论Lemin Wu关于马尔萨斯陷阱与一夫一妻制论述中的错误

论Lemin Wu关于马尔萨斯陷阱与一夫一妻制论述中的错误

Lemin Wu在其论文Does Malthus Really Explain the Constancy of Living Standards?

中认为马尔萨斯陷阱的形成是人口群体迁徙选择的结果、用一克拉钻石对“生存和繁衍”的贡献小于等重的谷物但却精英阶层却选择钻石而非谷物作为开端，用“生存和繁衍”作为指标去加以论证，还用了很多代数关系去“证明”，但这些代数的应用的大前提条件其实在那篇论文那里应该是被误用了的，马尔萨斯陷阱现象的社会活动的条件应该是不符合那些代数关系的公式被应用时的元素集合的大前提的，精英阶层选择钻石而非谷物是因为谷物过剩而并非因为因为别的；更奇的是Wu还把一夫一妻也给当成是这种“群体选择”的结果、把精英阶层的一夫多妻比喻成部落里的精英阶层更多收集没有什么实用价值的珍珠和钻石而不是粮食、然后把一夫一妻的平民阶层给比喻成收集更多实用的粮食的部落里的平民、声称就像粮食比起钻石更能带来生存那样、一夫一妻能够节省“用于追求偶吸引异性的资源，资源更多地用于投入子女养育，有利于生物繁衍，所以平民阶层的群体更多选择一夫一妻，精英阶层虽然爱好一夫多妻，但却无力推动社会变成一夫多妻的制度……”，我真是没见过这么蠢的推理，首先“多妻”在绝大部分多妻的精英阶层男性那里并非是用来炫耀的产物，也并非“对生存和繁衍没有贡献”的多余的东西，它和谷物一样其实是正常生理欲望寻求丰富的满足的对象，这本来应该是正常的本能感觉，而且历史上的那些一夫多妻的社会贵族们的“多妻”，也并不是像Wu所说的那样好像有了“一妻”这种足够的粮食之后宁可收藏钻石和贝壳这类没有太大实用性的奢侈品，而是实实在在带来快乐实用、让生活享受性爱舒适快乐地改善生活的“必需品”，这个Wu是不是沉迷在抽象简化模型里、沉迷得巴不得把人当作机器，忽略掉人类正常本能感觉、不知道人类正常本能本来就是追求多配偶的丰富复杂的快乐和互利快乐互动，而这些互利的快乐互动的丰富复杂性其实简直都不需要额外逻辑推理、本来直接非常本能地就可以被人类熟悉地真切体验到和理解到那是对彼此生存更有利、彼此改善生活质量、彼此促进包括后代养育成活在内的生存适应状况的！

要知道人类不是机械，不是随便选择一个可以生育可以遗传基因于是就像“机械得到同一型号的不管哪个零件反正就用那个零件去开动运转输出功率似的复制基因制造后代就可以了”的那种机器人，”只要一个可以生育的异性、个体的性欲快乐和繁殖需要就好像“和哪个异性繁殖反正都是繁殖，和一个好像千篇一律没有个性个性化差异的异性去繁殖N个后代，以及和N个各自不同的异性总共繁殖N个后代，结果都一样都无所谓都没有区别，用不着而且也没有由此产生的欲望与满足上的差异”（很多原教旨达尔文主义的生物学者和经济学者就是这样认为的），那就显然大错特错，荒谬得离谱脱离事实得离谱，生物本身是要追求基因的多样性的，在基因的多样性组合的过程当中，丰富复杂的交流及其丰富复杂的身心发展成为可能，并非【只需要一个配偶“能够繁殖同样数量的后代就行”、于是好像一个配偶和多个配偶之间、配偶是这个还是是那个的情形之间似乎没有区别、不是有欲望有情感有丰富有血有肉的心身活体在感受和选择情欲与繁殖养育的关系、而是机器人在完成经济学家分配给机器人的“生育输出指定数量的后代，使这些后代成活”这等工业生产指标任务似的】的情形，人类不是个别经济学家如Wu常常犯的这种愚蠢的错误里的情形！很明显地，不同的配偶所带来的开放系统的开放性，除了导致基因多样性之外而导致对种群的有利（所以绝大部分高等动物都是多配偶的）之外，还同样地因为这样的开放系统所以促使个体也促使后代成长环境和后代成长之后的围绕着繁殖本能而展开的种群生活的心身交流的多样丰富复杂性，人累的心智情感以及语言和共情能力的发达和活跃正是在这样的基础上不断被强化地进化出来的。

