4 ms·

I recently did a deep dive into woodsmoke as I couldn't understand how ~2 million years of evolution with woodsmoke hadn't rendered us completely immune to its

I recently did a deep dive into woodsmoke as I couldn't understand how ~2 million years of evolution with woodsmoke hadn't rendered us completely immune to its effects. I couldn't at that time find a paper that showed that it was very harmful to humans, just a lot proving that it was harmful to mice, rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs (and a lot of forwards stating the dangers then linking to another animal research paper)—which bothered me—rodents don't have ~2 millions years of woodsmoke in their evolution history. I found papers about forest fires that some showed bad effects other were inconclusive and wouldn't;t draw conclusions as there were too much smoke from other combustable substances mixed into the smoke. I also found a paper about firefighters exposed to woodsmoke that found no ill effects on them. So I remained unconvinced. But this paper is different: not animals, large study, evidence. SO I will read it in-depth. But I am still baffled. How could over a million years of evolution not have bred this out of us? I'm genuinely curious.

not_your_vase 3y ago
Maybe we just devolved. Most of the people have been living close to nature up to like a 100 years ago. And today? I have like 8 allergies, and I have no idea about the root cause of 6 of them. I would die in 2 days on a field of random weed, by sneezing myself to death. And I suspect I am far from the record holder in this site.
- vba616 3y ago
  Maybe it's the weeds that are evolving.
cstrahan 3y ago
Why should you expect ~2 million years of evolution to bread that out of us? The ability to start and control fires for warmth and cooking purposes greatly increases the odds of survival for individuals and their offspring. If I may personify evolution as form of rhetoric: evolution doesn’t care if you limp along through a painful life, or if your genes guarantee a horrific death at the end of it. Evolution only cares about your ability to produce offspring that in turn reach maturity and produce offspring of their own, and so on. Resources are finite in this world, so sure, the fittest tend to outcompete less fit creatures, and the former will perpetuate its genes while the latter won’t. This is where the notion of “survival of the fittest comes from”. But it is a mistake to interpret that implication the other way around: that is, survival does not necessarily imply greater and greater fitness over time. Evolution isn’t about species becoming the best they could be, it’s only about being good enough.
yread 3y ago
For large part of the two million years not having a fire killed people a lot more than lung cancer.
- sambeau 3y ago
  That was certainly my top theory. Cooking saving many more babies than woodsmoke killed.
hollerith 3y ago
>I couldn't understand how ~2 million years of evolution with woodsmoke hadn't rendered us completely immune There's strong evidence for use of fire going back only .5 million years. More importantly, all existing humans are descended from a population that lived in sub-Saharan Africa till 70,000–50,000 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#:~:text=present%2Dday%20humans%20outside%20Africa%20descend%20mainly%20from%20a%20single%20expansion%20out%2070%2C000%E2%80%9350%2C000%20years%20ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_moder... Although that population probably used fire before migrating out of Africa, they probably did so only for cooking and to keep wild animals away and almost never used fire indoors.
- sambeau 3y ago
  Modern humans didn't invent cooking or discover the use of fire, an earlier Homonid did, probably Homo Erectus. If we're going to trade Wikipedia articles, the one on control of fire by early humans starts: "Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_human...
7952 3y ago
For evolution to happen a trait needs to effect reproductive success. Diseases that hit later in life will only have a minimal effect. Your kids are already grown by the time you get cancer and probably having children of their own. There may be slightly less resources available to raise the next generation if you die but the effect is minimal. Genes that help/hurt the survival of young people are going to have a much a more profound effect and influence evolution more.

not_your_vase 3y ago

Maybe we just devolved. Most of the people have been living close to nature up to like a 100 years ago. And today? I have like 8 allergies, and I have no idea about the root cause of 6 of them. I would die in 2 days on a field of random weed, by sneezing myself to death. And I suspect I am far from the record holder in this site.

vba616 3y ago
Maybe it's the weeds that are evolving.

cstrahan 3y ago

Why should you expect ~2 million years of evolution to bread that out of us? The ability to start and control fires for warmth and cooking purposes greatly increases the odds of survival for individuals and their offspring. If I may personify evolution as form of rhetoric: evolution doesn’t care if you limp along through a painful life, or if your genes guarantee a horrific death at the end of it. Evolution only cares about your ability to produce offspring that in turn reach maturity and produce offspring of their own, and so on. Resources are finite in this world, so sure, the fittest tend to outcompete less fit creatures, and the former will perpetuate its genes while the latter won’t. This is where the notion of “survival of the fittest comes from”. But it is a mistake to interpret that implication the other way around: that is, survival does not necessarily imply greater and greater fitness over time. Evolution isn’t about species becoming the best they could be, it’s only about being good enough.

yread 3y ago

For large part of the two million years not having a fire killed people a lot more than lung cancer.

sambeau 3y ago
That was certainly my top theory. Cooking saving many more babies than woodsmoke killed.

hollerith 3y ago

>I couldn't understand how ~2 million years of evolution with woodsmoke hadn't rendered us completely immune There's strong evidence for use of fire going back only .5 million years. More importantly, all existing humans are descended from a population that lived in sub-Saharan Africa till 70,000–50,000 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans#:~:text=present%2Dday%20humans%20outside%20Africa%20descend%20mainly%20from%20a%20single%20expansion%20out%2070%2C000%E2%80%9350%2C000%20years%20ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_moder... Although that population probably used fire before migrating out of Africa, they probably did so only for cooking and to keep wild animals away and almost never used fire indoors.

sambeau 3y ago
Modern humans didn't invent cooking or discover the use of fire, an earlier Homonid did, probably Homo Erectus. If we're going to trade Wikipedia articles, the one on control of fire by early humans starts: "Claims for the earliest definitive evidence of control of fire by a member of Homo range from 1.7 to 2.0 million years ago". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_human...

7952 3y ago

For evolution to happen a trait needs to effect reproductive success. Diseases that hit later in life will only have a minimal effect. Your kids are already grown by the time you get cancer and probably having children of their own. There may be slightly less resources available to raise the next generation if you die but the effect is minimal. Genes that help/hurt the survival of young people are going to have a much a more profound effect and influence evolution more.