![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||
| Forums | Register | Groups | Awards | Arcade | Pets | T-Bucks / T-Store | Invite Your Friends | Blogs | Mark Forums Read |
| Chit-Chat Non-debate discussions - uncontroversial topics not covered in other forums , light-hearted, heartwarming, risque, weird news, fun things etc. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Racy Ol' Lady ![]() | Live fast, love hard, die young Oct 18th 2007 From The Economist print edition Chasing females can take years off life IN THE cause of equal rights, feminists have had much to complain about. But one striking piece of inequality has been conveniently overlooked: lifespan. In this area, women have the upper hand. All round the world, they live longer than men. Why they should do so is not immediately obvious. But the same is true in many other species. From lions to antelope and from sea lions to deer, males, for some reason, simply can't go the distance. One theory is that males must compete for female attention. That means evolution is busy selecting for antlers, aggression and alloy wheels in males, at the expense of longevity. Females are not subject to such pressures. If this theory is correct, the effect will be especially noticeable in those species where males compete for the attention of lots of females. Conversely, it will be reduced or absent where they do not. To test that idea, Tim Clutton-Brock of Cambridge University and Kavita Isvaran of the Indian Institute of Science in Bengalooru decided to compare monogamous and polygynous species (in the latter, a male monopolises a number of females). They wanted to find out whether polygynous males had lower survival rates and aged faster than those of monogamous species. To do so, they collected the relevant data for 35 species of long-lived birds and mammals. As they report this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, the pattern was much as they expected. In 16 of the 19 polygynous species in their sample, males of all ages were much more likely to die during any given period than were females. Furthermore, the older they got, the bigger the mortality gap became. In other words, they aged faster. Males from monogamous species did not show these patterns. The point about polygyny, according to Dr Clutton-Brock, is that if one male has exclusive access to, say, ten females, another nine males will be waiting to topple the harem master as soon as he shows the first sign of weakness. The intense competitive pressure means that individuals who succeed put all their efforts into one or two breeding seasons. That obviously takes its toll directly. But a more subtle effect may also be at work. Most students of ageing agree that an animal's maximum lifespan is set by how long it can reasonably expect to escape predation, disease, accident and damaging aggression by others of its kind. If it will be killed quickly anyway, there is not much reason for evolution to divert scarce resources into keeping the machine in tip-top condition. Those resources should, instead, be devoted to reproduction. And the more threatening the outside world is, the shorter the maximum lifespan should be. There is no reason why that logic should not work between the sexes as well as between species. And this is what Dr Clutton-Brock and Dr Isvaran seem to have found. The test is to identify a species that has made its environment so safe that most of its members die of old age, and see if the difference continues to exist. Fortunately, there is such a species: man. Dr Clutton-Brock reckons that the sex difference in both human rates of ageing and in the usual age of death is an indicator that polygyny was the rule in humanity's evolutionary past—as it still is, in some places. That may not please some feminists, but it could be the price women have paid for outliving their menfolk. http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9982969
__________________ Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death! MOTM, Jan 2005, Aug 2007 Golden Cookie Award, 2005. Aug 2006 Perv of the Month Perv. Outreach Award, 2007 |
| | |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| Icing Queen ![]() | I believe this is the truth. My first husband (ex) died at 40.
__________________ Your memory is our keepsake, With which we'll never part. God has you in his keeping, We have you in our hearts. ~2004 winner of The Outreach Award ~2005 co-winner of The Bronze Button Award ~March 2006 Perv of the Month ~Sept 2006, Oct 2007 - MOTM ~2007 Oct-Dec MOTQ ~2007 Female Silver Raincoat Recipient ~2007 MOTY |
| | |
| | #3 (permalink) |
| Racy Ol' Lady ![]() | My father was 51... hmmm.. I had a cousin who died at 41. It doesn't look good for them does it. ![]()
__________________ Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death! MOTM, Jan 2005, Aug 2007 Golden Cookie Award, 2005. Aug 2006 Perv of the Month Perv. Outreach Award, 2007 |
| | |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| unrepentant grunt ![]() | Funny you Ladies keep me young. I find that chasing Women keep's you agile I will go as far as to say nimble even. Of course there are rules to follow. As long as you obey the rules I think you are all right.
__________________ Airborne, Ranger, Infantry All the way. Ambushes arranged on request. Inquire within. (If your not INFANTRY you are Support)! Trackpads HPIC Satisfying Women Since 1951. |
| | |
| | #5 (permalink) |
| Racy Ol' Lady ![]() | Beasty, we will always follow the rules to keep you young and agile. It's the main object of our games, isn't it? I mean because all this fun is what keeps us young and agile. ![]()
__________________ Life's a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death! MOTM, Jan 2005, Aug 2007 Golden Cookie Award, 2005. Aug 2006 Perv of the Month Perv. Outreach Award, 2007 |
| | |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| unrepentant grunt ![]() | The heck with your rules it is MY RULES I follow. thats one of the secrets.
__________________ Airborne, Ranger, Infantry All the way. Ambushes arranged on request. Inquire within. (If your not INFANTRY you are Support)! Trackpads HPIC Satisfying Women Since 1951. |
| | |