如果真的是出于经济规律和生物规律的“一夫一妻”，人类几百万年来就应该绝大部分时候一直一夫一妻，然而不仅生物界极少一夫一妻的物种，人类绝大部分时候也不是一夫一妻的配偶关系形态，现代之前也只是在美索不达米亚、希腊和罗马、中世纪欧洲等极为有限的地区实行过名义上的一夫一妻，实际上的情欲关系则是婚外情和性交易非常活跃的，其余社会大部分都不是一夫一妻，现代社会的“一夫一妻”的普及则正好是与婚外情的合法宽松开放（符合人类正常健康本能地）同步，“一夫一妻”最有利于个体在法定配偶牵绊尽量少的情况下独立地情感丰富多层次多向性地得到不同的婚外情，所谓的一夫一妻实际上正是为多夫多妻提供支持的，虽然Wu会争论说现代之前世界各地不管是名义上一夫一妻实际上一夫多妻还是从名义到实际都一夫多妻的实践、依然只是集中在精英阶层，平民阶层的群体依然“选择”不管有没有法律规定的实践上的一夫一妻，但实际上文字史以来现代以前平民阶层的群体对实践上的一夫一妻的依然“选择”，只是因为按照零和博弈的排他性自恋性嫉妒占有关系的病态情欲关系规则，女人被一夫多妻的精英阶层男性占据了，人类生育时新生儿男女比例大致是1:1.05～1:1.07，男性人口比女性本来还要多（匹配与群婚的群体性行为），作为群众的平民阶层的男性平均一人一个老婆都不够分配，他们又怎么去“选择”一夫多妻呢？那这是因为他们不想变成精英阶层、不想有钱有势、不觉得“多妻”是多很多粮食多很好好吃好玩的东西而只是多很多不实用的钻石那样似的不愿意“多妻”不愿意像有钱人多妻那样享受吗？是平民阶层的男性不追求基因多样性、好像平民男性作为经济学家那些过度简化的抽象模型里生物本能都被“抽象简化”地砍掉了之后没有生物本能、就是为了完成经济学家分配给机器人的“生育输出指定数量的后代，使这些后代成活”这等工业生产指标任务似的机器那样，只为了生殖和存活指定数量或者尽可能多数量的后代、而这好像就是作为有血有肉的生物的人类的本能欲望的情感和兴趣那样的是不是？？平民阶层的男人群众就是这么一群机器人、而不是平民男性照样好色照样喜欢追逐不同女人对不同女人感兴趣的常识性的寻常现象、不是这样的寻常生活里随时可以检验、不是这样的平民里照样鲜活明显地表现的正常人性的本能情感那样的是不是？？历史上那些平民阶级的男性，让他们自己选择，他们是选择继续“平民”继续一夫一妻呢、还是选择变得有条件使得自己可以像精英阶层那样多妻呢？按照人类正常本能的感觉以及生活在人类种群中的社会常识历史常识，按照人类对同类的本能感觉和选择感到理解和熟悉的印象，他妈的这一点都不难判断吧？从历史到现在，平民群众照样是好色的，一旦有机会有条件平民的男性照样乐意多妻、照样乐意“把资源花在吸引异性方面”地换取自身的快乐舒适的满足，历史上和现实中那些平民男性平时的欲望，并不是只要孩子活着就行，也不是先变成精英阶层再炫耀性地获得多配偶，而是从一开始就一直哪怕自己是平民也希望得到好运和机会能和自己所喜欢的不同的女人上床和建立情欲关系，看看平民也活跃地寻求性交易、活跃地对不同的异性感到性冲动感到情欲审美与兴趣、活跃地对有关不同异性和不同配偶关系的情欲故事很有趣味就知道了，这并不是“我变得成为上等阶层之后，我拿不实用的东西来炫耀”，而是实实在在的对很实用的本能快乐身心的满足，而这和乐意把资源花在自身生活状态的改善而不是“不要把资源浪费在自身的本能的快乐满足上，而要全部投资到后代养育当中”不是一样的吗，如果人类本能的规则是“不要把资源浪费在自身的本能的快乐满足上，而要尽量投资到后代养育当中”，那些“后代”成长之后照样要重复这种不要把资源浪费在自身的本能的快乐满足上，而要尽量投资到后代养育当中”的模式，导致作为养育者的成人自己本身的生活处境和健康身心终身成长的恶化，实际上曾经被“尽量投入资源”去养育的那些子女，照样成大之后得不到健康快乐的满足，人类种群其实仍然不能提高生活质量，然后这种养育者自己的健康快乐得不到保障的种群繁衍生存模式，理所当然地长期积累养育者自身被弱化的效果进而被养育者的子女的生存也只会更加被动。

