Huh, really? I thought there were slightly more women than men, but maybe that depends on the economies etc.
As for your second point, yes, exactly. They don’t reproduce. So it doesn’t matter if many men get one wife each, or if a few men get many wives each, the number of pregnancies won’t change, and the number of pregnancy-related deaths won’t change either. So (again), I don’t see how polygyny helps in this situation.
Multiple wives => redundant wives. Solves the issue of mothers dying in pregnancy. The more wives you have, the more you expect to survive to be able to care for the children. Having only one wife, on the other hand, means all your eggs are in one basket (apologies)!
Huh, really? I thought there were slightly more women than men, but maybe that depends on the economies etc.
As for your second point, yes, exactly. They don’t reproduce. So it doesn’t matter if many men get one wife each, or if a few men get many wives each, the number of pregnancies won’t change, and the number of pregnancy-related deaths won’t change either. So (again), I don’t see how polygyny helps in this situation.
I guess I’ve forgotten what the problem was exactly. High maternal mortality? How is that not solved by having many redundant wives?
You don’t just “have many redundant wives”. It starts out roughly 50/50 from birth no matter what you do.
You either have more women by having a lot of single men, or a lot of dead men, or by taking women from other places.
Yes I mentioned that earlier in the thread. Polygyny = some men have many wives, others have none.
Which does nothing to help with the issue of mothers dying from pregnancy, unless there’s something more that you know?
Multiple wives => redundant wives. Solves the issue of mothers dying in pregnancy. The more wives you have, the more you expect to survive to be able to care for the children. Having only one wife, on the other hand, means all your eggs are in one basket (apologies)!