- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
note: I’ve been travelling in Brazil, an unnounced retreat. I will be scanning the forum shortly, it seems some lively discussions taking place. -Michael
Live fast, love hard, die young
Oct 18th 2007
From The Economist print editionChasing 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 pastas 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.
Hello Michael.
The newspaper story of Yudelove and the stripper/s raises some questions. It would be nice if you have the possibility to clear something of this out. 🙂
A try to sum up some of the questions risen:
Yudelove seems to be a person highly developed and far reaching in the tao system (universal tao) and others as well. How is it possible then to act out in such a unballanced way, assuming the story is true.
Some possible explanations and their draw backs
1 He wasn’t skilled in his practises: Seems not to be true!
2 It’s dangerous to work with strong energies you migh get mad. Perhaps but there is a lot of grounding and other safties in the tao system. Is the system dangerous any way?
3 He was going to black magick and forces tock over him. Yes but why does a highly developed person goes into black magick anyway?
4 The higher you reach the higher you fall. But if you really have developed their should not be such as a major fall back into “ego actions”.
The question risen seems to be of general interest for practioners in the system. Its allways good to know if any dangers to your health exists.
I think this was the major issues we where talking about but wasn’t able to figure out really. Hope the issue isn’t to personal to be answered beacase I guess you know Eric or have been knowing him quite well.
Sincerely S Dragon (Back since a few days) 🙂
Don’t know so much but from the introduction by Mantak Chia in Yudeloves books it’s clear that he did practise the taoists methods at the highest levels and that he did find out higher levels than he was teach by Chia by hemself. He was also a Western Kabbalist and introduced to the Schamanism. What was his main practise I don’t know it might have changed over time also. Perhaps Michael knows more about this.
S Dragon
Kan and Li has evolved considerably over the past 15 years with a focus on neutral force. Yudelove may or not have been on this track, I don’t know. Many HT people do not practice kan and li.
Kan and Li is Kan and Li. People present steps differently, some like some presentations and some dont. The experience does not change.
To imply the the methods taught for that formula are outdated, not effetive and these newer presentations are more evolved in my view is not accurate. My experience is some people some people like a certain type of theory to support what they are doing, so some like this “evolved” presentation and other do not, they choose to go elsewhere.
See me comments on your other posts for some reasons why.
Just the Inner Smile will bring diffent experiences, its based on the individual and their state of being. I can do the sounds and smile and others can cry, its not about how the smile is taught.
I very much agree that people experience practice differently because each person has a different makeup/combinatin of shen. I am detecting this viewpoint, though that ALL practices are the same in your view, is this the case?
That comment was related to your comments that Kan and Li has evolved, the method transmitted to Master Chia from One Cloud is Kan and Li, it doe not need additions, if one likes alternative ways of discussion thats fine, but to imply the other is not evolved is my bone of contention. It becomes my alchemny is better than yours.
I think the focus on Neutral force has clarified the Kan and Li practice, and makes it more clear. As I understand it, this is not the way it is always taught. The practice is the same in essence.
Was shooting the pearl out of the body the way Kan and Li was originally taught?
It is called free will.
And you are right suspecting. There are no guaranties then.
like slavinski story goes…A: “i trained for __ years, dedicated fully, did all i could and still had no results. what should i do?”
B: “go home. get a job, get a husband and get children.”
A: “but i want to do this.”
B: “then what are you complaining.”if you have something better to do, and you do not do it, it is again free will.
A good story.
My version:
A: “i trained for __ years, dedicated fully, did all i could and still had no results. what should i do?”
B: Try a different method, one that works instead of one that doesn’t.I don’t know why people think these things are so hard. If a system does not begin produce the effect required in 2-3 years, it is the wrong system for the person. ‘No result’ at all after 2-3 years would be impossible in most of the published systems I know including the one used on this site.
Yudelove had plenty of results, unfortunately, he did not work patiently. That is my guess, and like everyone else I would love to hear how he is doing now and what Michael thinks on the subject. j
I suggest to you and anybody else to do the following. Master Chia, he is my elder and he is the founder of the Healing Tao and I call him Master Chia. He is is a very accessable person and willing to meet and talk with anybody, why dont you email him and ask him directly. So many people just just listen to other people’s view on this and that, he wants to communicate with people. And you will get the answer from the person himself.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.