多配偶本身是给获得多配偶的个体带来福利、带来快乐满足地对个体的实际需要的满足带来改善的事情，通过让个体自身获得更多的快乐和满足地本身是对个体自身状态的改善，对个体的满足给予改善进而对个体的良好状态的发挥带来有利的倾向，如同个体自身获得更充分的物质补给并不会因此而变成那些物质补给成为个体对个体的子女后代的养育资源上的“浪费”，这是很显然的道理，并且还对应着将来要成人、将要自己要成为目前养育自身的父母的角色的的子女在将来是“一夫一妻”地受到心身限制、得不到自身情感心身丰富的快乐互动和满足，得不到自身更加健康更加韧性的良好生活互助，那这对曾经被父母“投入更多养育资源”的子女将来也要因为对自己的子女“投入更多养育资源”而造成自身的快乐满足的贫困、造成自身健康生存上的不利，这对父母进而对子女的健康快乐和生存终究都是不利的，如何能有利于种群、如何能成为所谓的“群体选择”？这就像很常识地、成年人个体改善自己的生活、更多的资源用于自身生活的改善和用于自身社交，并不能被当作这是“使得对子女的投资的浪费”，Wu这种人过度沉溺在脱离现实世界那样对实际社会生活与经济规律进行过度简化、省略掉太多重要的人类高等生物情感欲望的要素、从而把人类给”抽象”简化成好像只是为了机器人复制制造符合指标要求的后代以完整延续机器人自我复制生产的目标任务的机器那样似的东西，从有血有肉的生物情感欲望的本能常识和心理现象来看，简直就是荒唐的笑话！与此同时，多配偶不仅是“作为养育者的成年人改善自身生活”，很明显的这对于获得多配偶的一方而言是生殖养育资源的拓展，带来基因多样性和身心活性所必需的身心交流反馈的丰富多样性的同时，也带来“多配偶”的那些多个异性之间因为同处在多配偶的共存关系下从而采取养育协作、各自资源和能力互相协同地互相促进对方子女养育与存活的资源的利益增长的这种博弈就会比互相勾心斗角的更有优势从而日渐胜出，即使对于一夫多妻这种单方面的多配偶而言，虽然“妻”的角色的生殖机会和后代基因多样性的利益并不增加而仅仅是“夫”的一方的生殖机会与后代基因多样性增加，然而比起一夫一妻，一夫多妻无论是“夫”的一方还是“妻”的一方，其子女得到的养育资源都是得到多个养育者的养育资源彼此协作取长补短和利益交换从而得到养育上的协同增长，占有型的“一夫多妻”对健康的平等交流的心理人格存在损害，但光就对“繁衍和生存”的短期效果即暂时不注意人格受损带来的慢性的生存损害而只注意短期的养育资源的话，其实损害的就只是因为一夫多妻从而原本人口比例就略大于女性的男性当中因为其他男性多妻所以自己无妻（对应于非此即彼的占有欲形态的一夫多妻的“妻”人际关系资源分配）的那些男性，在种群整体中看是零和博弈地低效的，但在成功一夫多妻的那些“一夫”们的家庭内部，养育的协同增长依然存在，比起一夫一妻、生殖机会和后代基因多样性的增加照样存在，只不过比起多夫多妻和开放关系，则多夫多妻尤其不如开放关系那样种群整体男女的利益都相互协同促进地各自利益最大化，消除了非此即彼的占有型的关系所导致的零和博弈对情欲和养育的利益协同上的人为破坏，不再存在占有欲形态的一夫多妻的“一夫”导致对应的好几个男人没有配偶的那种零和博弈，同时男女各自的生殖机会、基因多样性、快乐互相促进的利益乘数都远大于其他形态，一夫多妻内部的短期的同类利益的利益乘数远不如开放关系那样而已，同时也符合健康的自由平等的人格情感建设和人格关系！

