Here you see the sexual dimorphism of the jungle and there seems to be a majority pattern that appears everywhere which might indicate the human society too.
We often look at the animal kingdom and see a clear division. Why does the male Lion sport a massive, dark mane that makes him a target for predators? Why does the male Peacock drag around a heavy, iridescent train that serves no functional purpose in flight? The answer lies in the "Reproductive Rights" held by the females.
In biology, this is the Parental Investment Theory. Because the cost of reproduction is higher for the female, she is the primary selector. Supply vs demand. A human female can mother a child once every 9 months, where as a male has enough sperm to impregnante all the women on the planet in his lifetime. Over thousands of years, if female lions prioritize the biggest, most "attractive" mane (a signal of high testosterone and health), the lineage of the "drab" or smaller male ends. The result is the striking Sexual Dimorphism we see today, where the male keeps getting stronger and more attractive over generations.
In humans, this logic has historically played out in terms of physical strength and resource provision. Because women are at their most vulnerable during and after pregnancy, selection leaned toward males who were bigger, faster, and stronger. This is why human males possess significantly higher muscle mass and bone density to be able to provide & protect the female & her offsprings during & after her pregnancy. A rocket is propelled by many parts and it keeps dropping or discarding the parts that it doesnt need anymore after it reaches a certain height and if it doesnt then the same parts which elevated it to a certain level will become it's burden. The same way the evolutionary biological algorithm of choosing mates based on physical strenght remains intact, the resource a male can provide became more prominent since the society itself got safer every generation. A man with a gun is now more competant to protect than someone with just muscles. Society moved on to a more law & order based system where the system (governemnts) now has more power than any individual and thus can provide more protection to females than any individual male can. So, now wealth (resources) became the primary priority, just above strenght while selecting a male for reproduction. What if a female has her own wealth and she is not worried about a man's ability to physically protect her or she lives in a safe society? then other qualities like societal status, intelligence, artistic capabilities become the primary priority, just above strenght and wealth.
It seems we can create or plan for the kind of society that we want by creating current society or societal conditions which will put certain traits on top of the priority list for females over others.
Directed Evolution
If you look at the archives of ancient civilizations—the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, you find a recurring theme: the Scholar-King Symbiosis. In many Indic texts, kings considered it a supreme honor to offer their daughters to "poor" scholars or priests. They weren't selecting for wealth or brute force; they were selecting for Vidya (Knowledge) and Vinaya (Discipline). The ruling and wealthy class gave their daughter's hand in marriage to pursuer of knowledge who neither commanded strenght or wealth.
We see a modern parallel in the Jewish community. For centuries, a cultural tradition prioritized marrying daughters to the most brilliant scholarly minds in the Yeshiva. By decoupling "desirability" from material wealth and attaching it to intellectual merit, you create a selective pressure for high-IQ traits and analytical reasoning. You will find many jewish men studying to become rabbi/priest and their wives are educated, working and contributing to the family. They are the only educated, empowered women with a fertility rate above the replacement level of 2.1. The results aren't just myths; they are in the data. A community that makes up 0.2% of the world population has produced over 20% of Nobel Prize winners. This is Directed Evolution in action.
The Danger of the "Wealth Filter"
My hypothesis: The future of the human race is whatever the current generation of women is conditioned to prioritize.
If a society conditions its women to prioritize wealth; which is finite and a zero sum game of predation, we create a "Status Competition" that inevitably leads to violence. When males must fight over limited resources to prove their "fitness," the society becomes more volatile and, ironically, less safe for the very women and children making the selection.
Conversely, societies that prioritize the "Scholar", "Artist" or the "Intelligence", those who create non-limited resources like knowledge and beauty, produce "Golden Ages". The monuments we admire today, from the Pyramids to the Taj Mahal, are the physical "secondary sexual characteristics" of a society that valued the mind over the fist.
If we say women are responsible for a productive society then it is considered simping for women, if we say women are responsible for a destructive society then it is considered either religious fanaticism or toxic patriarchy. It is neither. It is women who gets to decide to the kind of society that she will create for the future of humanity or any species, so in a way, yes she is responsible for the condition of the society but her selection is influenced by the society. So, she shapes the future of a society and the society also shapes or at least influences her choice to do so.
We often see this with plants and animals. Human have selectively bred animals and plants to get the kind of animals, plants, vegetarbles, fruits that we have today. We shaped the future of these fruits, vegetables, animals such as cows, sheeps, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage etc., We did this with what we consume but may be now it is time to move on ourselves, not the nazi eugenics but through societal conditioning where people are still free to choose.
The Digital Shift
As we move into an era of algorithmic dating, we have to ask: What are we selecting for now? Are we reverting to immediate visual attraction and "proof of wealth," or are we finding new ways to prioritize the traits that actually build stable, advanced civilizations?
In the archive of human history, the "Board of Directors" (the selectors) has always determined whether the next chapter is an era of war or an era of enlightenment.