From: Robbie Lindauer (robblin@thetip.org)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 15:03:44 MDT
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 11:05 AM, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> Facts not in evidence. 200 years ago, the average lifespan was
> significantly less -- perhaps as much as 50%.
but not the average maximum life span - still around 110-120 years.
> So people died
> prematurely from various diseases (plague, flu, smallpox, etc.)
> before the mutations that cause cancer could come into play.
Wars, etc.
> You cannot use that argument.
If I can not use my argument, you can't use yours.
> Cancer is a greater killer now
> simply because things like vaccines, antibiotics and better
> nutrition allow people to live longer and therefore they have
> a greater risk of developing cancer. The human genetic program
> never evolved to the point where it could prevent cancer from
> developing in 80 year olds -- because during most of our evolution
> people never lived to 80 (this is called the "declining force of
> natural selection" in the study of gerontology).
Why is it such a controversial proposition that the noxious fumes,
radioactive waste, heavy metals and other KNOWN CARCINOGENS that we
spew forth into the atmosphere, water and earth at a rate of
100,000,000 tonnes/year are killing us because they are carcinogenic?
I've granted your point (in fact, I'm sure I made it myself) - getting
older TAUTOLOGICALLY gives more exposure to cancer causing agents.
SO WHAT?
Isn't the point that we will all continue to get older NO MATTER WHAT
so the obvious course of action is to reduce the exposure to the
cancer-causing agents. To do that will require a significant reworking
of our political economy.
Is there something really THAT controversial about my claims here?
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 15:15:31 MDT