Well, I think this post (not just the headline on HN, the real one, naturally) is misleading because on an uniformed read it could make you assume that cancer i

Well, I think this post (not just the headline on HN, the real one, naturally) is misleading because on an uniformed read it could make you assume that cancer is something that has occurred because of the modern lifestyle - and for that there is no direct evidence. If you look at the rate of the death toll directly related to cancer, it dramatically increases after about 40 and goes high after 50 (as said, except for hereditary cancer, which always has been "around"), as the story correctly quotes. So if that what you thought is all they wanted to say - that everything is as we thought it was all the time (i.e., lifespan increase has increased cancer incidents) - then even more the question of why vote on it? So my question is at the very least justified in a sense of "why is this new", but much more because the way I understood the way they put things, it seemed to advocate my former take on it, which is dangerously misleading.