from the NYT article:

"Using mathematical models, Dr. Alan Rogers of the University of Utah estimated that a postmenopausal woman would have to double the number of children her children bore, and eliminate infant mortality among those grandchildren, to make menopause look like a sound strategy for propagating one's genes. That is not a grandmother -- that is Neutron Nana.

"Adaptive menopause is an interesting idea, and I'm trying to keep an open mind," said Dr. Steven N. Austad, a professor of zoology at the University of Idaho in Moscow and author of "Why We Age" (John Wiley & Sons, 1997). "But I just don't see evidence to support it."

To clarify my point, I was surprised to see this zoologist still supporting fundamentalist Darwinism - the suggestion that, even in a social species, propagating one's OWN genes was the only useful thing an individual can do in evolutionary terms. I thought we had moved beyond that rather limited perspective on how evolution works.

Actually, though, I think the basic conservativeness of science is a good thing. We would not want to change basic paradigms too frequently. Still, I actually had the impression that this basic paradigm HAD changed, quite some time ago. But I am not a scientist, and my ability to follow the science - like that of most laypeople - is woefully limited.

Hence the Anonymouse squeaking about how people just agree with the scientific narratives that happen to seem true to them already. True enough - because for the average person, trying to figure out which studies are worth believing and which are not is damned hard. It's even hard for researchers, which is why there are so many meta-studies. Whatever. I like reading about these things, but at the end of the day, evolutionary anthropological research (and I must agree with Canuckistan Bob, as usual, that there is an inherent flaw in looking to modern hunter-gatherers as exemplary of actual primitive humans) is less important to me than making sure I have bread to put in my kids' lunches. I don't think it's problematic for laypeople to follow science casually. The problem is not that casual readers say gee whiz about a study that interested them. The problem is that people with power use science (and pseudoscience) selectively as a tool to advance their ideology.

There are several regular male readers and posters who don't seem to agree with you about Broadsheet writers thinking men have cooties. (In fact, I gather several Broadsheet writers are happily married, as am I.)

The issue under discussion here is whether menopause has evolutionary value or whether it is an artifact of modern life expectancy. The hypothesis put forward is that non-fertile female workers might have had an important role in the evolution of emergent human societies. The fact that men lose their fertility more gradually makes issues about male workers fundamentally different. I liked reading the article you posted; it took this research about menopause and tried to fit in other research about over-60 fathers. Eventually, perhaps someone will look at these two hypotheses and try to put together a coherent theory about the evolutionary role of human life expectancies beyond the age of peak fertility. I think that's interesting. I don't think you need to be quite so constantly snarky. Saying you love your grandma doesn't mean you hate your grandpa, does it? You sound like my six-year-old.

I hate how the powerful feminist interests running our country have added creationism back to our text books, made it almost impossible for rural teenagers to get adequate sex education and birth control, and put a stop to stem cell research. The indomitable feminist scientific perspective is contributing to ignorance and poverty, and keeping us from finding new ways to fight congenital diseases. Those confounded feminists! How did they get so much power?

There are also water issues - amount of clean water livestock need to drink, and what happens to the surrounding ecosystems when their supermedicated shit runs off into the groundwater.

There are reasonable solutions to these issues besides being vegan. I am a vegetarian, but I am not, in principle, against meat consumption. I gave up meat years ago for environmental and ethical reasons, and even though I could afford organic, free range, humanely slaughtered meat now if I wanted it, I have lost my taste for it. To me, it is just. not. food. We all have to make our own choices. Personally, I think factory farming and chemical processing and packaging of our food could easily kill off our society the way lead pipes are sometimes blamed for ending the Roman Empire. So for me, being vegetarian isn't enough anymore. We grow some of our own food, eat seasonally, support our electric company's "Cow Power" program, and try very hard to make our food from scratch instead of buying it plasticized by processing and packaging. While I appreciate how far the heatlh food industry has come, all that gloriously packaged organic junk food means that wise food choices are no longer as simple as being vegetarian, or even vegan, anymore.

The headline says 'plant' instead of 'planet'.

That is a good question, orbitboy. I think people see Gore as a viable celebrity alternative to Clinton. And he is actually 'qualified' for the job, having been vice president. But I'm afraid his integrity disqualifies him. Too bad.

but weren't we just -rightly - trashing Republicans for smearing a minor?

I feel sorry for the boys and girls who are raised on this soulless, godless excuse for a Christian religion, and are learning to hate themselves for every stray sexual thought before they even get anywhere close to the sexual acts. I am rolling my eyes about the adults who participate in these events, but I think compassion is the proper response for the adolescent boys. Some of them are the next Larry Craig. :(