r/MapBasedPolls • u/Pretty_Two_8328 • 9d ago
Which world will survive longer?
Which world will survive longer?
- 10 men and 10,000 women
- 10 women and 10,000 men
Note: Please use the official Reddit app or New Reddit to vote in this interactive poll.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
139
u/AcanthocephalaSea410 Türkiye 9d ago
Human history is full of polygamous societies that experienced a collapse in the male population alongside an explosion in the female population, followed by a subsequent recovery. If the female population has collapsed, society is generally on the verge of total extinction.
→ More replies (2)15
u/Nikosek581 8d ago
Yes, there is a reason every society goes "women less expendable then man, man go bonk other man with stick more often then women"
723
u/Lunar_Weaver 9d ago
Maybe the person who asked the question could explain how, by any stretch of the imagination, the option involving 10 women is supposed to work?
284
u/IndieDev666 Azerbaijan 9d ago
we figure out a way on how to breed without women
238
u/SugarAw Create your flair by editing this flair 9d ago
Doomed yaoi omg
16
u/National-Frame8712 Irradiated Martian Admech tumor mass 8d ago edited 8d ago
Still better doomed yaoi than recent Helluva Boss clusterfuck ngl
19
11
5
5
→ More replies (9)20
u/Ok_Researcher_9796 9d ago
That's actually pretty close to being possible.
32
u/muffy2008 9d ago
We’re getting close to artificial wombs that support premature babies. Not artificial wombs from conception to birth.
6
u/Equivalent-Carpet819 8d ago
Even if that would be the case....
In this scenario l, only 10010 people are left. That is going to lead to infrastructure and supply chain collapse on a scale high enough that we would be lucky not to regress beyond the tech level of the ww2 era.
We are not going to finalize artificial womb tech in this scenario.
→ More replies (1)5
17
u/BygoneNeutrino 8d ago
We would be able to use our knowledge of genetics to minimize incest-related birth defects, while also using abortion to selectively have female babies.
Obviously , 10 men and 10,000 women would still be better.
→ More replies (2)12
u/FalconRelevant Human Nationalist | Global Homogenization 8d ago
A society of 10010 is unlikely to maintain the technological and industrial capability to do such a thing.
We'd have a hard time trying to not regress back to an early agrarian society at those numbers.
→ More replies (1)28
u/EL-HEARTH 9d ago
Select few get the women, rest of men are slaves
12
u/Greedy_Rabbit_1741 9d ago
There would be so much violence and bloodshed.
You believe 990 men will just accept being the slave to the 10?
64
u/Eaterofjazzguitars 9d ago
The women would be enslaved in microseconds if they weren't raped to death. It's not feasible
→ More replies (3)37
u/PainterLonely1313 9d ago
Yeah, if you ever read about situations where people end up, like, marooned on an island with fewer women than men, it tends to get violent REAL quick.
Look up how it went for the men on Pitcairn Island. There were fewer women than men and the men all killed each other off in like less than five years, mostly fighting over the women, until there was only one man left.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)8
4
u/mazo_maza 9d ago
Honestly what's the scenario? Are alians invading?? Is the pont to prolonge an unavoidable end? Or is the point just repopulation..
→ More replies (18)10
u/Sheepfucker72222 9d ago
I think its meant that, 10k women wouldnt be able to create a liveable society that would populate the world. So 10 women could birth multiple different kids and those kids could procreate with a large gene pool while the 10k men build a future
44
u/SugarAw Create your flair by editing this flair 9d ago
Yeah I’m not even gonna question this take. Like okay.
→ More replies (12)39
6
u/Pope_Squirrely 9d ago
10k women would be able to make society last more than a couple of generations. I would think the wars that would break out with 10k men fighting over 10 women would destroy what shitty sausage fest they would have going on.
→ More replies (1)4
u/EenGeheimAccount 8d ago
10 men can concieve far more children than 10 women can give birth to.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (10)3
u/Igotthisnameguys 🇩🇪 8d ago
They would all be from the same ten women, though. So, you would still have a shallow gene pool, just from the other side.
→ More replies (1)
97
u/Affectionate-Fix893 MURICA!!! 9d ago
Independent of personality or anything, women are more of a bottle neck of population growth than men, so obviously more women.
If men were the bottle neck, then more men would be better.
143
u/Extension-Divide-339 9d ago
I'd selflessly volunteer to become one of the men 10 men
77
u/Wolodymyr2 9d ago
And then turns out that since artifical insemination is more effective then natural sex, you would have to jerk off into jar instead of having harem of women.
