So what does that have to do with the article?
A couple of things.
First, human reproduction isn’t a centralised activity and for it to have a high success rate there is a need for the mother and offspring to be supported. In most societies this is done by the father, and in stable societies there is about one man for every woman during the normal breeding ages, with a few extra men in the younger cohorts and a few extra women in the older ones. Generally, more young men are born, but they die off at a higher rate than young women and when they reach breeding age the ratio is about equal, and then they continue to die off more quickly, so that by the time the breeding window is closing, some women who used to have partners don’t any more. A society with an excess of young men of breeding age has, historically, been one which has become so mature that the risky activities have been made safe, with no external threats requiring young men to risk their lives defending. So the superorganism responds by sending out colonising parties, mostly of young men, with a small number of older ones and an even smaller number of women and so somke of the balance is maintained. Think of the British Empire as a modern example.
Second, in those mature societies with an excess of young men, there is often an increased acceptance of homosexuality. Once again, think of the British aristocracy, the Classical Athens, Imperial Rome, the Catholic clergy. Could this be another epigenetically-triggered evolutionary adaptation? In other words, are some individuals born with a genetic propensity to be gay that is triggered in the right environment? And as a corollary, is our modern Western society creating that environment? It seems entirely possible to me. It also seems possible that it is a perfectly reasonable adaptive response at a group level to remove some potential breeders from the population when there is population pressure and that homosexuality is a pretty effective way to do so.
[cont]

It may also be that suicide is a similar eusocially adaptive response, also triggered epigenetically in genetically susceptible individuals. I’ve been suicidal, even gone to the point of making arrangements, but didn’t carry through. Perhaps I don’t have a full set of the relevant genes, so the epigenetic triggers weren’t enough?
I don’t think it’s any coincidence that suicide is predominantly an activity of men of breeding age. Depressed women do it far less frequently and depressed older people don’t react to stressors in that way, although some do choose to take their final journey on their own terms rather than waiting for it. I suspect it derives from many of the same triggers discussed above – estrangement from family or lack of breeding opportunities, social “failure” in the terms of the culture, an excessively dense population. Suicide is almost unknown in primitive societies, such as hunter-gatherers, where everybody has a respected role to fill. Aboriginal men in remote communities are now killing themselves and their families at an enormous rate, because they simply don’t have any needful roles – sit-down money means they have no functional roles that fit their own evolutionary psychological needs and so they self-destruct. Their women are much less affected by it, except that they suffer because the men are and they experience the fall-out. Their own social roles are still largely as they always were.
The structures around family law and CS do the same. In modern society it’s even worse because the feminist social construction leaves people of both genders with no clear role. As a result, the family law becomes a stick that is taken up by people who have been made mentally ill because their innate drives are at odds with the social structures.
Each of these things is a form of pathological altruism, in which good intent produces really bad outcomes.
I think we need to reflect very much more deeply on our eusocial nature and stop trying to pretend that individualism is the aim of society. That’s precisely arse-backwards and not in a good way.