关于所谓马尔萨斯陷阱、我在我的论文From the institutional contexts of the Malthusian trap to managerial efficiency: A new political economy perspective 中有论述到它都是发生在历史上贫富分化严重、等级压迫凌厉的时代，因为等级分化严重、等级分化的严重意味着包括权力和财富等各方面的资源过度在少数统治阶层手里、这些资源的集中形成扭曲价值交换、使得价值交换远离市场均衡价值机制的这种扭曲价值交换的市场机制的压迫性权力的压迫力量的强悍，进而造成巨大的死重三角的经济损失的同时、也造成消费者剩余和生产者剩余等福利的严峻萎缩，然后恶性循环地压迫者阶层依赖更多掠夺剩下的生产者剩余和消费者剩余、加深压迫以确保自己通过在“越做越小的蛋糕”中占据的份额越来越大从而维持和扩大利益，这样就使得作为被统治者被压榨从而被迫按照负和博弈的建设性很低效的方式，低效地制造价值并被掠夺掉大部分以供养专制的统治阶层的少数的人，然后作为被统治被压迫阶层的大多数人，得到的资源就越来越少越来越稀缺和不足，显得好像作为被统治被压迫阶层的大多数人“人口太多了，生的太多了，粮食不够吃了”那样，但事实上统治阶层基本上此时生活都非常富裕非常花天酒地，并因此使得经济效率严重受害，导致被压迫阶层的大多数人显得好像“人口太多了，生的太多了，粮食不够吃了”，所谓的马尔萨斯陷阱，就是这样的一种幻觉，如果以生态学的视角，人类根本不会盲目地繁殖扩张，必然会种群生态自组织地在资源不足的情况下人口扩张自动减缓甚至停止，这是漫长生态适应的进化过程中必然形成的人类生物自我调节的反应性，不可能闭着眼睛盲目人口无限增长直到被动地大面积饿死人才被被动地被自然选择得“人口少回去”，这种好像人类不是自组织的生物系统，不会自发调节适应那样、与人类种群的高度非平衡态物理学属性完全相反的现象其实不可能是自然的。“等级分化严重、等级分化的严重意味着包括权力和财富等各方面的资源过度在少数统治阶层手里、这些资源的集中形成扭曲价值交换、使得价值交换远离市场均衡价值机制的这种扭曲价值交换的市场机制的压迫非常强大，使得市场均衡价值机制被严重扭曲”，这是“群体人口的选择”吗？？把马尔萨斯陷阱的形成给当作是“群体的人口流动的群体选择”，其实也是不成立的，只是没有那种【把”在零和博弈自恋性统治划分各自性嫉妒自恋世界占有范围的婚姻规则下一人一个老婆都不够分配、各自都没有什么像精英阶层那样的资源和权势可以零和博弈中抢到更多的别人的自恋性嫉妒自恋世界势力范围的平民群众男性们“零和博弈里男性均势，平均分配那些不存在彼此利益相互反馈相互促进而只能互相限制的零和博弈下的势力范围”从而被动地无奈的一夫一妻”的这种情形，给当作是平民群众人口群体主动乐意的选择】那么愚蠢和荒谬得明显，表现出过度抽象思维脱离现实从而扭曲丰富现实实际机制地、过度沉迷在过度简化掉现实的抽象思维简化模拟形态中严重偏离了明显的常识性现实却还不自知的这种症状的时候，表现得不那么直接明显而已。

