look at the facts, 1 guy could impragnate a whole lot of women in short period of time, wheras a woman can only be impregnated only about once a year. therefore, in theory, women should outnumber men for this sake. also, most people who fight in wars are males and the untold millions (or possibly billions) that have died in conflict thruought history have mostly been males, so why dont females outnumber males by a large margin?
Click to expand...

Beats me... I've thought about that and come to the same puzzling conclusion that you have.
 
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
 
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
 
because traditionally people prefer to have boys rather than girls like in china where males outnumber females.
Often times females are aborted.
 
what does the rate of impregnation have to do with anything. Isn't it still pretty much a 50/50 change that the baby will be either a guy or a girl? Seems like that would be the only determination of the ratio.
 
Originally posted by: neutralizer
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
Click to expand...

....... some men just don't have daughters
 
Originally posted by: neutralizer
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
Click to expand...
what the hell "wierd natural law" are you talking about. the simple fact that a single man can impregnate many women means nothing in the male/female ratio. what matter is what pops out of the female.


=|
 
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: neutralizer
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
Click to expand...
what the hell "wierd natural law" are you talking about. the simple fact that a single man can impregnate many women means nothing in the male/female ratio. what matter is what pops out of the female.


=|
Click to expand...

Yea... that's true too, but that many males aren't needed, but then again, our society is controlled, so it doesn't matter.
 
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: neutralizer
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
Click to expand...
what the hell "wierd natural law" are you talking about. the simple fact that a single man can impregnate many women means nothing in the male/female ratio. what matter is what pops out of the female.


=|
Click to expand...

Thank you, for a second I thought that either I had become extremely dumb, or everyone else had..... but you have proven both of those wrong.
 
I won't even buy the "wars" part...

You do realize that the concept of exluding civilians from combat is only a few hundred years old in terms of
thousands of years of human conflict. And many past societies did not discriminate women from men in
placement as soldiers. Thus the ratio of male/female war casualties is fairly even thru-out history.

You are not taking into account the past requirement that the male also provide shelter, protection and resources
to the female(s) he chose to mate with, to insure the survival of any offspring. Males can only support so
many female pair-bonds and the resulting children. Thus the ratio is kept in a closer constant; that's one of the
"natural" laws that you should be considering.

 
Originally posted by: Metalloid
Originally posted by: theNEOone
Originally posted by: neutralizer
Originally posted by: theNEOone
what the hell kind of logic is that? i'll buy that "wars" part, but you need to rethink your previous statement.


=|
Click to expand...

No, the previous statement makes sense. If one male can impregnate many females, there should be more females... that's according to some weird natural law...
Click to expand...
what the hell "wierd natural law" are you talking about. the simple fact that a single man can impregnate many women means nothing in the male/female ratio. what matter is what pops out of the female.


=|
Click to expand...

Thank you, for a second I thought that either I had become extremely dumb, or everyone else had..... but you have proven both of those wrong.
Click to expand...

there is a differance between should and is tho, but a good question is, why is it a 50/50 chance, seems like it 90/10 in favor of female would be more acceptable for 1 on 1 male/female is highly ineffeicient, now 10/1 would be much more productive
 
I believe there are more women than men on the planet.
Isn't that fairly common accepted knowledge?
 
I'd venture in order to diversify the gene pool, as well as the likelyhood of more males dieing (hunting wars enviroment).
 
You're just pining for the "nine chicks at once."

It's true there are species of mammals with higher male-female ratios, but

(a) for evolutionists, we happened to evolve that way, in our hunter-gatherer ancestors having more males with greater physical strength was a survival trait.
(b) for deists, God made us that way.
 
becuase start out with y chromosome. 50/50 chance additional y or x. yy=female yx =male. more women becuase of life expactancy right?
 
Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah
Wow, there used to be some semblance of intelligence on AT. Where did it go?
Click to expand...

Yeah, AND he wants to be a doctor...

Edit:
The war logic would only make sense if men produced male offspring and women produced female offspring (asexually I guess). But since the m/f birth rate is 50/50 no matter what the ratio of living males to living femals, any differences caused by wars would disappear when that generation died out. The number of people who die in wars is relatively small compared to the population of the entire world though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top