There's no meaningful way to stop him, except by infamy, and so this "order" is weak. The fault is with the sperm banks. They're taking money from people based on lies and failures to check if someone has donated elsewhere. I have my doubts that all of them uniformly screen genetics of the sperm themselves, but instead rely mostly on the truthfulness of donors' screening questionnaires. They must have a global donation database to prevent this from occurring, which itself raises privacy questions of its own. This is a moral panic and a hack that cannot be undone. If he allegedly lied on contracts, then perhaps he maybe guilty of a type of fraud.
Either way, he's successfully became a Gengis Khan without killing anyone and there's nothing that can be done except to check every sample.
If all of those 1 million kids form couples within the same age group we have 500000 couples.
Assume even split between the sexes, and assume heterosexuality.
Then each of the 500 kids will have a 250/500000=1/2000 chance of coupling with a half-sibling, or 1-1/2000 probability of not.
Repeat this for all 500 kids we get a probability of 1-(1-1/2000)^500 =
22% of at least one half-sibling couple.
Regardless of heterosexuality or desire to have children, I imagine many people would go on an emotional roller-coaster if they discovered their sexual partner is actually their half-sibling.
It strikes me as strange that this many people are enlisting the help of a sperm bank to have children. What are the use cases here? Simply “sterile would-be father” and “single woman wants child”? Am I missing something? That can’t possibly be a sizable portion of the population? If they are, those feel like issues to address.
I don't see why it would be that shocking. 5 to 7% of males are infertile. 3% of women are gay. Together that's nearly 10% of the 17 million population.
That presents a sizable use case for a married couples. And aren't really issues that can be readily addressed.
The Netherlands also has different attitudes towards child rearing. About 40% of children are born to unmarried women and 15% are raised by single parents.
I don’t think women are typically signing up for sperm donors to be single mothers. You’re mixing up factors here. They’re overwhelmingly in relationships.
The single parent stuff is due to a variety of factors - women wanting to raise children all by themselves being an incredibly small percent. Almost no one wants to be a single parent - it just happens due to a series of events that are a mix of in your control and out of your control.
This is some outrage bait by so-called journalists using weasel words. Unless this is in a tiny village, the risk of accidental incest is FUD.
Genetic sexual attraction is pseudoscience, and assortative mating has very little to do with related persons. It was a practical problem of feudal empires and small villages globally before the automobile and the airplane, but today, it's not a meaningful concern. So-called consanguinity as absolute fractions base on formal relationships rather than genes is an illusion because it is unique to all pairs of individuals due to the recursive nature of heritable genetics.
off the top of my head, I can think of gay couples, people with genetic/health issues they don't want to pass on to their child. There are probably other demographics, but fwiw male sperm counts seem to be going down at a large scale. It absolutely is an issue to address, but if you are someone who can't conceive or are unlikely to conceive, a sperm bank is an effective option. The man in the article also has been doing this since 2007 so it's been over a long period of time.
With so few people having children in the Netherlands, it’s kind of crazy to think of a situation where the next generation are substantially siblings.
Sounds like the fruit of a culture missing something critical.
>With so few people having children in the Netherlands
Has the Netherlands tried to address its housing crisis first?
In most of Europe, lack of affordability and quality family friendly housing, is the number one reason for couples not having kids.
Everyone spends their fertile years trying to get that well paying job that can get you up the housing ladder or just taps out of the race completely and chooses to not have any kids.
You can't complain people aren't having kids when you're collectively treating them like cash cows, monetizing them so that you can make a bigger return on your housing investment.
People have less relatives to help raise children and grandparents tend to be older. Both parents are also more likely to want and need to work full-time jobs.
I don't know why but here in the UK there seems to be a kind of culture war on parenthood too. Young women who want kids and don't want to work tend to be shamed for this decision, while women who remain single and focus on their careers are celebrated. If people want careers over children, that's fine, but that shouldn't be seen and pushed as the only respectable path by society.
>Young women who want kids and don't want to work tend to be shamed for this decision, while women who remain single and focus on their careers are celebrated.
That's only toxic feminism pushing for this narrative but pretty sure it's just a loud minority in certain echo chambers and not a national narrative.