后记：那个Wu也真够闹笑话的，过度执着在过度简化现实、从而把事实的内在结构简化得质变退化的抽象模型，于是忘了人类都是很好色的，历史上平民男性也是表现得很好色的，本能感觉都麻痹掉似的好像想要多妻不是为了实实在在的实用的情欲快乐而是为了炫耀似的🤣说出来都笑死人，在正常本能的男人当中一听就觉得这简直好像不懂性爱和性欲冲动是怎么回事似的，这只是一方面，另一方面这家伙居然还全神贯注地计算什么群体选择什么精英想要推行一夫多妻而平民群体却选择实用的一夫一妻，一夫一妻其实大大狭窄化了男女之间的快乐合作，当然长期沉浸一夫一妻的局促限制的那种压抑性的传统的情景里的人不一定能马上直观地感受到这点，可是在那些排他性的一夫多妻和一夫一妻的婚姻中，男女人口比大致一比一而男性比例还要更高一些，精英阶层既然已经“一夫多妻”了，平民就算也四脚朝天举双手双脚赞成一夫多妻制度，实践上他们也没有那么多女人可供自己“多妻”了，这么简单的问题，还一本正经地荒唐地计算，这就很讽刺了！

On the Errors in Lemin Wu's Discussion of the Malthusian Trap and Monogamy

Lemin Wu, in his paper Does Malthus Really Explain the Constancy of Living Standards?, argues that the Malthusian trap results from group migration choices. He claims a one-carat diamond contributes less to “survival and reproduction” than an equivalent weight of grain, yet elites choose diamonds over grain, using “survival and reproduction” as the metric and algebraic relations to “prove” it. However, the assumptions underlying these algebraic relations are misapplied, as the social conditions of the Malthusian trap do not align with the premises of those formulas. Elites choose diamonds because grain is in surplus, not for other reasons. Even more absurdly, Wu treats monogamy as a “group selection” outcome, likening elite polygyny to tribal elites collecting impractical pearls and diamonds instead of food, and monogamous commoners to those gathering practical grain. He claims that, just as grain ensures survival more than diamonds, monogamy saves “resources used to attract mates,” prioritizing investment in child-rearing, which benefits reproduction. Thus, commoners “choose” monogamy, while elites, despite preferring polygyny, cannot enforce a polygynous society. I have never seen such absurdly flawed reasoning! For most polygynous elite men, “multiple wives” are not for show or “useless” for survival and reproduction. Like grain, they fulfill normal physiological desires—a fundamental instinct. Historically, aristocratic polygyny was not about collecting “impractical” luxuries like diamonds or shells after securing “enough grain” (one wife). Instead, it was a practical necessity, bringing pleasure and enhancing life through sexual comfort and happiness. Is Wu so obsessed with abstract models that he treats humans as machines, ignoring their instinctual drive for the rich, complex pleasures of multiple mates and mutually beneficial interactions? These interactions, requiring no extra reasoning, are instinctively understood by humans as enhancing survival, improving quality of life, and promoting adaptive conditions, including offspring survival.

