halconero Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness.Does anyone have a source on this?
Calm Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) "but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness."My understanding of that would be reversed, given that polygynous wives would have fewer children and generally speaking plural marriage gave to women who were alone or without financial means access to greater economic stability which would tend to increase fitness.My memory says Kathryn Daynes' work covers this. Edited March 4, 2014 by calmoriah
omni Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness. That would only make sense, but I believe the reason given for polygamy was to "raise up a righteous seed". 1
cinepro Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 The problem with polygamy is that it creates a surplus of unmarried marriageable men. This surplus needs to be managed, either by removing the men from the community (i.e. sending them on missions, or otherwise getting them to leave), or by increasing the number of women available for marriage by lowering the age or importing more women from outside the community. Unless there is some sort of imbalance that has created a surplus of marriageable women (for example, all those men that died crossing the plains ), there probably won't be an increase in birthrate for the community. Just my guess.
thesometimesaint Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Polygamy really only works with an unlimited number of females. While it maybe supportable for a short duration of time among a very limited number of participants. Long term it is doomed to failure by simple demographics. More males are born than females in humans. It is only the higher death rate among younger males that keeps the numbers in rough balance.
halconero Posted March 4, 2014 Author Posted March 4, 2014 All of this makes sense, I'm just looking for some sources. I'm writing a paper about the effects of kinship and marriage in genetics and selection. I remember an article about Utah polygamy and its effects, but I can't find it for the life of me.
Calm Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) http://www.amazon.com/More-Wives-Than-One-Transformation/dp/0252075609https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=engThis is simple but has some links that might have been what you read. Edited March 4, 2014 by calmoriah
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness.Does anyone have a source on this?I have a good friend, who was married 3 times (outlived two wives). When I went to his 80th Birthday party, from his 11 children, on his 80th Birthday he had 80 descendants.
Ahab Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness.Does anyone have a source on this?If a less fit woman dies from polygamy, presumably after having some children, then the man would be free to marry again, presumably a woman who could have more children, and thus there would be more people in the population with women who are less fit dying and making more marriages possible.
Calm Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Hal, Greg Smith may know what you are talking about, you can contact him through FairMormon.
Okrahomer Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) All of this makes sense, I'm just looking for some sources. I'm writing a paper about the effects of kinship and marriage in genetics and selection. I remember an article about Utah polygamy and its effects, but I can't find it for the life of me.You might be thinking of this study:http://stoppolygamyincanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/moorad-et-al-2010-evol-hum-behav-3.pdfhttp://newsinfo.iu.edu/news-archive/16939.html Edited March 5, 2014 by Okrahomer
katherine the great Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 All of this makes sense, I'm just looking for some sources. I'm writing a paper about the effects of kinship and marriage in genetics and selection. I remember an article about Utah polygamy and its effects, but I can't find it for the life of me.I think the "fitness" they are describing is a woman's reproductive fitness--not her health. Polygamy definitely decreases a woman's reproductive fitness in general. It obviously greatly enhances a man's reproductive fitness.
katherine the great Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Polygamy really only works with an unlimited number of females. While it maybe supportable for a short duration of time among a very limited number of participants. Long term it is doomed to failure by simple demographics. More males are born than females in humans. It is only the higher death rate among younger males that keeps the numbers in rough balance.Polygyny works when a few men have control of most of the resources and women are readily available (or clumped) near those resources. This is the scenario in all successful, long term polygynous societies.
Storm Rider Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Polygamy really only works with an unlimited number of females. While it maybe supportable for a short duration of time among a very limited number of participants. Long term it is doomed to failure by simple demographics. More males are born than females in humans. It is only the higher death rate among younger males that keeps the numbers in rough balance. Your proposal works only if polygamy is practiced by all men. This has never been practiced by the LDS Church; the practice of polygamy was only practiced by a minority (I have heard others say as few as 5% to as high as 30% of the membership). If a group was going to practice polygamy and as long as they restricted who could practice it, then it could continue indefinitely.
katherine the great Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Your proposal works only if polygamy is practiced by all men. It can't be practiced by all men. The numbers just don't work. In all polygynous societies I know of, culture dictates that a man has to have the means to support multiple wives. This generally means the rich guys get all the women. 1
Storm Rider Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 It can't be practiced by all men. The numbers just don't work. In all polygynous societies I know of, culture dictates that a man has to have the means to support multiple wives. This generally means the rich guys get all the women. I think what I said in my post was that polygamy can only work if it is practiced by a minority of men. In words we are saying the same thing; if the attempt is to have all men practice polygamy it breaks down under its own weight.
thesometimesaint Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Polygyny works when a few men have control of most of the resources and women are readily available (or clumped) near those resources. This is the scenario in all successful, long term polygynous societies. Agreed. What I was in reference to is the idea that polygamy is viable for all men over longer periods of time. The LDS controlled it by removing most men, at sexual maturity, from consideration.
Calm Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 . The LDS controlled it by removing most men, at sexual maturity, from consideration.For plural marriage, right? Not just marriage....studies after show a higher rate of men married in Utah at the time in comparison with other parts of the US.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness.Does anyone have a source on this?Citing raw census figures is irrelevant to the issue. The intent was not necessarily to increase the general population of the Utah Territory but to make available more righteous and faithful Latter-day Saint households into which spirits could be born so as to increase the number of righteous lineages, thereby fortifying the Church so it could carry forward the mission to carry the gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It's hard to argue that plural marriage did not accomplish this when you consider the high proportion of Church members today with Mormon pioneer ancestry who stem from plural marriage.
saemo Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 I've heard that some studies conducted on Utah's population discovered that polygamous unions didn't actually increase population, but actually decreased a woman's individual fitness.Does anyone have a source on this?Logically, one woman married to one man is not going to produce any more children than than a woman who is married to a man with multiple partners. Obviously, the man has more children, but also obvious is that the woman does not. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) Logically, one woman married to one man is not going to produce any more children than than a woman who is married to a man with multiple partners. Obviously, the man has more children, but also obvious is that the woman does not.But arguably a righteous woman in a marriage to a righteous man, though he has other wives, is more apt to produce progeny who are faithful in the gospel than if she were stuck with an unbelieving husband because she lacked options. Edited March 5, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
thesometimesaint Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Your proposal works only if polygamy is practiced by all men. This has never been practiced by the LDS Church; the practice of polygamy was only practiced by a minority (I have heard others say as few as 5% to as high as 30% of the membership). If a group was going to practice polygamy and as long as they restricted who could practice it, then it could continue indefinitely. I see nothing inherently wrong with men that would automatically preclude them all from practicing polygamy. Yes the Church practiced a limited form of polygamy. Never said otherwise. The sticking point is that more men are born than women. So there is an ever decreasing amount of females relative to males for reproduction.
saemo Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 (edited) But arguably a righteous woman in a marriage to a righteous man, though he has other wives, is more apt to produce progeny who are faithful in the gospel than if she were stuck with an unbelieving husband. Which, has nothing to do with the effect of polygamy on a population. Has more to do with evolutionary ideas of males increasing their own progeny. Edited March 5, 2014 by saemo
Scott Lloyd Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Which, has nothing to do with the effect of polygamy on a population.Did you miss my post wherein I said that the effect on the general population is irrelevant to the intent for which plural marriage was instituted for a limited time among Latter-day Saints?
saemo Posted March 5, 2014 Posted March 5, 2014 Did you miss my post wherein I said that the effect on the general population is irrelevant to the intent for which plural marriage was instituted for a limited time among Latter-day Saints? To which, I roll my eyes! As has been pointed out, census figures do not support the legend of more women in Utah than men. 1
Recommended Posts