It seems to me that polyandry is intrinsically blank-slatey. A good first approximation of male vs. female reproductive strategy is that males seek to optimize the net quality of their mates, while females seek to optimize the mean quality of their mates. In the former strategy, there is never anything to be lost by adding another mate, while in the latter strategy, there certainly is.
To a second approximation, humans have an astoundingly high level of parental investment than other species and also engage in alloparenting. This throws a proverbial monkey wrench into the first approximation.
Sure. But the “compromise on mate quality in return for resource commitment” strategy has always been fraught with what one might call coordination problems. The whole institution of marriage is basically a massive social engineering project meant to prevent these problems and align the interests of the partners. But marriage as an institution has grown far weaker: divorce, premarital sex, and children born out of wedlock are now seen as commonplace. And because of the increasing financial independence of women, they are less interested in compromising on mate quality in return for paternal investment.
I actually think these trends are going to continue to the point where marriage and male paternal investment are actually the exception rather than the default. Men will give up on “careers” and spend nearly all their time trying to burnish their masculine image by playing sports, playing music, dressing well, practicing dance moves, etc etc. Women will pick mates based on their success in said endeavours, and won’t be at all concerned with boring old bourgeois concerns like financial stability, reliability, potential to be a good father, etc.
Note that I am not trying to discourage or disparage alternative lifestyles; if polyandry works for some people, more power to them. I’m just saying that, to me, it seems to be based on an unrealistic understanding of both human sexual psychology and modern social trends.
It seems to me that polyandry is intrinsically blank-slatey. A good first approximation of male vs. female reproductive strategy is that males seek to optimize the net quality of their mates, while females seek to optimize the mean quality of their mates. In the former strategy, there is never anything to be lost by adding another mate, while in the latter strategy, there certainly is.
To a second approximation, humans have an astoundingly high level of parental investment than other species and also engage in alloparenting. This throws a proverbial monkey wrench into the first approximation.
Sure. But the “compromise on mate quality in return for resource commitment” strategy has always been fraught with what one might call coordination problems. The whole institution of marriage is basically a massive social engineering project meant to prevent these problems and align the interests of the partners. But marriage as an institution has grown far weaker: divorce, premarital sex, and children born out of wedlock are now seen as commonplace. And because of the increasing financial independence of women, they are less interested in compromising on mate quality in return for paternal investment.
I actually think these trends are going to continue to the point where marriage and male paternal investment are actually the exception rather than the default. Men will give up on “careers” and spend nearly all their time trying to burnish their masculine image by playing sports, playing music, dressing well, practicing dance moves, etc etc. Women will pick mates based on their success in said endeavours, and won’t be at all concerned with boring old bourgeois concerns like financial stability, reliability, potential to be a good father, etc.
Note that I am not trying to discourage or disparage alternative lifestyles; if polyandry works for some people, more power to them. I’m just saying that, to me, it seems to be based on an unrealistic understanding of both human sexual psychology and modern social trends.