Humans are not machines that select a fertile partner as if choosing a standardized part to produce offspring, like robots tasked with replicating genes. The notion that “any fertile partner suffices, and reproducing with one uniform partner to produce N offspring is equivalent to reproducing with N distinct partners for the same number of offspring, with no difference in desire or satisfaction” (a view held by some fundamentalist Darwinian biologists and economists) is profoundly misguided and detached from reality. Organisms pursue genetic diversity, enabling complex communication and psychosocial development. One partner is not “sufficient” for identical reproductive outcomes; humans, driven by desire, emotion, and rich lived experiences, choose mating relationships that foster passion, reproduction, and child-rearing. Multiple partners create an open system, enhancing not only genetic diversity—beneficial to populations, as seen in most higher animals—but also the rich, complex psychosocial interactions in individual and offspring environments. Human cognition, emotion, language, and empathy have evolved and flourished precisely through such dynamic interactions.

If monogamy were dictated by economic and biological laws, humans would have been monogamous for most of their millions of years. Yet, not only are monogamous species rare in nature, but humans were predominantly non-monogamous throughout history. Before modernity, nominal monogamy existed only in limited regions like Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe, where extramarital affairs and sex trade thrived, reflecting human instincts. Most societies were not monogamous. Modern “monogamy” aligns with legally tolerated extramarital relationships, allowing emotionally rich, multi-layered romantic interactions with minimal spousal constraints, effectively supporting polygamy. Wu might argue that pre-modern monogamy, whether nominal or actual, was limited to elites, with commoners “choosing” practical monogamy. However, historical records show commoners practiced monogamy only because zero-sum possessive dynamics left women monopolized by polygynous elites. With a male-to-female birth ratio of 1:1.05–1.07, favoring group mating, commoner men lacked access to multiple partners. Did they not desire elite status, wealth, or power? Did they see polygyny as “impractical diamonds” rather than desirable “grain”? Clearly, commoner men were not robots devoid of instincts, programmed to produce offspring as economists’ models assume. Like elites, they desired diverse partners, evident in their pursuit of sex trade and fascination with romantic diversity. Historically and today, given opportunities, commoner men eagerly pursue polygyny, spending resources on attracting partners for pleasure and satisfaction. If human instincts prioritized “investing all resources in offspring” over personal pleasure, adults would repeat this cycle, undermining their own well-being. This would harm the health and happiness of both parents and offspring, failing to improve population quality or survival.

Polygamy brings benefits to individuals, fulfilling their needs with pleasurable satisfaction and improving their well-being. Like material provisions, it is not “wasted” on child-rearing but enhances individual vitality, just as food does not detract from offspring support. This obvious truth also applies to future generations: monogamy restricts emotional and physical fulfillment, limiting resilience and mutual support. This harms both parents and offspring, undermining population health. How could this be “group selection”? Wu’s obsession with abstract models reduces humans to robots tasked with producing offspring, ignoring their instinctual desires—a laughable absurdity! Polygamy expands reproductive and child-rearing resources, fostering genetic diversity and complex psychosocial interactions. In polygynous families, collaborative benefits arise as multiple partners coordinate resources, unlike monogamy. However, possessive polygyny harms equitable relationships. Compared to polyamory or open relationships, which maximize mutual benefits for all genders by eliminating zero-sum possessive dynamics, polygyny is less efficient but still superior to monogamy in fostering diversity and collaboration.

In my paper From the institutional contexts of the Malthusian trap to managerial efficiency: A new political economy perspective, I argue that the Malthusian trap occurs only in periods of severe wealth disparity and harsh hierarchical oppression. Elite control over resources, including power and wealth, distorts market mechanisms, causing enormous deadweight losses and shrinking consumer and producer surplus. In a vicious cycle, elites intensify exploitation to maintain their growing share of a diminishing economic pie, forcing the oppressed majority to produce value inefficiently in a negative-sum game. This creates the illusion of overpopulation and famine, while elites live extravagantly. From an ecological perspective, humans self-regulate population growth when resources are scarce, making blind expansion until starvation unnatural. Wu’s attribution of the trap to “group migration choices” is invalid, reflecting an oversimplified model detached from the reality of oppressive social structures.