Toxic feminism promotes this idea that having kids and being a caring mother means being a slave of the patriarchy and that freedom and salvation comes at spending their lives
trying to compete and beat men at their traditional role as the breadwinner.
The problem is, nature and evolution hasn't built females and males to compete against each other, but to complement each other, for procreation of the species. Once you push the sex responsible for birth to do a lot of the breadwinning, procreation of the species starts to fall apart.
Anyone opining on pre-historic nature and evolution is spinning a just-so story, unless they're literally data-mining paleontologic or genomic evidence, and if they're doing the later they're talking about the results and conclusions in a much different manner.
> Once you push the sex responsible for birth to do a lot of the breadwinning, procreation of the species starts to fall apart.
There's no reason to assume that single-mothers weren't common in the past, absent direct paleontological evidence. There's no reason to assume that a supported mother isn't being supported by her blood relatives, while the father of her child(ren) is off doing his own thing (there are actually societies which function this way). And absent very short period of time in the few months immediately around actual childbirth, hunter-gatherer women were probably quite capable of supporting themselves.
Evolution of humans doesn't happen so fast that it doesn't encompass hunter-gatherer cultures (or pre-historic cultures in general, the latest of which were agricultural).
You brought evolution up. And women exiting the workforce was a modern, temporary convenience, primarily for the middle classes. The only thing genuinely new is that women and men now have exactly the same job opportunities (with only minimal exceptions).
> women worked alongside men in the fields and in the medieval guilds as equals or near-equals.
> Throughout the Middle Ages, lower-class women were bakers, brewers, milkmaids, barmaids, artisans, weavers and, primarily, tenant farmers who worked alongside their husbands and children in the fields.
> Women of lower status, such as farmer's wives, were expected to work in the fields - especially in regions where rice was cultivated.
> Many women were forced into prostitution in times of drought or crop failure. Women worked in the home weaving silk and caring for the silkworms that produced it. Some were called upon, like men, to perform the labour service which acted as a form of taxation in many periods of ancient China, but this was only in exceptional circumstances. By the Song dynasty (960-1279 CE) women had more freedom and were running inns and acting as midwives amongst other professions.
> Women, therefore, were regularly employed as weavers, bakers, brewers, professional mourners, sandal-makers, launderers, basket weavers, cooks, waitresses, or as a "Mistress of the House," known today as an estate owner or property manager. Female brewers and launderers frequently supervised male workers.
> In most of Europe, lack of affordability and quality family friendly housing, is the number one reason for couples not having kids.
This is not correct. The poorest households are having the most kids. It has clearly little to do with income or housing affordability, even if you found a survey which indicated this. I say this as someone who delayed having a family until I could afford a home, so I have a dog in this fight.
The poorest do because they have little education in terms of contraception and safe sex, they have low standards for QoL for their kids and just hump away like mammals without thinking about the future and the conditions their kids will have to live in, and sometimes hold conservative religious views which usually shun contraception and abortions and promote endless breeding, but the educated middle class, or what's left of it anyway, practice safe sex and want good living conditions and a bright future for their kids, both of which are vanishing.
At some point we probably won’t label a dying/negative-growth subset of the population that can’t figure out how to procreate or even create the pertinent conditions to procreate ‘educated’
Society doesn't care about helping to procreate the educated. For society, you're just a number in an balance sheet, you're just a consumer and a tax payer, cannon fodder for the economy basically.
Your country needs more and more numbers in that balance sheet, to funnel into the economic meat grinder, and whether those extra numbers come from your offspring or from someone else's, it's irelevant to them.
> At some point we probably won’t label a dying/negative-growth subset of the population that can’t figure out how to procreate or even create the pertinent conditions to procreate ‘educated’
Yeah, society probably will, because those are the people putting energy into preserving and propagating their ideas.
I agree with some of your conclusions, but the premise holds. There are lots of reasons for low fertility, and income/cost of living isn't actually a major factor.
> In most of Europe, lack of affordability and quality family friendly housing, is the number one reason for couples not having kids.
Its the number one reason people cite, but if you look at the stats, fertility (and this is also true in the US) drops pretty consistently with income. So, its not really driven by affordability in the simple, direct sense. So, are people lying? Maybe not: stress and precarious conditions often explain within-species shifts further toward r-strategy (produce more offsprinf with lower investment in each) vs. K-strategy (fewer offspring with higher investment). We may just be witnessing that in humans.
