I try to avoid naturalistic fallacies. Mankind is hyper-adaptive and adapts to natural pressures like all other creatures.
There are only three conditions under which women choose spinsterhood, single motherhood, and monogamy over polygamy, and we haven’t been able to have them choose the single motherhood option before and survive. Those three ‘odd’ conditions are created by an artificial scarcity of men, the presence of disease in men, or radical asymmetry of wealth. This applies to all pairing off animals.
I don’t see a possibility of that wealth without the extraordinary risk of mass political retaliation. If abortion is still this difficult I don’t see polygamy being any less difficult. It is quite possible to form a limited liability company or a partnership and exchange a contract, and limited power of attorney and produce the largest polygamous set of relations possible that the community will tolerate without ostracization and boycott. That’s all a marriage is.
Combine this with the predictability of nationalism in the coming decades, and economic duress in the coming decades, and the need to invent a post-agrarian, post-industrial economy and institutions and I’m not sure we can count on much other than people choosing the rational option.
The immorality of the Edwardian age led to the counter-reaction in the victorian. The victorian ended with the empire. The American empire is ending. We should see ourselves mirror England on one hand or Russia on the other. There are many examples in history.
My preference is to take control of the process and prepare for it, and manage it. But that will take a near-revolution in the USA on terms I’ve explained elsewhere.
In other words, we can’t ‘predict’ much from where we’re standing. Worse, there is a tendency of conservatives to try to be cheap and cunning and outwit history, just as much as there is of radical leftists to try to be magical thinkers about human nature.
So as I repeat often ‘beware the man in the mirror’.