My point was that the notion of couples or monogamy is not a natural phenoenon,it is not biologically determined (that's actually the contrary), so it is a purely subjective social construct. Deciding that it is the form is subjective and this norm fulffills an obvious patriarcal purpose (having unambiguous lineages and paternal descendence) which Middle-Eastern monothiesms are famous for.
I am an exception to the rule and I'm lucky to be far above my national average in terms of financial wealth, but yes, scarcity is a fact in my country and the progression of human overpopulation will inevitably lead to a generalization of that scarcity.Second, your argument would only be valid in the case where there're societies with very scarce resources and folks have to resort to the practice out of necessity for survival. I don't know where you live, but from your other post about financial management, I'd assume you live in a society where 2-person relationship would do just fine
Which land? Many countries throughout history were or still are completely fine with polygamy.and furthermore, polygamy is a violation of the Law of the land.
How is that certainly a factor? I sense a lot of prejudice in your unsupported assumptions.So, any "extra" relationships would not be due to survival purpose, but due to sheer lust instead. And it is this exact type of uncontrolled runaway sexual promiscuity that certainly be a factor to the eventual downfall of our civilization.
So you are implying thhat their debauchery was the cause of their collapse? That goes counter to what we know about the collapse of the Roman empire...Actually it's not a unique thing to only our society. The Romans' before their collapse also showed that all-too-common symptom of widespread debauchery.
Besides what do you make of the extremely successful islamic empire and the Ottomans who practiced polygamy to an extreme level with their sex slaves and harems? You are trying to find a causality where there is none.