High income doesn't mean rich parents with McMansions. In Europe high income is basically middle class where half you money goes in taxes, and half of what's left goes on rent, then good luck buying a house.
Poor people have nothing to loose from having kids, they already live or are used to poor and difficult conditions, but the middle class has the most to loose from bringing up kids as it means a QoL sacrifice and/or more stress of finding a career that enables them to keep the QoL with kids.
Just give a blanket license to PIK or LSR and watch the market flooded with line after line of 25-storey cheap studio apartments until you beg for forgiveness.
Then people should be humble enough to live on the very little. Not ask for some other entity to provide its people with so much more (like full housing).
> Then people should be humble enough to live on the very little. Not ask for some other entity to provide its people with so much more (like full housing).
This applies to all people, not just those at the bottom. Yet those at the top keep charging high rates, or NIMBY against building more housing because of the effect of that housing on their quality of life and net worth. When you NIMBY, or charge high rates, you are asking other entities (those at the bottom) to provide you with so much more.
This is a standard critique of capitalism, mercantilism, feudalism, state communism, and whatever your -ism of choice is. It's been done the world over for millennia. Every time someone in power or privilege has said "we must all sacrifice for the greater good" - the sacrifice is disproportionate, and those disproportionately affected have grumbled about it. Every time someone has said "we must preserve this particular thing", the preservation has been at the disproportionate expense of others, and those so affected have grumbled about it.
See the Bank of England chief telling everyone they need to accept we're now all poorer otherwise inflation will never stop. Of course, by "us all being poorer" he most likely didn't include the wealthy elites and asset owning class that have made bank these past years and are in no way poorer than before, quite the contrary.
It was the same during covid. "We all need to scarifice to ...." meant something else entirely.
People living humble are reluctant to have more children. But the ability to start your adult life humbly is definitely very important. I am talking about access to cheap rent small apartments to move off your parents' and then perhaps acquire one instead of renting.
You did not just use the destitution Charlie lived in as a example of how poor people should live.
Poor people already live in squalor and are packed in like sardines, especially since housing costs keep rising.
How about the rich pay their fair share, or stop stealing money from the poor via wage theft, or stop conspiring to keep wages lower than ever, or how about stop people deciding about housing stopping NIMBYism, or how about putting a ceiling on CEO comp and stock buybacks, or how about dealing with the ever-widening wage gap.
Also, you've obviously never been to at least latin america, as their poverty is so bad they literally risk their lives getting anywhere else.
The mental gymnastics to blame the poor in your comments on this thread are Olympic level.
And did you just demean the lifestyle of poor people? I have known modest looking habitats that the rich western world would frown upon. I have seen this kind of lean living. And thought it was quite sufficient.
What is also shown in the case of Charlie’s home is a family that cannot feed themselves and have poor health and have the fewest breadwinners. This is not an example of lean living. This is being needy.
Breadwinning is quickly becoming a foreign concept in the Western world, as the new strategy is simply breadtaking. Why work hard to win, when you can simply take?
What you need to understand is they are simply shameless, like they feel no shame to be dependent on others to provide for them. Historically people actually had shame, they would feel it hurts their dignity to accept even charity (voluntary donation of money)! But now, people in the West are even happy to take money even forcefully through the tax system. No more dignity, no more shame.
And this behavior is incentivized by our political system and tax system.
More details on this perspective, in my response to him, here:
While I agree with your complaints, I don’t agree with your sense of complaints. It seems much of your opinions are a result of western capitalist indoctrinations. (I have recently stumbled across my own indoctrinations and am trying to undo them.) I would love to discuss this in IRL. We would have much to talk about.
Found the economically-illiterate entitled socialist, who refuses to think about personal responsibility (to actually become competitive in the global economy, to save money by being frugal and then to invest money to grow savings — you know, the things others on Earth do to become successful in life, doesn’t happen by magic!) as the answer to lower class financial problems… who instead only ever has his hand out trying to steal from the productive (and ready to blame the productive instead of himself at every opportunity!) to satisfy the unproductive’s natural urge to get money for nothing.