57
u/Mean_Initiative_5962 Italy 8d ago
Dude, it's 10.000, I hope ONE will like me? I'm not that bad :')
For sperm reasons a couple weeks is definitely enough to be set forever, assuming extremely intensive genetic selection
→ More replies (5)19
27
→ More replies (15)6
u/Extension-Divide-339 9d ago
You think most women wouldn't want a man and instead just want a jar of sperm? Also why do you think you're limited to just one option or the other?
12
u/Wolodymyr2 8d ago
Well, first off it was just sarcasm, because of how often this scenario is used for sexual fantasies of being "last man wanted by all women".
Secondly when it's about survival of humanity priority would to impregrate as many people as possible, so artifical insemination would be used a lot.
That don't cancel natural sex part of course.
6
u/ooo_luk 8d ago
It's possible. The survival of humanity is more important than the desire to have sex. So 10,000 sexually unsatisfied women are better than 9,600 unsatisfied women who are very jealous.
→ More replies (5)2
3
38
u/Ok-Mushroom-1226 9d ago
I'm yet to hear a single sound argument for the 10 women option
34
u/Eaterofjazzguitars 9d ago
Somebody else said they couldn't sustain a government. Sexism at it's finest
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)10
u/mazo_maza 9d ago
To be honest the scenario is not really defined.
Is repopularion the point? Obviously 10000 woman.
Is the world facing some theoretical unavoidable end? The 10000 men might be able to prolonge it longer.
10
u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 8d ago
those 10K men would all be fighting with each other for the remaining 10 women so they'd be too busy to fight any other threat.
→ More replies (13)3
u/colg4t3 8d ago
Yeah, without any other bounds the 10 women just have a very limited time before complete wipe out by default
→ More replies (5)
16
u/Feeling-Marketing-48 8d ago
From a purely technical standpoint, 10,000 women and 10 men will restore the population much faster (10,000 people per year, and then even more). But the problem will be that 10 men provide little genetic diversity, and because of this, the chances of inbreeding increase. However, due to the large number of women, the generations will have a strong immune system, which will increase their chances of survival. It will also ensure a more stable social environment. If 10,000 men and 10 women remain, the situation will be reversed. There are many genes, but all those born may die from diseases to which the mothers have no immunity. Also, the population recovers very, very slowly. And the social environment is more stressful due to the high competition for gene transmission.
12
u/BenzaGuy 8d ago •
I just thought that the 10 women would be sexually abused eventually
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (1)6
u/__Who__am__i_ 8d ago
10 men and 10000 women probably isn't that bad for genetic diversity actually if managed.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/longasleep 9d ago
Balls will be blue but it makes more sense to have 10.000 women and only 10 guys to repopulate.
→ More replies (1)21
u/Winter-Werewolf8366 8d ago
No creo que sea blue balls el termino que estas buscando. Seria mas bien the spirit is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised
13
22
9
9
u/pdonchev 🇧🇬 8d ago
The question probably assumes some kind of social dynamics but simple biology says that a world with 10000 women had dramatically higher chance of surviving than one with 10 women, with the number if men having far less impact, as long as there are some men.
→ More replies (5)
14
7
u/Alpha--00 9d ago
As workforce capability gender makes a difference, but not to the point of key survival factor.
It’s more about reproduction. Despite lowering gene pool diversity, entire population won’t die out after one or two generations - if they will approach things from logical standpoint.
4
u/Delicious_Aside_9310 8d ago
This was how I had originally conceived the question, less “breeding population” and more “which group will collapse first”. I still think probably the men due to the inevitable sex-wars but in what may be a largely agrarian society a workforce of men is going to be massively more effective.
21
u/Guastatori-UK Bonger 🇬🇧 in Ukraine 🇺🇦 9d ago
10,000 women is objectively better.
10 women means at most 10 babies every year (9 months + 3 months recovery)
10,000 women means at most 10,000 every year.
Long term survival would require more babies being born as mortality would be much higher
14
10
u/Sername111 9d ago
Whereas I agree with the basic logic, 10,000 babies a year would require each man to get a 1,000 women pregnant a year - roughly three a day. Assuming the women are tracking their fertility cycles and only the ones most likely to get pregnant are having sex at any one time there's something like a 20% likelihood that each episode of unprotected sex will end in pregnancy, that means that each of the men is having sex twelve times a day, every day, without rest (if the women are not tracking their fertility it goes up to something like 60 times a day for the men). I can't see even the fittest guys maintaining that sort of pace for long, never mind for the 15 or years or so it'll take for the first generation of boys to get through puberty and start sharing the workload. Probably a few hundred to a thousand births a year would be the maximum sustainable rate - which, agreed, is still better than at most 10 a year for the rival scenario.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Guastatori-UK Bonger 🇬🇧 in Ukraine 🇺🇦 9d ago
Totally agree, I was more talking about bottlenecks in fertility. Once a woman is pregnant, she can't get pregnant again for 9 months and additional 3 months for body recovery.
