From: Kevin Freels (megaquark@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 16:59:01 MDT
It would be nice to have some data on the number of children that died of
cancer 200 years ago as compared to now.
Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: cancer rates (was: e: How do you calm down the hot-heads?)
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Robbie Lindauer wrote:
>
> > As for whether or not plants cause cancer - maybe they do, but that
> > wouldn't explain why it's a greater killer now than 200 years ago. For
> > that you'd have to add in the social factors.
>
> Facts not in evidence. 200 years ago, the average lifespan was
> significantly less -- perhaps as much as 50%. So people died
> prematurely from various diseases (plague, flu, smallpox, etc.)
> before the mutations that cause cancer could come into play.
>
> You cannot use that argument. 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).
>
> Robert
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 17:21:30 MDT