🚀 go-pugleaf

Milt Tinkoff writes: 
>I think I was a bit unclear.  If a man stays with one woman then his
>children by her will be protected, fed, etc.  This happens whether he's
>impregnated any other women or not.  Therefore the more women he impregnates,
>the more possible children will survive.  It's even better if the women
>are already with other men.  So now the first man's children are being
>cared for by other men who believe that the children are their own.  So it
>is advantageous for men to be polygamous as long as their own live-in partner
>is not.  Again, let me stress that all this is in theory.  I personally
>wouldn't want to live in such a society given the choice.

You are assuming things that I don't think should be assumed.
You are assuming that throughout pre-history (when our instincts were being
developed) all women were able to raise children alone or else all women had
a male protector who did not care whose children she was raising.
I would assume that a woman who did not have a strong pair bond with a man
would often find it hard to survive, both mother and child might die.
One other possible strategy for women with children is to bond with other
women. I would expect that did happen. It happens today.
 
There is evidence that animal males (and maybe human males too) will 
automatically kill a female's offspring before mating with her.
Even if our ancestors were not so brutal, previous offsprings might well get
less protection, less food ect.  from the new male and tend to die.
 
a.h.