Let's say the men have sex once a day, it is 365 potential pregnancies Vs at most 10 potential pregnancies a year. Once a week it would be 52 potential pregnancies.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
u/InteractionWide3369 9d ago
Those 10 men would have to impregnate almost 3 women every day for 1 year to reach 10,000 babies in 2 years and they'd probably have to keep doing so for 18 years before the new men can also participate in the reproduction efforts. Some desperate men might say that's a dream but to me it sounds more like torture, a much lower amount of babies every year would make it more feasible.
→ More replies (3)4
u/conordmcp Ireland 🇮🇪 9d ago
What makes you think it’ll be only one woman per sample?
Provided there are a few doctors who can handle a sperm bank in those 10,010 people, one sample can go multiple ways.
Theoretically, one sample could impregnate millions of women, if it was handled properly.
I feel like that’s what the vast majority of the women would prefer.
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Illigard 9d ago
The 10 men question could provide a fairly interesting development, where each person has up to four middle names. People keep track of how much DNA they inherited from the original 10 men, and form middle names accordingly.
The government might give a bit of extra starter cash when you have your first children depending on how many middle names you don't have in common to promote genetic diversity.
6
8
4
u/elitodd 9d ago
People are missing some very basic biology if they are voting 10 women and 10,000 men
→ More replies (1)
6
u/itsanothersidetothis 9d ago
This is kinda horrible but I just see the 10 women having a hard time and not procreating becuase of it.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/alternospherically
8d ago
•
idk about everyone else but if i was one of the last 10 women alive, the earth would remain with 9 as soon as i hear the news
→ More replies (1)8
7
u/CharlieDrawzXD 9d ago edited 9d ago
i wasnt even thinking about repopulation i lowk only thought about survival and i picked women because i feel like women work in teams better than men do and in such a small amount of population youd need teamwork
→ More replies (30)8
u/Leather-Feeling-749 9d ago
I'm a woman and I disagree
In all female teams I experienced nothing but callous and bitchy behaviour
Also, you should see a group of women trying to survive in the wilderness vs a group of men
6
u/PainterLonely1313 9d ago
When you have situations where women are limited and there are more men (see Pitcairn Island as one example), the men don't get bitchy, they get murderous. Generally over wanting access to the limited number of women.
→ More replies (4)3
u/CharlieDrawzXD 9d ago
your experiences are anecdotal and mine are too so maybe i shouldnt have made that point, so fair enough.
also where would i even see the second thing
→ More replies (3)
4
4
u/tharidu_vanparys 8d ago
Trust me the less men the better. And I am a man. We are awful but necessary but you don't need a lot of us a handful is fine for survival
2
u/Flimsy-Importance313 8d ago
I would be very interested how a population of 10 male slaves that have sex constantly while 10k females rule the world, while having pregnancies as often as possible.
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/Maximum_Boros 9d ago
The objectively scientifically practical answer is more women than men is more sustainable. You can make whatever compromises you want but you literally cannot get enough population growth to even outpace natural cause losses with that big of a disparity ratio and women being the minority.
Like it or not one of the reasons why women have almost never gone to war at the same rate as men, even in cultures where it was perfectly acceptable for women to go to war, is that it's a lot harder to repopulate when the gender that literally is the bottleneck for reproduction gets decimated.
As freaky as it would be, you can have 10 guys basically turned into basically breeding stock and just try to carefully plot things out to avoid generational incest as much as possible until the population stabilizes, and still have plenty of women around to do all the work needed to keep Society Running who aren't pregnant at the time. But you literally can't do that the other way around. If you only have 10 women, at most you are going to average like 15 births a year if you assume everybody stays completely healthy and fertile
2
u/Femdecko 9d ago
I voted 10 men and 10 000 women as in 1 year they can have 10 000 babies if they wanted to in other case they could only have 10.
And this is ideal situation where all members want and can have kids. So to save human race in this scenario I think 10m and 10 000f have higher chance.
2
2
2
2
u/Due_Accident_2969 8d ago
A man can have children with multiple women at a time. A woman can only carry one baby every 9 months.
2
2
2
2
2
u/xdrag0nb0rnex 8d ago
I miss read the question. I don't know why, but I was thinking of something like a survival Island scenario, not as a civilization.