Meanwhile, in reality land in 2022:
>> The bottom 43% of US income tax filers pay -4.8% of federal income taxes (negative b/c they get a tax refund credit on average because of tax law).
>> The top 10% of taxpayers pay 80% of federal taxes.
But muh “rIcH nEeD tO pAy ThEiR fAiR sHaRe”!!!11
How about the bottom 43% of America actually sacrifices (studies during childhood to actually learn in and out of school + and actually works hard in first job to make good impression and get better job and actually learns on the job + maybe even starts their own company from learnings, all the while being frugal to maximize savings and then invest in a diversified stock index fund to grow savings over time with compound interest, and so on…) to build useful skills and become competitive in the global economy, the way people all around the world take responsibility to do?
Nahhh, way too much hard work!
Better to just waste childhood not valuing education, and then be a goodfornothing at your low-wage job so no one values you (IF indeed you are even capable of getting and holding the low-wage job), and then take your entitled personality that you carefully developed over all those years onto hackernews! (to complain about the small 10% minority who actually lived responsibly and made something of their lives and now pays 80% of federal taxes!)
This system is literally already socialist/communist in philosophy, in the distribution of percent of people paying taxes that sustains the system, but no, even this isn’t good enough. Why? Because of course it’s never good enough for the spoiled brat who is incentivized by the system to always be a spoiled brat, while 10% of the country literally carries them on their back.
Shameless!
You feel no shame to be dependent on others to provide for you. Historically people actually had shame, they would feel it hurts their dignity to accept even charity (voluntary donation of money)! But now, people in the West like you are even happy to take money even forcefully through the tax system. No more dignity, no more shame.
If everybody studies a lot, who will do all the menial, low paid jobs?
There are a couple of bad answers to this, ranging from making all white collar jobs way more competitive and still forcing now-educated people take menial jobs and be poor; to bringing illegal immigrants in to exploit.
The good answer is to pay good money to less educated people doing somple jobs. Bonus point, they will contribute taxes.
People don't owe you children in exchange for your desire to treat them like exploited illegal immigrants. With that attitide, go and have all these children yourself.
If the average adult height was shifted to about 4 and a half feet (1.37 meters) resource consumption in terms of food, transportation, building sizes, furniture and appliance sizes, clothing and linenry sizes, wash loads, heating and cooling (for smaller places) would all greatly decrease. We could have almost twice the number of people with the same resource expenditures.
This would be a huge boon to the world and humanity. But, as you say, it pays to be taller than average (within limits). Just don't be involved in a roll-over accident in a standard sedan.
taller people are taken more seriously, make more money, are rated more attractive, have more success
fact is, making your kid taller is one of the better things you could do for it to improve odds of success
also every time i hear something like this i have to wonder how well it is controlled... maybe if you correct for body fat percent it becomes lesser. or maybe being tall means u eat more so take in more total bad stuff, but eating a good diet makes this unimportant?
Height benefits are a strictly zero sum game.
Every benefit for a taller person is an equivalent detriment for a shorter person in their peer group. I can't support cultural tropes that require certain people be put down for the benefit of others. However as long as human beings retain their ancestral instincts we'll never learn any better.
This seems like a pretty huge infringement on civil liberties. Choice in procreation with consenting partners is a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy.
It doesn't sound like the individual was deceitful, given they are able to track his donations.
On the facts, the Netherlands has 17.5 million people, so the chances of a child marrying another is roughly 1/35,000.
If anything, This is an argument that sperm recipients should demand some level of transparency about the donors.
Then again, I am somewhat of a libertarian and think consenting cousins and siblings should be able to marry.
> It doesn't sound like the individual was deceitful, given they are able to track his donations.
> If anything, This is an argument that sperm recipients should demand some level of transparency about the donors.
It's right there in the article: "The donor "deliberately misinformed" prospective parents about the number of children he had already fathered in the past" and "He was taken to court by a foundation protecting donor children's rights, and by the mother of one of the children allegedly fathered from his sperm."
Not all of these children were conceived in the Netherlands. The principle argument appears to not be about half-siblings marrying each other, but about the psychosocial dynamics of a particular person having a half-sibling network of 500+ people, and trying to deal with this fact during the course of their life.