Lemin Wu, in his paper Does Malthus Really Explain the Constancy of Living Standards?, argues that the Malthusian trap results from group migration choices. He claims a one-carat diamond contributes less to “survival and reproduction” than an equivalent weight of grain, yet elites choose diamonds because grain is in surplus. Using “survival and reproduction” as the metric, Wu employs algebraic relations to “prove” this, but these assumptions are misapplied, as the social conditions of the Malthusian trap do not align with the premises of his formulas. Even more absurdly, Wu treats monogamy as a “group selection” outcome, likening elite polygyny to tribal elites collecting impractical pearls and diamonds instead of food, and monogamous commoners to those gathering practical grain. He claims that, just as grain ensures survival more than diamonds, monogamy saves “resources used to attract mates,” prioritizing investment in child-rearing, which benefits reproduction. Thus, commoners “choose” monogamy, while elites, despite preferring polygyny, cannot enforce a polygynous society. I have never seen such absurdly flawed reasoning! For most polygynous elite men, “multiple wives” are not for show or “useless” for survival and reproduction. Like grain, they fulfill normal physiological desires—a fundamental instinct. Historically, aristocratic polygyny was not about collecting “impractical” luxuries like diamonds or shells after securing “enough grain” (one wife). Instead, it was a practical necessity, bringing pleasure and enhancing life through sexual comfort and happiness. Is Wu so obsessed with abstract models that he treats humans as machines, ignoring their instinctual drive for the rich, complex pleasures of multiple mates and mutually beneficial interactions? These interactions, requiring no extra reasoning, are instinctively understood by humans as enhancing survival, improving quality of life, and promoting adaptive conditions, including offspring survival.

Humans are not machines that select a fertile partner as if choosing a standardized part to produce offspring, like robots tasked with replicating genes. The notion that “any fertile partner suffices, and reproducing with one uniform partner to produce N offspring is equivalent to reproducing with N distinct partners for the same number of offspring, with no difference in desire or satisfaction” (a view held by some fundamentalist Darwinian biologists and economists) is profoundly misguided and detached from reality. Organisms pursue genetic diversity, enabling complex communication and psychosocial development. One partner is not “sufficient” for identical reproductive outcomes; humans, driven by desire, emotion, and rich lived experiences, choose mating relationships that foster passion, reproduction, and child-rearing. Multiple partners create an open system, enhancing not only genetic diversity—beneficial to populations, as seen in most higher animals—but also the rich, complex psychosocial interactions in individual and offspring environments. Human cognition, emotion, language, and empathy have evolved and flourished precisely through such dynamic interactions.

If monogamy were dictated by economic and biological laws, humans would have been monogamous for most of their millions of years. Yet, not only are monogamous species rare in nature, but humans were predominantly non-monogamous throughout history. Before modernity, nominal monogamy existed only in limited regions like Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe, where extramarital affairs and sex trade thrived, reflecting human instincts. Most societies were not monogamous. Modern “monogamy” aligns with legally tolerated extramarital relationships, allowing emotionally rich, multi-layered romantic interactions with minimal spousal constraints, effectively supporting polygamy. Wu might argue that pre-modern monogamy, whether nominal or actual, was limited to elites, with commoners “choosing” practical monogamy. However, historical records show commoners practiced monogamy only because zero-sum possessive dynamics left women monopolized by polygynous elites. With a male-to-female birth ratio of 1:1.05–1.07, favoring group mating, commoner men lacked access to multiple partners. Did they not desire elite status, wealth, or power? Did they see polygyny as “impractical diamonds” rather than desirable “grain”? Clearly, commoner men were not robots devoid of instincts, programmed to produce offspring as economists’ models assume. Like elites, they desired diverse partners, evident in their pursuit of sex trade and fascination with romantic diversity. Historically and today, given opportunities, commoner men eagerly pursue polygyny, spending resources on attracting partners for pleasure and satisfaction. If human instincts prioritized “investing all resources in offspring” over personal pleasure, adults would repeat this cycle, undermining their own well-being. This would harm the health and happiness of both parents and offspring, failing to improve population quality or survival.

