Deadbeat granddads, life-shortening sons and genetically bullying brothersâ€â€these are just a few effects revealed in biologist Virpi Lummaa’s studies of how evolutionary forces shape later generations
A selection:
Sons are tough on their mothers. Whether it is heavier birth weights, amplified testosterone levels or simple, hair-raising high jinks, boys seem to take an extra toll on the women who gave birth to them. And by poring over Finnish church records from two centuries ago, Virpi Lummaa of the University of Sheffield in England can prove it: sons reduce a mother’s life span by an average of 34 weeks.
The 33-year-old Finnish evolutionary biologist, aided by genealogists, has scoured centuries-old tomes (and decades-old microfiche) for birth, marriage and death recordsâ€â€and clues about the influence of evolution on human reproduction. Historians, economists and even sociologists have long used such tactics to explore their fields, but Lummaa is among the first biologists to enlist Homo sapiens as an animal whose population can be followed over time.
The empasized part is not true. As for the rest, it’s interesting, but . . . I wonder if having daughters reduces the life-expectancy of men? If you didn’t have sons to help you in the fields, would it have made things harder on you? If you had to come up with dowries? Would having relatively more daughters have meant that women had extra help with their work? Would that have made life less tough on them?
Besides, our moms have been telling us this all our lives.
I’m not sure my life expectancy would be reduced if I had daughters. Teenage boys on the other hand…
…their life expectancy would go in the crapper if I had daughters.
34 weeks = 8.5 months. Chickenfeed, as far as lifespan goes.
But see, in my family, we have all of the elements to perform the experiment ourselves: one sister has four boys, one has three girls, my brother has two boys and two girls, and I have no kids at all.
It’s a race to the finish!
I can’t make sense really of that article cause it elides any discussion of homosexuality.
I didn’t know you were Finnish.
On my mom’s side.
“The Trouble With…” construction’s starting to supplant “The Uses and Abuses…” and “__________ and its Discontents” as my least favorite standard titles. (Despite my organizing this event, which means, Surprise!, I’m a self-loathing Jew.)
The “self-loathing…” construction’s…
…it’s kind of stale too, is all I mean, and narcissism is regnant besides.
Scientific American: two lies in one title.
The magazine has been a politically-driven rag since the 1970s, at least. Essentially useless.
SBP – Agreed. I still subscribe, but am just about to switch to Science & get the data raw without the nuanced interpretation (leftist cant spiced with a saucy air of superiority) SA provides. Science is a tougher read, but WTH.
It’s sad, because SciAm taught me to make mead in my basement when I was a teenager.
I know I have two daughters and worrying over their antics has shortened my life expectancy I’m sure… and I’m losing even more as I wait for my youngest (14) , whose not answering her cell, to get back from town on the bus.. and it’s getting dark.. Dammit..Guess I’d better go look for her.
Wat about the extra stress that daughters’ dating that gets put on fathers?
Eh. It’s not as bad as “____ Considered Harmful”.
Just the thought of my daughter dating, which should not be for a decade yet, makes my blood pressure spike, dangerously.
Me and my 2 younger bros put Mom through much hell. I am pretty sure that the trampouline as a diving board into the lake caused her some grief, and doing flips off of our house into the pool could not have been good for her either.
I am so f—— tired of man bashing.
The amazing thing about SA is that they have a column in every issue that looks at past SA claims from 100 years, 50, 25 years. etc.,that have been proven ridiculously wrong… but the editors persist in making claims and laying down scientific ‘judgments.’ It’s as if they don’t read their own magazine…
No, no, no…sons do not reduce a mother’s life span by an average of 34 weeks. Mothers of sons have a 34 week shorter lifespan than other women. There’s a difference; correlation is not causation. For most journalists this is par for the course, but I expect better from a magazine with the word “science” in it’s name.
“So because you’re my son, I have shortened my life by 34 weeks? That’s all right. I understand. I’m your mother.”
“But you should know I spent those 34 weeks in excruciating labor…”
“But all this talk is making you feel bad, and depression and guilt is bad for your health. Here, take this chicken soup, you’ll feel better. I got up from my sick bed to make it for you.”
Rob – Using ” ‘The Trouble With’ Considered Harmful” would be double plus ungood then, no?
To me, it only seems natural that boys would shorten the anticipated life span of their mothers, and girls would do the same to their fathers.
It’s because we men are evil. Our mere presence drains the good, womyn-powered life from our dear, giving mothers. The world would be much better if everyone were either female or homosexual, if not both! That would be utopia! Y’know, for, like, 70 years.
Yet another way our Patriarchy saps away at the Gaia-infused womyn life force.
Thankfully, “womyn” is still flagged as a error by SpellCheck.
70 years of lesbian luvin’ does not sound all bad ;-) Go rent Wild Things.