I obviously miss that line in the article despite reading through it. I was thinking more about the legal thresholds for sperm donation. I completely agree that individuals should fully disclose relevant information.
I don't see a problem. A man having hundreds of kids happened before in the history, and at the scale of modern global population is very insignificant. If the guy has good genes, might be net positive for everyone.
Might want to re-read TFA, "the problem" is clearly spelled out:
They are asked to limit the number of times they offer their services, to reduce the chance that siblings might unknowingly form a couple and have children together.
That might be true if they were evenly distributed across the world, but as they'll be clustered rather tightly near the donor, the chances of them unknowingly having kids together goes up quite a bit. Part of our aversion to that is probably just cultural, but genetics could be a problem.
Low predisposition to genetic diseases, good immune system / don't get sick often, not having many/any allergies, being rather smart is at least a decent signal to having any genetic portion of intelligence.
The things that basically everyone would want to have if they could choose.
In what universe is having a dumb, sickly population the most rational move for having a productive nation? Seems like the individual wants and collective wants align here.
You also did not ask for what genes are the most survival of the fittest / evolution of a nation, so, I did not respond with such an answer. Nothing was "changed" here.
That’s the thing. These are personal choices and preferences make. Taller trait is an appearance prefered. Might as well also select blond hair green eyes.
This is very strange. Why not just require a warning to anyone using his donated material to have kids that there are hundreds of siblings? It seems tyrannical to tell someone that they CANNOT help others have more kids.
It seems irresponsible to have an ability to father kids without actually supporting them. And using the support of others for them. This guy does not even know their names.
If only the people who want sperm donations can stop being so selective about what sort of kid they want, we would have so much more genetic variation among donors.
Instead of a small number of donors, maybe every male should donate sperm like it's jury duty or something...
Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.
Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.
I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I... I do deny them my essence.
Indeed. This whole thing is just eugenics through the back door. The court should be aware that there are quite a number of historical examples of men having hundreds and even possibly thousands of children. This isn't any kind of threat to human genetic diversity worth worrying about (however objectionable the actions of the men in question might have been). If there is a reason to ban sperm donors from donating more than n samples, it's not this.
I do find the idea of someone fathering that many children inherently weird and creepy. It appears that this person is also accused of misleading the women who received the donations, which is obviously wrong in itself. There's probably all kinds of reasons to throw the book at this particular individual. I just wish the bullshit eugenic arguments could be left out of it.
He's fathering a lot of children in a restricted geographic area, and he's not making clear to prospective mothers that he's doing this.
While incest is legal in the Netherlands, unintended inbreeding and genetic disorders are not good outcomes for a sperm donation service and so they have guardrails. He's well over the guardrails.
I'm not sure that the risk of birth defects in the children of half-siblings is actually that high. You have to compare it to the risk when e.g. the couple is older, or one of them has a genetic disorder, one of them is obsese... There are lots of things than can increase the risk of birth defects.
People often wildly overestimate the actual risks of 'inbreeding' because their real objection is either an ethical one or a simple gross out reaction. That is, they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks and then concluding that these are unacceptably high; they're just searching for a more objective justification for their gut reaction.
Unfortunately, the objective justification that most people reach for (the risk of birth defects) is a very steep slippery slope to eugenics. Once you admit the principle that a higher than average risk of birth defects is sufficient reason for a couple to be legally prohibited from having children, then you are basically there.
> they're not making an informed estimate of the actual risks
"Dutch clinical guidelines state that a donor should not father more than 25 children in 12 families."
Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. 500-600 children with the same parent is a more than the recommended 25.
> a couple to be legally prohibited
There are no couples involved here. There's this donor, a clinic with an ethics board, and their clients. The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area.
Incest is not illegal in the Netherlands, so have it away with your mother/father/sister/brother if it makes you happy. But if you open a fertility clinic, I would hope that you adhere to clinical best practises, including reducing the risk of inadvertent inbreeding.
> Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me.
I would be interested to know if there is any scientific justification for the limit that isn’t simply eugenics in disguise. It might be an empirically informed estimate guided by morally objectionable principles. Or it might be a round number someone pulled out of their ass. If you just want to trust that the limit has a sound basis, then that’s fair enough on a personal level. You are certainly not obliged to persuade random people on the internet otherwise.
> The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area.
