Comment by photochemsyn

Comment by photochemsyn 4 days ago

5 replies

The problem of controlled cellular growth in a multicellular organism is a really hard problem that evolution has spent billions of generations on, and any cell in any of the dozens of systems that keeps the human body going can potentially escape the normal cell cycle control process and go out of control, leading to cancer. (edit: the fact that so many people lead full lives without coming down with cancer is more remarkable from this view, it's one of the miracles of life).

While the ability to treat cancer using modern technology (especially if it is detected relatively early) has made vast advances, we're also surrounded by and exposed to a wide variety of molecules that can, especially in high concentrations, inflict damage on the cellular control system (a whole lot of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, cofactors, etc.) and while that damage may be somewhat random in nature, if it happens to hit a key sequence in the cell control DNA you get a cancer cell. You can greatly reduce the prevalance of such carcinogenic mutagens in the food, air, water and soil with suitable regulations but this cuts into profit margins for the producers of various commodities and products who in turn lobby governments to eliminate said regulations (which to be fair may not have been well-designed or implemented).

Yes there are genetic factors which may increase one's cancer risk but these are very complicated and often overemphasized by those who dont't want to see clean air, water, soil, food etc. regulations implemented.

rlpb 4 days ago

> ...a really hard problem that evolution has spent billions of generations on...

I think it's worth noting that this isn't evolution's "goal". We just need to produce offspring and give them a good start in life such that they are competitively successful. Beyond that, evolution doesn't care.

Even for that, there's a budget. If it's not economical over letting us die and not taking valuable resources from our offspring, then evolution also doesn't care.

  • photochemsyn 4 days ago

    That could suggest why longevity in humans (or primates ) was under active selection, as they put a lot of effort into raising the children so you'd expect that cancer in younger people would result in the death of their children, so evolution selects for robust anti-cancer systems (like the human immune system, which is relatively good at detecting and eliminating cancer cells as well as pathogenic bacteria, etc.).

    These explanations are however always a bit hand-wavy, eg why do galapagos tortoises live to 150 when they don't seem to do much parental investment?

    • rlpb 4 days ago

      There must be other evolutionary pressures that change cancer resistance as a side effect.

  • tjpnz 4 days ago

    Having grandparents around to care for the young would allow for more procreation.

    • rlpb 4 days ago

      Yes, but only to a limit. The resource cost in ensuring longevity must be less than the benefit provided in caring for the young.