4 ms·
This argument doesn't follow. The fact that most multicellular organisms get some cancer yet organisms with quadrillions of cells exist is good evidence that ca
by jessriedel 10y ago
This argument doesn't follow. The fact that most multicellular organisms get some cancer yet organisms with quadrillions of cells exist is good evidence that cancer rates can be driven to arbitrarily small levels; there's no fundamental lower bound. In the ancestral environment, cancer rates are set by a resources trade-off, and, since we have vastly more resources, there's no a priori reason to think we can't drive the cancer rate vastly lower than today.
It's like arguing that entropy always increases and therefore fighting disease is fundamentally hopeless, or requires non-logical approaches. Yes, of course "ill health" can't be cured in general, but we can drive disease rates ever lower.
- Palomides 10y agoI agree in a long term sense (we'll figure it out eventually, and fuck evolution), but I don't think we can assume evolution leaves us in a situation where cancer is easy to solve, and we just need to tie off some loose ends, or turn up a few knobs. And I don't think the understanding of cancer levels in, say, whales is developed to do more than guess something is going on. Some theories suggest better repair mechanisms, others that it's simply different selective effects at the cellular level in larger organisms.
- jessriedel 10y ago> I don't think we can assume evolution leaves us in a situation where cancer is easy to solve, and we just need to tie off some loose ends, or turn up a few knobs. Sure, but no one disputes this. Silicon valley investing in cancer research does not imply anyone takes such a silly position.