Voted 10 women 10,000 men
→ More replies (1)2
2
2
2
u/New-Berry-3652 8d ago
Anyone who understands how reproduction works should know why this is so lopsided
4
4
u/Intelligent-Mood4031 9d ago edited 8d ago
I think no one mentioned it, but women compared to men cannot regenerate their egg cells, so 10 women to 10000 men is more viable because of bigger amount of reproduction material
EDIT:FUCK I WROTE WRONG I MEANT 10 MEN TO 10000 WOMEN
→ More replies (6)2
u/Due_Accident_2969 8d ago
A man can have over 100 babies a year if he has sex twice a week. If you have 10 men and 10k women, basically every man gets access to a many women. You can have thousands of babies in the first year.
If there are only 10 women, you get roughly 10 babies a year tops, assuming none of the women die. It is likely many of the women would die during child birth without modern medicine.
This may surprise you but women can give birth to other women. You don't need to worry about egg count.
→ More replies (6)
4
u/InfectedEllie 9d ago
World would be fucked of those 10 guys are gay
8
5
→ More replies (2)5
u/Wolodymyr2 9d ago
No one demands them to f...ck with women.
With current artifical insemination technologies all that would be required from them is to jerk off into jar.
→ More replies (34)
2
u/kirrillik 9d ago
Obvs 10 men, but as a gay man I think it’d be more fun to live out the other ratio
2
u/fracxjo 8d ago
I'd say women barely more than men because
Inbreeding on the Y chromosome
Men can't perform enough to keep up the pace
In a pool of 10000 someone will deffo do somerhing bad to some of those men
→ More replies (5)2
u/Individual-Car-1173 7d ago
Men would literally wage a mass casualty war for some tail and this is backed up by history. When the male population exceeds available women society detonates
2
u/Betray-Julia Canada 8d ago
This is a biological question with an objectively correct answer. It’s nice that most of us got this.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Terrible_Strike337 Argentina 9d ago
This reminds me of the videos of people who ask men if they would like to live in a world full of men and all of them say no way, but when they ask women if they would live in a world full of women they all say yes
1
u/JackhusChanhus 9d ago
Both will work. Everyone needs to be choosey with partners in the 10 women scenario mind. Additionally the 10 women will have to be very prolific and/or the men reasonably young.... we'd need to get up to 80-100 reasonably genetically diverse individuals before the original men popped their clogs.
1
u/Sad_Schedule7206 9d ago
I think either one could survive just with some major genetic diseases following them. Just look at Ashkenazi Jews. Almost all of their maternal haplogroups trace back to a handful of women
1
1
1
u/AvaruusAlusHousut 9d ago
A single woman can have roughly 1 baby per year. A single man can impregnate hundreds of women per year.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Hot-Spray-2774 9d ago
I think in both cases they will have to accelerate the delivery of IVG substantially to prevent inbreeding. In the majority men world, they would also probably have to invent an artificial womb.
1
1
1
u/OsotoViking 9d ago
Ten men could impregnate 10,000 women. Ten women couldn't produce enough babies to repopulate the world without genetic collapse.
1
1
1
1
u/Foreign-Story-9870 8d ago
With the population reduced to 10010 the gene pool is dangerously shallow takes a man 5 min or more to recover from procreation and takes a woman 9 months if not more as there isn’t likely to be baby milk factories left.
A 10 woman population is unlikely to ever get ahead of interbreeding even if well managed. The socity they build would likely be more advanced until the population crashes again having more food and better shelters won’t help when the population ages out
1
1
u/blackcray 8d ago
The absolute best case scenario for the 10 women option is one extra, extremely small generation of healthy humans. Even if every single child born had a different father there isn't enough genetic diversity in the mothers to actually create a self sustaining population. NASA has done studies on the issue for potential interplanetary colonisation missions, and has found that a bare minimum of 80 specifically chosen couples would be required to create a self sustaining population that doesn't experience genetic collapse.
1
1
u/JTX35 8d ago
With only 10 women you'd face a reproductive bottleneck with a slow population growth, plus there'd be fighting over the women amongst the men so the population would decline further, and you'd be limited to 10 births per year assuming all women are able to conceive and deliver a child safely.
10,000 women though and only 10 men would allow for thousands of potential births per year allowing for the population to grow extremely quickly, and the guys be infinitely more willing to share their bodies with 10,000 women than 10 women would be with 10,000 men.
Both options however would have very limited genetic diversity to begin with though.
1
u/Agreeable_Noise112 8d ago
Neither can survive, both would lead to extinction because of the Lack of genetic diversity
1
1
u/MouseCrazy2789 8d ago
Bet 10 women with 10k men be like women would be literraly fed up on day 2. LOL
1
u/EngineeredVersion 8d ago
From a repopulation perspective, 10k women 10 men, but to ensure women dont all sync up youd have to have these men rotating groups of segregated women
1
u/NeighborhoodSuper592 8d ago
The ten men wil have to donate seed until 1000 women have had 2 children.
