Just as the title says, how has modern medicine affected specifically the rate of development of the human gene pool? Obviously new species could form in the future due to separation and exposure to different environments (like Sherpa in Nepal vs Americans in New York). However, how has it affected the ability for mutations to change the gene pool. If you think about it, genetic diseases that once were a product of mutations often just simply resulted in deaths and thus the bad mutation was not passed on. Do you think that modern medicine has affected our ability to stay alive in direct contrast to the negative disadvantages that these mutations would provide? If so, what do you think its effect is? Has it slowed down our rate of evolution (obviously hypothetical, but in theory should it?)?
This probably will offend , may even come across myopic, my goal is to understand a little better. i'm very open to being told this is wrong because of x y z this is just my current world view i'm open to it being changed.
I have made two assumptions the goal of the male is to sow his seed in as many women as possible, the goal of the female is mate with a quality male. if left to its own devices you get polygyny but the tradeoff for most of civilisation , to me would be "marriage" the male gets access to a female and the woman may get access to a high quality male.
violence seems to spike when there a ton of unmarried men in the west.
i feel like our memes and societal stigmas of women being deemed "whores" if they sleep around (by men and women tbh) and the fact that some of this has become religious rule, i.e. in several religions it is encouraged or explicitly stated that a women remain a virgin until marriage.
i for one am not saying i agree with it , i want to make that bit clear, but if a woman becomes married to a man , the stigma will be on the father (historically) to provide for her and their progeny.
as children require a lot of resources and having another person as well as their extended family there to help will alleviate the load , i feel the stigmatizing of sex before marriage or partnering up although horrible serves as a way of maximizing the resources that can potentially be available to the child and mother. i feel like culturally different memes have put this in place, sex after marriage, or stigmatizing any man that doesn't provide resources for his offspring. perhaps , in our society there is nothing worse than a "broke (financially man)
When i listen to heterosexual women, it seems that they desire ambitious , tall and intelligent men, but every one of those traits is relativistic by nature. so to me you need some arena in which to prove this is the case height is an eye test at worse, the other two require some sort of competitive milieu to be determined, it seems for most of our history a relatively smaller amount of men have passed on their genes in comparison to females could this be why?
the invention of agriculture , was probably more out of need form what i'm told but it resulted in population growth, i.e the winners of this agricultural revolution passing on their genes.
As agriculture became more developed and new technologies developed such as irrigation, voluntary leaders emerged to coordinate those agricultural works. This led to greater food surplus, which led to social stratification. Eventually these leaders realized that controlling food production meant power. This led to the development of monarchy and the development of the first true cities.
men and women are freed up to think about the world, empires and their associated religions form, men in general (the ones physically able to ) continue to fight for territory
a feudal system emerges where you have a class of men who own the land another class of men who fight to protect it and everyone else.
capitalism emerges from mercantilism and colonialism, the framework of the corporation colonizes the americas.
and now in our society you are forced to work for someone, provide a service or build something for society and the reward is money and in the case of men access to high quality females (if you want them). (well this is what is implied) (maybe this is why we sell each other useless shit)
now females want to participate and that's wonderful , i reckon they will do incredible things with it, as they have been.
i feel like the underlying theme during capitalism and still is a masculine producer selling to a feminine consumer. i just think about how many purchases a female influences even in regards to her husband or boyfriend lmao.
like i said this view may be woefully incomplete, myopic at best , i am very open to it being that.
i know some women in some cultures fought in wars along side men so i am not discounting that. i am aware that this isn't a theory of everything for human culture its loosely based at best.
TLDR; i feel women being relatively choosy (compared to bonobo chimps for example) and desiring traits in men that need some sort of competitive milieu to be determined fully and a social hierarchy developed as we aren't all equal women gravitated to the winners.
please logically tell me why this wrong. or where it needs work or why its good.