Interesting. (Rachel Lucas)

Interesting.

What am I, Glenn Reynolds? "Interesting." Indeed. Anyway I am still too busy to blog but I read this article yesterday and it's neat.

The “single most underappreciated fact about gender,” he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

Posted on August 21, 2007 12:55 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rachellucas.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/172

Comments (18)

otcconan

Well, it means a couple things...

It means twice as many women, as men, reproduced. Which means one of two things:

1. Throughout most of history, women dying at childbirth was a common occurrance (my theory).

2. Men are a bunch of cheating, lying pigs (my girlfriend's).

Posted by otcconan | August 21, 2007 1:37 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 13:37

otcconan

#1 is obvious. Women die at childbirth, so it's likely that many of the men who reproduced re-married.

And there's always

3. both 1. and 2.

Posted by otcconan | August 21, 2007 1:38 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 13:38

Instinct

yea, 3... definitely 3 or there is always 4

4. The men who reproduced did so because they knocked off the competition

Posted by Instinct | August 21, 2007 1:46 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 13:46

Instinct

And now there is an ad for "Beautiful Chinese ladies seek me for love and marriage."

Posted by Instinct | August 21, 2007 1:49 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 13:49

Sid

Mitochondrial DNA baby... only the ladies gots it (consistently anyway)

Posted by Sid | August 21, 2007 2:05 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 14:05

Brian_Thorn

Who actually doles out the money for these "scientific" studies, and where the hell do I go to stand in line for this particular free handout?

"While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing"

I mean no shit Captain Obvious! Half of the men who lived couldn't get laid even if they tried, and the other half can't bloody well get pregnant, so what the hell did they expect to find in a study like this?

Posted by Brian_Thorn | August 21, 2007 2:09 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 14:09

langtry

Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

So "Baby Daddys" (Sp. intentional), and "Baby Mamas" have been around since the beginning of life, hmmm? Color me surprised.

Posted by langtry | August 21, 2007 2:39 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 14:39

Rickbert

Rule #1: Most science reporting is crap.

Rule #2: Most science reporting is crap.

Rule #3: The rest of science reporting is also very likely to be crap.

I've now tried several times to write a brief explanation for why this is full of crap. There are just too many mistakes and false assumptions to do it in less than 5-10 pages.

Check out the comments and Update they post at the bottom for a few of some of the easier to spot mathematical problems. There are also very serious theoretical problems in the longer quote from the 'scientist.' I strongly suspect this is a cultural anthropologist who wanted to sound more important by using biological and mathematical terminology he simply didn't understand.

Granted, you're no more obliged to take my word for it than the article's, but just try and multiply the numbers given to the second generation, and you'll quickly see the problem. (Note the update example cited in defense of the article stops at the first generation.)

In short, the article is so bad, it's not even wrong.

Posted by Rickbert | August 21, 2007 3:21 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 15:21

LabRat

Science reporting on how the genders "naturally" are usually makes me want to curl up in a small ball and suck my thumb for awhile.

Posted by LabRat | August 21, 2007 7:13 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 19:13

N. O'Brain

So, 60% of our caveman non-ancestors were...9/11 Troothers?

Posted by N. O'Brain | August 21, 2007 8:15 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 20:15

trainer

Didn't I read a study saying that the entire world's population can be traced back to a single female in Africa about a bazillion years ago. They even made a documentary about it...

Men never get credit for squat in this cold, cruel, modern world.

Posted by trainer | August 21, 2007 9:40 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 21:40

CastoCreations

heh

Posted by CastoCreations | August 21, 2007 10:12 PM

Posted on August 21, 2007 22:12

tolbert

Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.

Maybe the answer lies in this old saw.

Q: Why do Jewish men die before their wives?
A: Because they want to.

Seriously though, male mortality has always been significantly higher than female mortality. Look at the history of Jamestown Virgina. It wasn't unusual for a woman to have had 4 or more husbands during her lifetime (one that was rather short by todays standards BTW).

Posted by tolbert | August 22, 2007 7:44 AM

Posted on August 22, 2007 07:44

pete in Midland

Science "reporting" .... always makes me think "next ice age" ... no, wait "silent springt" ... no, wait ... "global warming" .... no, wait ... "climate change"

Them what can't do, teach. Them what can't teach, "report".

Posted by pete in Midland | August 22, 2007 7:48 AM

Posted on August 22, 2007 07:48

rkcoker

I used to reproduce but gave it up for Lent and forgot to restart. :0

Posted by rkcoker | August 22, 2007 11:33 AM

Posted on August 22, 2007 11:33

David Gulliver

well in the interests of gender equality, I think we need a new affirmative action plan, whereby the 20% of women who are most attractive are forced to have sex with the 80% of men who are least attractive.

Posted by David Gulliver | August 22, 2007 2:08 PM

Posted on August 22, 2007 14:08

Earnest Iconoclast

This is what happens when we require ALL university professors to do BOTH teaching and research. Some professers are lousy teachers and some are lousy researchers... so rather than let the good teachers teach and the good researchers research, we get crap like this and confused kids.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | August 22, 2007 5:27 PM

Posted on August 22, 2007 17:27

"Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe."

Maybe they were a little preoccupied with child rearing and running the household so Mister Man was free to build and explore; or then again, maybe historically many more societal restrictions have applied to women's educational opportunities and career choices than those of men.

Only a man would posit that women prefer to 'go along with the crowd, be nice, and play it safe', and only other men would let that argument go unchallenged.

Sheesh! What a pompous a-hole!

(PS—Sorry for the late comment, but I just got back from vacation and I couldn't let this one go.)

Posted by gd | August 24, 2007 11:37 PM

Posted on August 24, 2007 23:37

Interesting.

TrackBack

Comments (18)

Post a comment

About