1. Hard line

Well, you're actually playing with R-strategy for a specie with human level intelligence.

Within limits it can work, but if you keep it realistic it should also have some more consequences.

Lot's of offspring. You deal with easy but unstable environment, where you can't do much, but live fast and tend to die young. In RL it could be hot climate with unpredictable droughts, about which you can't do much. In fantasy setting it would be dragon that would eat everyone in vicinity.

Such environment select in favour of low IQ and not pro social personality. If parents are not needed, then there is not point in forming stable pairs, a more rational strategy for alpha male is fertilizing another female. In unstable environment generally long term cooperation makes no sense.

2. Soft line

Survival of 99% of kids in to adulthood is very recent phenomena. In premodern times ~50% of kids weren't making to their 5th birthday. So loosing some offspring is not only natural, but as long as the lowest quality genes are being eliminated it's highly beneficial (yes, from industrial revolution onward now our specie is accumulating mutations, in long run it's unsustainable).

So if the losses are moderate (let's say 20%-30%) tend to eliminate ones that anyway were the least adapted and thanks to not being burdened with childcare it means that mothers can have more offspring, it would work reasonably well.

1. Hard line

Well, you're actually playing with R-strategy for a species with human level intelligence.

Within limits it can work, but if you keep it realistic it should also have some more consequences.

Lots of offspring. You deal with easy but unstable environment, where you can't do much, but live fast and tend to die young. In real life it could be a hot climate with unpredictable droughts, about which you can't do much. In fantasy setting it would be dragons that would eat everyone in the vicinity.

Such environments select in favour of low IQ and antisocial personalities. If parents are not needed, then there is no point in forming stable pairs; a more rational strategy for an alpha male is fertilizing another female. In unstable environments generally long term cooperation makes no sense.

2. Soft line

Survival of 99% of kids to adulthood is a very recent phenomenon. In premodern times ~50% of kids didn’t make it to their 5th birthday. So losing some offspring is not only natural, but as long as the lowest quality genes are being eliminated it's highly beneficial (yes, from the industrial revolution onwards our species is accumulating mutations, which in the long run is unsustainable).

So if the losses are moderate (let's say 20%-30%), and tend to eliminate ones that were the least adapted anyway, and thanks to not being burdened with childcare, it means that mothers can have more offspring, it would work reasonably well.

[under construction]

1. Hard line

Well, you're actually playing with R-strategy for a specie with human level intelligence.

Within limits it can work, but if you keep it realistic it should also have some more consequences.

Lot's of offspring. You deal with easy but unstable environment, where you can't do much, but live fast and tend to die young. In RL it could be hot climate with unpredictable droughts, about which you can't do much. In fantasy setting it would be dragon that would eat everyone in vicinity.

Such environment select in favour of low IQ and not pro social personality. If parents are not needed, then there is not point in forming stable pairs, a more rational strategy for alpha male is fertilizing another female. In unstable environment generally long term cooperation makes no sense.

2. Soft line

Survival of 99% of kids in to adulthood is very recent

1. Hard line

Well, you're actually playing with R-strategy for a specie with human level intelligence.

Within limits it can work, but if you keep it realistic it should also have some more consequences.

Lot's of offspring. You deal with easy but unstable environment, where you can't do much, but live fast and tend to die young. In RL it could be hot climate with unpredictable droughts, about which you can't do much. In fantasy setting it would be dragon that would eat everyone in vicinity.

Such environment select in favour of low IQ and not pro social personality. If parents are not needed, then there is not point in forming stable pairs, a more rational strategy for alpha male is fertilizing another female. In unstable environment generally long term cooperation makes no sense.

2. Soft line

Survival of 99% of kids in to adulthood is very recent phenomena. In premodern times ~50% of kids weren't making to their 5th birthday. So loosing some offspring is not only natural, but as long as the lowest quality genes are being eliminated it's highly beneficial (yes, from industrial revolution onward now our specie is accumulating mutations, in long run it's unsustainable).

So if the losses are moderate (let's say 20%-30%) tend to eliminate ones that anyway were the least adapted and thanks to not being burdened with childcare it means that mothers can have more offspring, it would work reasonably well.