That’s my point. No-one in general is trying (yet) to stop particular pairs of humans procreating based on estimates of the chances of birth defects in their children. So what’s the justification for doing it in this case? I understand that there are no ‘couples’ involved in a romantic sense, but the sperm and egg don’t know the difference. If the concern is a genetic one, it should apply equally in either situation.
As I said before, there are probably lots of other reasons why what this guy has done is bad. I just don’t think this can be the reason.
It may not be a threat to the genetic diversity of humans at large but when there are so many siblings in a local area who don't know they are siblings then the chance of recessive genetic disorders greatly increases
They know precisely how they were parented and that the actual identity of one of their parents is technically unknown. These people will have to take a single additional genetic testing step in family planning to avoid the problem.
> do all recipients of sperm donors explain that to their children?
I don't have children, so my question may come across as callous, but how would you not?
Aside from the genetic relatives issue there are a host of other medical issues and complications that arise from not having the full identity of the other parent. Considering that this particular part of the issue that can only arise in adulthood, I was sort of assuming that you'd almost certainly explain the situation to them by that point.
You're ignoring that many people don't want to rock the boat. And anytime you tell a child that the person they thought was their daddy, isn't, you're rocking the boat. Regardless of the age of the child.
If this is an un-partnered mother and her children, then sure, much less excuse to not tell the kid, and much less reason to not tell them. But for partnered couples there's an inherent friction built in.
He has been doing this for years. It's quite likely that a child born without a donor (and thus unsuspecting) but with a parent born from this donor will fall in love with a later child from this donor. Suddenly you have half-uncle/aunt procreating with half-nie
ce/nephew...
So your theory is everyone who is a child of this person will be informed of that fact, and that before every one night stand all of these people will do a genetic screening before they fuck?
> The donor "deliberately misinformed" prospective parents about the number of children he had already fathered in the past, the district court in The Hague said.
Seems like the sibling network they discuss where people can become aware of who's related to them would solve that problem. What are the odds that 500 out of 5 million people would match with each other?
It happens[1]. In part because people tend to find those who look similar to themselves most attractive[2]. There is a countering instinct to be repulsed by the idea of sex with people one was raised with[2], but this countering instinct doesn't happen if one wasn't raised with a family member.
> The couple, who hailed from different towns, about 100 miles apart, were both out with friends when they met in a nightclub in a third town several years ago.
> So strong was their mutual attraction that just one week after meeting, they both felt they had known each other for a lifetime.
> After tracking down her half-brother on Facebook, Ms Parra eventually met Mr Parra and the pair felt attracted to one another. "We didn't want to realise it, we were angry with ourselves because it was hard to admit and break that taboo: we are siblings even though we didn't feel that way."
> After just a few days, the half-siblings felt they couldn't carry on without seeing each other again. "Imagine liking a girl and, for a moral reason, being forbidden to be with her. It's really hard to deal with," Mr Parra declared.
>then the chance of recessive genetic disorders greatly increases
It will increase somewhat, but not 'greatly'. At least, I would be interested to see some actual data on this for the case of the children of half siblings. For cousins the additional risk is very small: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/03/health/no-genetic-reason-...
Adoptive parents are presented with such limited options. The top ten options are given to them only. Usually it’s intelligence, looks, and lack of heredity illnesses
Funny and sad to see a lot of old solved problems getting rediscovered because of novel technology and "generational amnesia." It's like how every crypto guy basically just rediscovered modern finance and the reason for its rules and regulations.
Here we have a couple problems: (1) how do we know who the father is? (2) how can avoid diluting the gene pool?
Solution (discovered thousands of years ago): monogamy, made publicly explicit through marriage ceremonies and enforced via shaming or persecuting fornicators, adulterers, and exalting as virtues both chastity and temperance
But no, in the modern Religion of Progress, it's sacrilege to deny the individual autonomy to do literally whatever they want.
Just another example of the possible consequences when you start pathologizing age-old Lindy values, tenets, customs, systems, etc.
> Solution (discovered thousands of years ago): monogamy
When and where was monogamy common thousands of years ago? At best serial monogamy was. But among higher status people it was frequently just monoandry.
Either way, he's successfully became a Gengis Khan without killing anyone and there's nothing that can be done except to check every sample.