Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/03/84 (WLS Mods); site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!elt
From: elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Life Expectancy (Correction and Clarification)
Message-ID: <607@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 12:00:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.607
Posted: Tue May 28 12:00:58 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 01:43:51 EDT
References: <601@astrovax.UUCP> <386@mtxinu.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 34

This is a reply to Ed Gould's posting arguing that the differences between
male and female death rates could be due to behavioral/cultural factors
rather than "natural" ones at all ages.  I am not reposting all of his
arguments along with his citations of my previous arguments as I believe
this practice leads to a clogged net and articles too long to read.

In principle I agree that the differences COULD POSSIBLY be entirely
behavioral/cultural, mainly because it is so nearly impossible to completely
eliminate such factors.  It is like trying to determine whether IQ is
determined by heredity or environment.  Controled experiments are
just not a practical possibility.  Thus, I doubt that an entirely
behavioral/cultural explanation could be logically excluded.

Nevertheless, I don't think an entirely behavioral/cultural explanation
is the best one or even a very sensible one.  The main reasons are 1) it is
clear that entirely genetic factors account for many profound PHYSICAL
differences between men and women from gross anatomy to subtle biases in
metabolism and blood chemistry, thus it is perfectly plausable that there
be inherent differences in hardiness (or whatever one would call it), and
2) the effect is a large one even though most human deathes are not caused
directly by their environment or behavior (i.e., by accidents, murders, etc)
but by aging, diseaese, and physical disorders which can only be indirectly
influenced by behavioral/cultural factors (i.e., different levels of care
or "will to live").

Thus, I think that the best and most reasonable explanation of the figures
is a substantial inherent biological bias.

Finally, as others have pointed out in other contexts, since one can not
escape one's environment/culture in practise in most cases, it really
doesn't matter whether it is inherent or not for most purposes.

Ed Turner
astrovax!elt