posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 04:12 PM
Interesting concept, absolutely.
The thing is, cancer has been around for thousands of years; there is anthropological evidence of tumour activity and invasion in skeletal and
mummified remains dating back millenia. Perhaps the distinction now is that we've become more sophisticated in detecting and reporting cancers,
although it's absolutely correct that there are more cases - if only because we have thousands of added carcinogens floating around that would not
have existed Way Back When.
Having said that, I'm not sure that it's a "nature's way" type of issue; surely it would be far more efficient to prevent births, than wait
until the post-fertile period (which is when the majority of cancers are diagnosed) - the patient has already completed their breeding program (!) by
(I've just realised how...uh..."Handmaid's Tale-ish"that last sentence sounds...eek!)
Because many cancers are triggered by human interference (chemically induced, etc etc), this would seem to indicate that if cancer is a tool of
Darwinism...it's not a very effective tool.
Sometimes though, I do wonder if we're not doing ourselves a grave disservice by prolonging life in that manner; with a planet already struggling
with resources, might it not be more prudent (if....uh...cold) to "let them go", as it were? (an example would be....thirty years ago, a kidney
cancer patient would have virtually no chance of recovery; now we find much higher survival rates, etc, which in turn keeps adding to the strain on
Interesting stuff, without a doubt...but I think virii are the true geniuses of the "survival of the fittest" world, with their capacity to mutate
and change faster than we can find cures...