After my recent "sexy-time" post, I am now discussing some of the possible consequences.
I have been browsing the CIA world fact book and noticed that, in the world, there is huge discrepancy in population between males and females between the ages of 15-64 (using the CIA data's age ranges). It appears there may 51,732,166 more men than women in this age range. Then there is the age of 0 to 14 where there are 48,977,175 more males than females.
In the older ages the women live longer so there are 56,986,505 more women 65 and older than men. This still means that there are 43,722,836 more males than females in the world and there really are 100,709,341 more males than females that are under 65.
Think about it, under the age of 65, there are One-hundred-Million more males than females in this world.
Nature tries to even out population. If left to nature, gender populations curiously balance. The balance even seems to correct for war, risky behaviors of young men driven by testosterone and other factors.
The apparent explanation for the population difference lies largely with cultural attitudes of countries on the Asian continent, primarily China and India.
China has about 43,494,720 more males under 65 than females.
India has 33,320,388 more males than females in this same range.
Each has well over a billion people in total.
Do we credit the Kama Sutra?
These 2 countries account for about 76% of the gender discrepancy, with their neighbors and the culturally similar diaspora of each world wide accounting for a good portion of the rest.
There are really two different attitudes with one result, more boys.
In China, I have gathered that the general feeling is that because Boys can carry on the family name in the traditions of the culture, they are sometimes preferred. Under a "one-child-only" (per couple) policy, proud chinese families may opt to go for a boy and not a girl in order to carry on the name. Some feel a duty to the needs of the state regarding reproduction generally.
In India, it seems to lean more toward the traditional notion that sons care for parents while daughters cost the parents a large dowry or "wedding gift". In addition to this Dowry, given to the family of whomever the girl marries, the daughter is also "given away" to this other family who now benefit from her economic contributions.
I can see that it makes sense in one family to consider these options, but there are externalities created when some choose to have sons.
In China, the microcosmic family planning regarding the propogation of a surname through male offspring does not seem to take into account the global issue of with whom the propogation can possibly take place. With so many families choosing for boys, there simply aren't girls in the country for every boy to marry with whom they can continue family lines.
In India it is a similar problem. It is all good and well to be the smart family that brings in the dowry and keeps the next generation of sons in the family rather than the one that has daughters, has to pay up and lose the "retirement plan". Yet, when too many families do this, there will not be women, nor dowries to be had. Still these sad sons can do nothing with life but support their parents. They are like modern Eunuchs who must endure a lonely life without the prospect of marriage, yet as fully functioning men with all their natural desires intact.
Before I jump into what it all means, let's check into how it is done.
Not to "split heirs" here, but sometimes, as in animal breeding practices, centrifuges are used to divide the male sperm from female sperm. Thus ensuring that an artificial insemination is with the right stuff for the desired outcome...err....result.
That's right, the fathers bring the gender destiny to the reproductive picture. A quick global apology on behalf of all men to medieval women who were shunned, mistreated or even killed for not "giving their man" a son when commanded.
Even modern women still read "wives tales" about "what to do when" to pre-determine the gender of a child.
There is the dirty secret of rumored intentional drowning of girls, abandonment to exposure or starvation death. Abortion is probably a large part of the picture.
These figures already account for the living, so orphaned girls cannot serve to reduce the discrepancy.
What does it all mean?
It means that there are 50 million single men who can't find a wife anywhere on the planet...and there will be 50 million more growing into age 18 soon, long before the other 50 million are 65.
They won't all be Chinese and East-Indian. Many upper class, rich, goodlooking men from these cultures will marry women from other societies. That is natural, though also does not resolve the descrepancy, not by one soul. So there are still 100 million men on earth with no marriage prospects or no chance at any kind of exclusive relationship with a woman. Isn't this a formula for unrest?
What are these men up to? We have established that this gender discrepancy can transfer to anyone around the world, so these men could be from anywhere. They are available to be recruited by terrorist groups who promise them exactly what they cannot find in life, but must die to get (70 virgins or some impossible ratio). An over-abundance of men on the earth makes some seem expendable for war or suicide bombings to some cultures. The needs of this 100 million could be part of the source of pressure to traffic women from poorer countries into sexual slavery. Moldova is a prime example of a country whose young women are frequently lured into sexual slavery in places like Turkey with the promise of reputable jobs. Even if some 7% or so of the single men are gay, that still leaves 93 million men with no wives. Add on the double reduction for each lesbian couple, and the insanely self-serving anti-social practice of polygamy and the discrepancy goes right back up.
Perhaps western countries at near gender parity, could have a campaign like "Make girls for peace".
I believe this is a serious social problem of our time. It stems from simple household economics or pride which do not translate to a macro-scale. The best case scenario would be that we have a lot of extra peace-keeping troops at hand. Educated, nerdy, lonely, horny peace-keeping troops with loaded guns they never have cause to fire.