Was a ponderin':
What would the world be like if there were 100 women to each man? Would it be fundamentally differnet if there were 100 men to each woman?
are there any mammals in the natural world with massively unbalanced population genders?
With certain fish and insects you get odd imbalances like queen bees, and gender changing fish etc. but how do mammals cope? have any species needed to?
IMO most of STW think there's a hundred men to every woman
hhehe.
reminds me of the south park episode about Bebe's boobs destroying society 
What would the world be like if there were 100 women to each man?
I'd be knackered.
Cows and sheep males are massively outnumbered, but I'm sure that's because humans slaughter males earlier for economic reasons.
mammals in the natural world with massively unbalanced population genders?
Mammals - no
MAMILs - yes
Isn't it like that in Nottingham?
Cows and sheep males are massively outnumbered,
it was looking at the sheep in my field this morning that made me think of it. You dont keep rams on for very long at all. Beef cattle the same. But its not a species/genetic phenomenon.
There was a herd of highlands on the common that were lovely to watch around, but the bull started playing up so they removed it. Then the alpha female took on the role of "bull" and she too started acting up and eventually they decided to remove the herd from the common for safety. Other breeds on the common arent so agressive.
What would the world be like if there were 100 women to each man?
I'd probably still be rubbish at pulling!
there are cows and sheep in nottingham?
What would the world be like if there were 100 women to each man?
Pretty awesome, like in the LYNX adverts.
Would it be fundamentally different if there were 100 men to each woman?
I suspect there would be a big old fight.
assuming we werent all fighting all the time, how would we structure ourselves, roles, differently?
I'd probably still be rubbish at pulling!
You make a good point. I could fall into a barrel of nipples and come out sucking my thumb, so I doubt that the increased odds would help everyone.
Mammals - no
MAMILs - yes
Indeed. An observation on a ride yesterday was that the cheerfulness of roadies was in direct proportion to the, ahem, frontage. Lady roadies far more cheery than MAMILs. Especially the two very friendly ladies we came across in Holmbury.
iDave - Member
IMO most of STW think there's a hundred men to every woman
To be fair, that's probably an accurate view, given their experience of life.
What would the world be like if there were 100 women to each man?
Less wars but more shit TV.
Especially the two very friendly ladies we came across in Holmbury.
I knew some unsavoury activities take place in such locations, but bloody hell...
I imagine my workload would, ahem, double.... 
(Disclaimer: Mrs Bullheart, if you read this, I don't have a workload in that sense. I'm just making myself out to me more laddish in order to impress the fellas on here. As well you know. Sorry dear.)
Ha ha! I'm going to show your missus this, and she's going to give you a right slap! 
BTW did you get my email?
You do make it sound like they were humping your leg CFH.
Either 100:1 ratio would cause some pretty big differences to society/way of life
I don't think you could sustain a population of 100 males per female for very long. That's a lot of babies the female has to produce just to keep a constant population level.
Surely there's only one person to ask;
I read some study about this kind of thing. Obviously not to this extent but in certain situations after wars, or even in certain US cities due to disproportionate incarceration of black males there can be an imbalance which then influences behaviour of both sexes
Well you'd not have families and mates for life like we (sometimes) do now. Men would have to be itinerant and women would have a bunch of kids.
I don't think it's common for higher animals to have this imbalance, because the more complex a lifestyle you have and the more developed of an organism you are the more work goes into bringing up a kid. So in general it becomes a team effort. Ie one parent stays at home to guard/warm the kids and the other goes out to find food/defend the territory. Given that there are only two individuals with anything like a vested interest in the young (one of each sex) it makes sense to have gender pairs.
S'why it's so common I think.
women would have a bunch of kids.
Don't think so, Molly
I'm talking about pure population mechanics emsz - modern sensitivities notwithstanding.
However you would have to have single parent families in the above situation. Whether or not women would traditionally limit themselves to one kid or several I'm not sure.
Women would certainly have much more power than they used to traditionally so perhaps they would be more likely to choose one or none. Of course any society or species where too many women chose not to have kids would die out.
(I am talking about historically here of course)
Isn't there massive overpopulation in the world anyway? A few less babies would probably help
Women wouldn't need to have loads of kids - to sustain a ratio 100-1 there would just have to be an inbalance of the gender of children born - so most couples (for whatever reason) would have (or keep) babies of one gender. It could / would be a declining population perhaps, but there would be no requirement for women to breed more than they want to.
Isn't there massive overpopulation in the world anyway? A few less babies would probably help
Certainly.
You seem to be ascribing motives to my posts...?
there would be no requirement for women to breed more than they want to
Historically there would. If there were naturally a 100-1 ratio then we'd have evolved that way, so there would have to have been a mechanism to keep the population growing otherwise we'd have died out.
After the first world war, it was certainly the case that the female population was far greater. Although since 1958 more males were born than females.
Mmmm definitely an imbalance when it comes to mtbers.
Stoner - what breed of sheep have you got, I'm a sad sheep lover, favourite being the herdwick, also have a soft spot for the Wensleydale.
you guys are taking this too seriously.... 100 women to one man would mean that man would be surrounded by approximately 200 boobs!
We will find out what 9 women to 10 men will be like in India shortly, thanks to gender selection among the families that can afford it. I shouldn't think that millions of frustrated men in a country surrounded by vying powers can be a good thing.
just bog standard cheviots I think BH.
On loaner from the neighbours for mowing services. 4 ewes. He has 6 acres and 3 horses to which he's added the 4 ewes. We've put a gate between his fields and my v small 0.4acre paddock so that he can reserve his good pasture for his (wife's, natch) horses and rotate with mine.
We will find out what 9 women to 10 men will be like in India shortly, thanks to gender selection among the families that can afford it
I got a thread pulled once for bringing this subject up 
you guys are taking this too seriously.... 100 women to one man would mean that man would be surrounded by approximately 200 boobs
Either way would create a hierarchy of some sort I would think, with breeding being enforced somehow or another to keep population growing/ even vaguely stable. Does not really sound ideal for men or women. Tho I also imagine that same sex relationships would become acceptable to all eyes rather quickly which would be a positive advance to be sure.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
