honey badger article for context

I've been thinking about this for a few days now. Checked out Turd Flinging Monkey as he is always my go-to man for clinical, scientific explanations, but he only has a video outlining why gynocentrism is a societal construct and not necessary for reproductive success (still, good to know!)

Traditionally, we believe males to be disposable due to the argument that sperm is plentiful and eggs are not. For example if two warring nations resulted in huge losses for the male population, the winning nation could absorb the females from the other nations with little consequence for the biological health of the subsequent generation of the species. That is to say, if our society was such that there were one man for every four women, there's less problems than a society where there were say, four men per woman.

Of course, as MGTOW men we know that hypergamy is also a factor and in both scenarios the top 20% of men would have access to the majority of females, but that just illustrates my point further that it is possible to have reproductive success and a sustainable species even if 80% of the male population were wiped out, all things being equal.

The article goes on to say that Male Disposability is a useful strategy when tribes are at war, because war = dead men = disparity in sex populations = more women per men = higher supply of eggs = good for the "economy"

It seems rather...depressing, even for me. The article tries to justify that women are in high supply but this only happens as a result of war. Surely that does not compel a species to simply engage in war for the purposes of decreasing "demand", does it? It would be, in my mind, similar to an economic model where we killed poor people to decrease reliance on welfare. I guess it works but what the fuck, man?

Anyway, what do you think? Do you have any insights into this that could help me understand what is happening?

*Now, personally, I don't care if male disposability is a biological imperative in the sense that men who refuse to be disposable put the species at risk. I've been very open about my vasectomy and that I simply do not give a damn about the human species. If it can be shown that sustained and increasing support of MGTOW, or simply a marriage/children strike could have catastrophic results on the species, that's good for me

(A tradcon mgtow might argue that such a conclusion compels a man, even a mgtow man, to have a moral imperative to start making children regardless of the risk of child support / alimony, to which I simply laugh)