It is said that some women would rather share a Ferrari than
own a Toyota. Ferraris symbolize richness, power and clout but they are also
hard to maintain, overpriced and impractical whereas Toyota vehicles are known
for their reliability, cost-effectiveness, durability, and practicality.
Various aspects of female mate choices such as hybristophilia, "bad
boy" syndrome, Stockholm syndrome, and gold digging (the subject of this
article) are often portrayed as signs of dysfunction.
Here, the word "rich" mainly represents material
wealth, but it also implies a degree of power and competence. It takes a high
level of competence and intelligence to gain, guard, and grow wealth.
Therefore, being wealthy does not necessarily mean being rich, or vice versa.
Many are rich due to family background or historical incidents like
colonialism, but within three to five generations, most of the rich lose their
riches, while the wealthy keep gaining, guarding, and growing theirs. I will
use "gold" instead of money, as gold represents more than currency,
and we will see that gold digging is about more than chasing
money.
Gold digging should not be confused with monkey branching,
though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, they specify different
approaches to the same goal. Gold digging is a partner selection strategy where
the one with the most gold receives the highest priority (richness, power,
wealth, etc.). Monkey branching is where you are using one partner as a
temporary branch which you use to jump to a higher branch or a richer person. This
prioritizes reproductive access for those with the most gold. Today this is
frowned upon; the word itself is used as an insult, mostly toward women. It is
seen as an unfair and immoral women choosing partners based on material wealth
rather than character, intelligence, or values. If most or all women do this,
then most men in a society will lack reproductive access. Men at bottom of the
pyramid with little to lose will eventually revolt. No matter how powerful the
elites are, numbers will overwhelm them.
Different cultures have developed different solutions. Islam
limits a man to four wives at a time. He may also have mistresses but to
provide & protect for many not only requires a lot of gold but also a lot
of mental & physical space. When a wealthy man has more wives and children,
wealth is redistributed more broadly. A polygamous society may achieve more
wealth redistribution than any government policy. Also, higher access to courtship
& marriage has been a great motivating factor for an individual’s
productivity which in turn has promoted a society’s progress.
In Hinduism, during the era of kings, there was no limit on
wives. The emperor Sri Krishnadevaraya’s queen managed his visits to his 12,000
wives where many of these women were sisters or daughters of martyred army
officers, ensuring morale by guaranteeing care for their families. Others were
daughters of rival kings, securing peace through marriage. Mormons, Christians,
Jews, and most ancient societies ensured that those with the most gold had the
greatest reproductive access. Except in Islam, these societies also tolerated
prostitution, allowing the base of the pyramid, those holding up the rest of
the pyramid, access to sex but not reproduction. This maintained a serving
class without letting it grow large enough to overthrow the elite. So, majority
of their power, energy, time, energy is spent to protect & provide for their
big family.
Now consider modern Western-influenced monogamous societies.
Take the top 0.1%. Elon Musk is among the richest, wealthiest, and most
powerful of them. Due to monogamous laws, he can have only one wife at a time,
but he has had multiple wives and partners, fathering many children. This
grants many women accesses to his wealth and redistributes it more widely.
Compare him to other ultra-wealthy bachelors like Sergey Brin or Lukas Walton,
who have fewer or no children. Many of these powerful men are disconnected from
90–99% of humanity. They often operate on a zero-trust basis, constantly
categorizing others as prey, predator, ally or foe. The only way to ensure
such men work for humanity is to entangle them in family; more children, more
in-laws, more partners. Without these ties, their drive for efficiency and
improvement may bypass human welfare, potentially creating
"supervillains." The most powerful need the most human connection. The
top 1% are currently pursuing the ideas of replacing humans with robots, AGI,
or ASI, or instituting social credit systems that centralize power. Absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
Gold digging and polygamy ensure that those with the most
gold and power remain social animals, not supervillains. More power raises the
risk of corruption and if unchecked, it breeds tyranny. One must also consider
the 80:20 rule observed in dating and matrimonial data: the top 80% of women
(in attractiveness) are interested only in the top 20% of men. For dating, the
parameter is physical attractiveness; for marriage, it is gold. The top 20% of
wealthy men attract the top 80% of attractive women, and the top 20% of
attractive men attract the top 80% of attractive women. For men, the bottom 20%
are content with the bottom 80% of women. If polygamy were fully allowed, many
men would remain unmatched. Prostitution might placate some, but many
"incel" men could revolt, toppling the pyramid from its base. The top
1% who can afford to entertain more courtship aren’t getting as much as they
can afford to. The bottom of the pyramid isn’t getting any because they aren’t in
the top 20%, both end up supporting the idea of artificial wombs, sex robots as
a means to solve the same problem. More
recent surveys have moved this scale to 95:5.
Different cultures, religions, and societies maintain
balance through varied built-in solutions. No single system can solve this
alone. When discontent arises, many may migrate to different religions,
geographies, or cultures rather than overthrow the existing order. If there
were only one system with no alternatives, it would break far sooner.
