Despite Countless Massive Wars Throughout History, Why Male and Female Populations Remain Balanced?

[jankren]

Seriously, throughout history we learn about huge wars which cost the loss of hundreds of thousands or millions of men during modern era. But how come overall ratio of worldwide male and female populations remain relatively equal?

[Wheelchair]

Well saying men are the only casualties of war is a bit naive.

During world war 2 the Allies suffered:

Military: 14 Million losses (98% Are men)

Civilian Losses: 36 Million losses (85% Are women, children, 15% Men)

Axis Powers

Military: 8 Million

Civilian: 4 Million

Those numbers kind of give you the sense of how it is balanced, During wars, even in Ancient and Medieval times civilians we're still killed, sometimes more then the soldiers.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

[Captain Blackadder]

In the old days Childbirth also thinned out the female population as well which unlike war is a purely female affair.

[Juvenal]

Captain Blackadder is quite correct.

Also, between the two world wars there was a shortage of men of marriageable age in the UK, and presumably also in other European countries.

Imbalances between male and female populations are automatically corrected in the following generation because the birth rate for male and female is almost equal.

From an historical (and callous) point of view you might think of wars as merely shortening the lives of some men who would have died anyway 30 or 40 years later.

The actual effect of high casualties in warfare is to reduce the overall population in future generations. I think this effect was observed in Sweden after the Great Northern War (due to the high efficiency of the Swedish recruiting system) and also in France after the Napoleonic wars. At the time of Napoleon France had the highest population in Europe, but it subsequently slipped back relative to other European nations.

I suppose a totalitarian state engaging in total war might consider conscripting only married men with children, but they seldom seem to think so far ahead.

[neoptolemos]

Well the likehood of giving birth to a male child is slightly bigger than giving birth to a female child.

On the other hand genetical diseases and therefore death at birth is on the contrary slightly more frequent in male childs(the Y chromosome is unique thus an pathogenic gene alone in Y will be active)

My explanation though is that families of past years tended to be large and with lot of children....

[gsoxx]

Simple question, simple answer: Because every woman gives birth to a girl (51%) or a boy (49%).
It is irrelevant, for the next generation, how many men/women died in a war .

The only thing affected could be the overall population strenght.

[rathelios]

Up until the twentieth century not that many people were involved in actually fighting wars as a proportion of the total population. Even if 20,000 soldiers die in the course of a campaign that still leaves millions of men back home to breed in their place.
The concept of 'total war' only rears its ugly head in the last century (WW1). Direct mass attacks on civilian populations only begun with the Luftwaffe's bombing campaigns.

[Sphere]

Our ability to outways our ability to kill.

[Da Skinna]

Rutting and killing. It's what we do.

[jankren]

Im wondering how it is like in many Russian villages or towns shortly after WW2 for example. Im sure if I went there all the women would run after me like zombies hungry for 'male meat' or something.

Seriously though, I heard a story about a Russian woman during WW2 who tried to seduce her own adolescent son because she was so lonely and there was not a single adult male around.

[The Sixth Wizard]

I suppose a totalitarian state engaging in total war might consider conscripting only married men with children, but they seldom seem to think so far ahead.

You would create a million widows and fatherless children!

Now THAT'S what I call totalitarian. I am surprised I didn't think of it myself.

+rep.