Slashdot Mirror
Age A Byproduct of Cancer Defense?
A reader writes "The International Herald Tribune has an article which says, in brief: they have discovered that aging in mice seems to be a byproduct of the chemicals that prevent cancer" If true, that's quite a double edged sword - avoid death, to cause it later.
This sort of puts a whole new spin on this whole "Cure for Cancer" thing. The study seems to suggest that cancer is inevitable, and any attempts by our body to avoid it result in our own death.
Seems to me that if this is the case, it would have some serious repurcussions on how we currently understand how our bodies work. What is it about our physiologies that makes cancer such an irresitible force?
It hurts when I pee.
There's a 25 year lifespan discrepancy, in which evolution has no effect, because the population (at least of women) can't reproduce!
In most primate cultures, old females still help with rearing the young. There is a hypothesis that this is the reason that females live longer than males - an old male is useless as a 'hunter' while an old femail is moderatly usefull as a child raiser.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
There's a 25 year lifespan discrepancy, in which evolution has no effect, because the population (at least of women) can't reproduce!
That's an oversimplification of evolution. Evolution cares about maximizing survival of the species. Reproduction is only one factor in that. If reproduction were everything, we would never have split into male/female, since that obviously reduces the ease with which we reproduce.
There are many things that people can do after child bearing to help propagation, such as protection, food production, education or labor.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
But "helpers" can't be produced "randomly". There has to exist genes or combinations of genes which express themselves as "helpers". This will eventually lead to "Free loaders" or members of the species with no "helper genes" reducing the number of helper genes because they'll always leave more copies of their genes than those who need to expend energy creating "helpers" who don't reproduce.
Clearly the members of a species interact with each other in very complex ways, and these complex ways contribute to the survival of the species as a whole. Wolf packs, for example, have developed successful survival strategies that depend on group behavior.
You're confusing cultural information with genetic information. Just because the members of a species have evolved genes which allow them to interact with each other in very complex ways and pass down a culture of sorts (memes) doesn't imply that the successful reproduction of genes is driven by anything other than genes. The wolf pack passes down memes (hunting techniques) because it is to the benefit of their genes and memes that they do so. do you really think there are no behaviors in nature that are intrinsic to a species that simply foster overall survival rather than simple survival of the individual?
Good point. Maybe not overall survival, but perhaps survival of the behavior itself. That would make groups of common culture (wolf packs if you will) analogous to individuals with reference to memes and genes. That is memes are to culture groups" as genes are to individuals... Hmmm.
Now that I think about it, it is possible for meme's to evolve which mutually benefit the genes which created the conditions for them. But again, the memes are in it for themselves :-). A meme which does not contribute to its (the memes) survival will not perpetuate itself. Maybe this could lead to meme reproduction and evolution which supercedes the need to maintain genes. Perhaps the creation or transference of intelligence to non-genetic vehicle would be such a leap.
Some interesting food for thought. Many thanks for an interesting insight...
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye