Would you tolerate a bomb in your body, waiting to detonate if you deviated from the needs of society?
(media.communities.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (117)
sorted by:
Interestingly, if we didn't develop cancer, we wouldn't have the need for apaptosis. There are a good number of creatures on Earth that have been observed to basically never get cancer naturally, however, they also live incredibly long lifespans. Which could lead to population stagnation and limited cultural and biological growth/evolution
Which makes me wonder if cancer an evolutionary benefit, as by killing a species earlier it might promote the species to reproduce more often and, in effect, create faster and faster generational evolutionary and epigenetic changes.
Pros - Faster and consistent genetic and epigenetic change via more frequent and quantitative breeding sessions resulting in rapid generational changes versus species with no internal pressure to breed rapidly, relying solely on external environmental conditions to impact breeding habits resulting in evolutionary change that is slow and inconsistent.
Cons - It's literally cancer.
That's not true at all. Apoptosis is required for all sorts of cellular problems, not just cancer. Similarly p53 has many more functions than just its role in apoptosis. Cell biology is a complicated thing. Nothing is really a simple "this applies to that" in any exclusive, or even primary sense.
All of these creatures have apoptosis as a fundamental part of their cellular processing.
I assert that this is a fear without any evidential support.
Cancer is probably caused mostly by diet. Therefore its probably less of an "evolutionary benefit" than it is a result of poison.
Any speculations on the fitness benefits are inappropriate as presented imo, because they assume the premise of fitness (in the genetic meaning) is a clearly positive thing. Not to say the concept has no merit, but it suggests that it is something good, something to be striven for, where that is not necessarily true, or is at the least very debatable.
I stated that in my post.
No they don't.
I assert it's not a fear, that it's a natural reality. Population stagnation and genetic stagnation have been observed in nature countless times. Our planet tends to favor the ability to adapt and seems to crave novelty considering the harsh natural punishments for lack of genetic diversity.
On a related note, I'd like to point out a few of the species that don't naturally get cancer tend to avoid UV exposure.
Starting a discussion on the costs and benefits of such a relationship was the intent.
Of course they do. Apoptosis is fundamental to all multicellular creatures, even plants. It is essential from zygote to ultimate organismal demise for every creature on this planet.
I assert that this happens when there is no need for change. Most of our adaptations are epigenetic which happens as a response to our environment on the individual scale. Some of these epigenetics are then passed on to our offspring.
I should have said the implication that "population stagnation", and "limited biological evolution" are bad, along with your statement of "limited cultural evolution" (whatever that means) are also bad is a fear without evidential support.
The lack of cancer is not necessarily a resistance to cellular damage, but rather the ability for cells to take care of the damage. For example, one of the most highly cancer resistant species is elephants. Elephants are in the sun all the time. However, they have an extra copy of p53, which means their cells are more likely to enter apoptosis upon damage. This ease of apoptosis is what is thought to be the cancer resistant mechanism of elephants. This also suggests apoptosis inducing agents (for those cells on the cusp) would be an excellent path towards cancer prevention and therapy.
Naked mole rats, while they are not exposed to UV are thought to be protected from cancer because of a molecule called hyaluronan which adds additional structure to the extracellular matrix, preventing cells from unrestricted growth. In both of these cases the anti-cancer mechanism is something that takes care of the cancer. It doesn't prevent it.
When I say that cancer is dietary I mean something similar. It isn't that our diet is intended to prevent cellular damage, but to allow the cells (and ECM) to function at optimal capacity when cellular damage happens.
They literally fucking don't, look it up.
Insightful post, the one thought I could possibly add is that (in humans at least), in almost all cases (historically speaking), cancer was a death that would occur after breeding age. This makes it harder to argue that it serves any benefit. This (admittedly simple) analysis, combined with the fact that SO MANY cancers have been proven to be caused by gene-mediated environmental factors (e.g. childhood lymphoma and high voltage transformer stations, and breast cancer rates directly linked to BPAs released from consumer plastics) leads me to conclude there is nothing possibly good about it, and it is largely a result of TPTB slowly poising their herd of chattle
Well at that point, we delve into the different types of cancer. As well as naturally occurring cancers vs relatively recent unnaturally occurring cancers, while talking about the potential advantages or disadvantages from an evolutionary/genetic standpoint.
It's literally almost like you didn't read my post, because I mentioned that.