Polygamy brings benefits to individuals, fulfilling their instinctual needs with pleasurable satisfaction and enhancing their well-being. Just as material provisions are not “wasted” on child-rearing but strengthen individual vitality, polygamy is not a drain on offspring support. This obvious truth applies to future generations: monogamy restricts emotional and physical fulfillment, limiting resilience and mutual support, harming both parents and offspring, and undermining population health. How could this be “group selection”? Wu’s obsession with abstract models reduces humans to robots tasked with producing offspring, ignoring their emotional and instinctual desires—a laughable absurdity! Polygamy expands reproductive and child-rearing resources, fostering genetic diversity and the complex psychosocial interactions essential for vitality. In polygamous systems, multiple partners in coexistence engage in collaborative child-rearing, with coordinated resources and abilities promoting offspring survival, outcompeting zero-sum rivalries. Even in possessive polygyny, where only the husband’s reproductive opportunities and genetic diversity increase, children benefit from the collaborative resource growth of multiple caregivers, unlike monogamy. However, possessive polygyny harms equitable psychological relationships, damaging healthy personality development. Its short-term reproductive benefits, ignoring chronic harm to equitable interactions, come at the cost of a zero-sum dynamic: with a male-to-female ratio of 1:1.05–1.07, polygynous men monopolize partners, leaving other men without mates, creating inefficiency at the population level. Within polygynous families, collaborative resource growth persists, but compared to polyamory or open relationships, which eliminate zero-sum possessive dynamics and maximize mutual benefits for all genders through enhanced reproductive opportunities, genetic diversity, and multiplicative pleasure gains, polygyny is less efficient. Open relationships, by fostering equitable emotional and personality development, far surpass possessive polygyny’s limited cooperative benefits.

Regarding the so-called Malthusian trap, in my paper From the institutional contexts of the Malthusian trap to managerial efficiency: A new political economy perspective, I argue that it occurs only in historical periods of severe wealth disparity and harsh hierarchical oppression. Because of severe hierarchical stratification—which means that various resources, including power and wealth, are excessively concentrated in the hands of a small ruling class—this concentration of resources creates distorted value exchanges, causing value exchanges to deviate far from the market equilibrium mechanism. The oppressive power of this distorted market mechanism is formidable, which in turn causes enormous deadweight economic losses, while simultaneously causing a severe shrinkage of welfare, including consumer surplus and producer surplus.

Then, in a vicious cycle, the oppressing class relies on further plundering of the remaining producer and consumer surplus, intensifying oppression to ensure that their share of the “ever-shrinking pie” continues to grow, thereby maintaining and expanding their own benefits. This forces the majority of the ruled and oppressed population to produce value inefficiently in a way that is low in constructive efficiency, while most of what they produce is plundered to support the small autocratic ruling class. Consequently, the resources available to the majority of the oppressed population become increasingly scarce and insufficient, making it appear as if the majority of the oppressed population is “overpopulated, reproducing too much, and there is not enough food to eat.” In reality, the ruling class is extremely wealthy and indulges in extravagance, which severely harms economic efficiency. This creates the illusion that the majority of the oppressed population is “overpopulated” and facing famine—the so-called Malthusian trap.

Postscript：Lemin Wu is the ultimate “joke generator” in academia! 🤣 Obsessed with reducing humans to “reproduction robots,” he forgets we’re all lustful by nature—even historical commoner men chased sex and romantic variety! He calls polygyny “showing off” instead of real, raw pleasure, as if he’s clueless about sexual desire! Even funnier, he “calculates” group selection, claiming elites pushed polygyny while commoners “chose” monogamy. Hello? With a 1:1.05 male-to-female ratio, elites hogged the women—commoners had no chance for multiple wives, even if they begged for it! 😂 Monogamy narrows joyful male-female cooperation, while open relationships spark mutual benefits. Yet Wu’s busy crunching “reproduction efficiency” numbers—what a laughable farce!