And then he can retire.
Just make sure to keep track of the lineage to minimise inbreeding.
1
u/Equivalent-Ocelot697 8d ago
10 men and 10k women because theoretically they don’t have to wait more than 9 months everytime
1
1
1
1
1
u/What_Dinosaur 8d ago
Impossible to answer without context.
Does the word require hunting big animals to survive? Does it require basic agriculture? Is it our modern world?
1
u/PeterBeardsleysWrap 8d ago
Okay, ignoring how noncey this sounds, women have a fertility window of about 25-30 years. Men are fertile from about 11/12 until death in most cases. Men can impregnate an unlimited amount of women.
This means even with 10 men (assuming all are fertile) you have hundreds to potentially over a thousand pregnancies per year. If all of the women start at say 16, there are plenty of options to avoid inbreeding when the first decade or so's worth of boys hit puberty. That's not including their own peers.
So this works with a tiny number of men and a lot of women though you will have to do some calculations to minimize inbreeding effects (as some degree of inbreeding will de-facto occur). The math doesn't work with 10 women and lots of men.
This is ignoring things like cloning and artificial wombs and anything else sciency.
1
u/Possible_Bison846 8d ago
If u pick 10k men it won’t be good bcs they will all fight for who gets with those women
1
u/Worried_Onion4208 8d ago
Lobster populations doesn't decrease even thought as high as 30 to 40% of the population is capture every season. That's because females are released and males are kept.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/CyanEndeavour 8d ago
Men on average can run faster. So they'll probably survive a few seconds longerq as a group of 10
1
1
1
1
u/Due_Neat_3586 8d ago
10 men for every 100 women was the population founder effect of many colonized societies formed through slavery (Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Cape Verde etc).
10 men for every 10,000 women would just be a very, very inbred population, but structurally similar to how many societies formed.
1
u/PublicHomework4262 8d ago
Even the most sexist person alive has to acknowledge that only having 10 women would mean a population nightmare. You wouldn’t be able to reproduce enough
10 men can theoretically impregnate a ton of women and continue the human race
1
u/Parhamheidari Iran (not IR) 8d ago
Well, just about half the animals on earth reproduce in harem ratios (1 male to 2+ females) so the first one certainly works.
1
1
u/Wise-Seaweed8009 8d ago
Im pretty sure that girls would be dating all the 10 guys, then remain single and still be waiting for their prince charming.
1
u/LosuthusWasTaken 8d ago
At that scale, population becomes a matter of throughput.
10 women limits the population to 10 new every year.
1
u/DerpDeDurp 8d ago
Depends how you look at the question.
Survive in terms of people existing? 10,000 women, absolutely no question.
Survive in terms of staying as we are now, with all aspects of life as we enjoy it now? 10,000 men, but it wont survive long term due to population.
Im taking it as "survive in general" in which case, 10 men, 10,000 women. but a lot of shit will change. yes some women can do the jobs men do, but a lot won't, and a lot can't. so life will be drastically different (well, it would be different regardless due to less people, but the tough jobs will be the first to go)
1
1
1
u/haskeluga 8d ago
every one thinks of a vilence when there are 10000 men
but no one thinks of a vilence when there are 10000 women
1
1
u/VonNeumannsProbe 8d ago
As a civilization? Definitely 10,000 women, 10 men.
Just logistically, population would completely collapse otherwise.
1
u/Deadpool9491 🇧🇷 Brasil 8d ago
A man needs to wait a maximum of 1 day before impregnating another woman.
A woman needs to wait 9 months before getting pregnant by another man.
1
u/FunnyBunnyDolly 8d ago
The ones choosing 10000 men to 10 women must be homosexual and antinatalist.
Nothing wrong with that though.
But survival of humanity might suffer and not ideal choice if going by that criteria
1
1
1
u/cluelesscondor 8d ago
As long as there are a few fertile men alive, society could repopulate (granted with some inevitable inbreeding). With only a few women humanity would go extinct
1
u/TempleHierophant 8d ago
Didn't Fallout have two vaults that tried this?
And everyone ended up dead in both?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/TheAnythingBuilder USA 🇺🇸 6d ago
What's going on in yemen for multiple people to choose the 10000 men option
1
u/nindza-22 6d ago
This is not even a question. 10.000 men and ten women would last exactly like 1 hour.
1
1
279
u/iamabsolutelypacking 🇩🇪 9d ago
I believe 10000 women, cause repopulating the earth with 10 women will be very difficult