Why is every "successful" (in the sense that they were capable of cultural and technological progress and military success) cultures monogamous/polyandrous/something similar to it?
What? Polyandry is incredibly rare, only found in regions where the ratio of arable land to people is extraordinarily low, like in the Himalayan foothills.
>>441831
I meant polygynous
>>441839
Outside of the elite here and there, I don't think polygyny was that common either. It simply isn't efficient considering the more children you have, the thinner their inheritance will be.
Monogamy, and even polyandry, are considerably more balanced systems. You don't get competition between the spouses, and your progeny doesn't have to worry about getting something after your death (not as much, at least).
>>441823
Are they successful because of monogamy etc though?
>"The sexes differ more in human beings than in monogamous mammals, but much less than in extremely polygamous mammals."[89] One proposed explanation is that human sexuality has developed more in common with its close relative the bonobo, who have similar sexual dimorphism and which are polygynandrous and use recreational sex to reinforce social bonds and reduce aggression.
>>441866
Yeah that's also something I meant to ask. Was being monogamous absolutely necessary for civilization to occur?
>>441868
What do you mean by civilization? I don't think it was necessary by all means. The most civilized parts of the world are now monogamous but there have been numerous examples of different civilisations being succesful (some Celts in Britain IIRC, the Arabs, who were arguably more civilised than Europe at the time of the Crusades etc.).
>>441823
Probably because, in a very loose sense, it's an evolutionary advantage. Tribes that embraced monogamy raised healthier, stronger offspring that were more likely to survive.
Monogamy encourages inhibition and self-control.
>>441856
>inheritance
Inheritance doesn't have to split.
it's not really the case. the ancien regime was extremely successful in all regards towards its end and affairs were encouraged amongst the aristocrats once a woman had given birth to a large number of children
>>441990
but i'll add that generally they are successful probably because monogamy coincides with inheritance, because land ownership is a building block of a successful civilisation
>>441986
Even in a case where inheritance isn't split, taking care of the extra children would cost resources, getting boys an apprenticeship/sending them off to a monastery as well, doshing out a dowry for every daughter you want to marry even moreso.
Not to mention that in the case of a polygynist arrangement, the half-brothers of your heir or their mothers are more likely to start plotting against one another, things might very well turn full Ottoman.
Having a boatload of children early on was a luxury more than anything, and inheritance absolutely had something to do with it.
