4 ms·
<rant type="likely-naive"/> We can never "cure" cancer. We might be able to save most individuals from dying from it some day but cancer is just a mutation tha
by Rhapso 15y ago
<rant type="likely-naive"/>
We can never "cure" cancer. We might be able to save most individuals from dying from it some day but cancer is just a mutation that makes a cell's behavior damaging/lethal to the host body. The only way to prevent "bad" mutation (because there is no sure way to discern 'bad' from any other mutation) is to stop mutation all together, and even if there way a way to do this (removal of radiation does not stop transcription errors) stopping mutation is a nice kindly way to ensure the extinction of the species (no chance for future biological adaptation, because there are no mutations). So, as evil and painful as cancer is, it is a symptom of a good thing, biological mutation and variation in our species, and any through and final "cure to all cancer everywhere" will have to stop the cause of cancer, mutation, which we as a society and species should not allow.
</rant>
- avgarrison 15y agoI disagree that we should not allow such a thing if it existed. I think humans are a bit past the need for biological evolution. Technology can provide us with the ability to adapt to new challenges and environments, and can do so much more quickly.
- aidenn0 15y agoAlso, plenty of biological evolution can happen in the absence of mutation.
- mindcruzer 15y agoI'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Evolution is simply the changing of allele frequencies over time, which can certainly happen in the absence of mutation. Although, I don't know that I would say "plenty" of evolution can happen without mutations, but I guess that depends on what you think "plenty" is.
- revelation 15y agoOnly changing allele frequencies is proven to result in a stable state. You need mutation for evolution.
- mindcruzer 15y agoChanging of allele frequencies can occur by creation of new alleles (ie. mutations), but it doesn't have to. The definition encompasses both possibilities.
- mindcruzer 15y agoThere are no absolutes in science.
- strictfp 15y agoI'm voting this one up. I think that curing cancer is like eliminating all errors in a program. Cancer cells are simply cells committing mutiny and forming new organisms behind the defence lines. Like other inner enemies like spies this will remain one of the trickiest risk factors to eliminate, since they are simply parts of your organisation turned against you. If you get better, so do they. Given the unbounded complexity of 'some part of our organism gone haywire' our best bet against cancer is probably an early detection and general purpose defence system like the immune system that we already have. So finding a one true cure for cancer is probably a utopia. The more complex the immune system, the more complex the threats that do outsmart it will become.