Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#101

Post by Nasrudith »

GuB-42 wrote: post #22
Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Yes, I tend to think of an increase of death by heart disease, cancer and neurodegenerescence to be good news overall. These diseases are essentially dying of old age. Better treatment for heart disease will mechanically increase cancer deaths and/or Alzheimer.

Reminds me of the actuarial sims which excluded all deaths from disease, old age, and traffic accidents. Stairs were one of the top killers but population tapered off even as "cannot die of disease or old age" immortals although some outliers could make it a bit past a millennia.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#102

Post by devoutsalsa »

nemo44x wrote: post #32
strken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they control for age? A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

It’s amazing how precarious being born is. I think I read that about 200 years ago around 40% of people didn’t make it past 5 years old or something like that. Antibiotics have helped a lot in modern times, especially for mothers giving birth.

Infant mortality was 165 deaths per 1000 births in the year 1900, according to this...

https://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/dmortality.htm

...I also like the link to play the video via Real player in the upper left corner :)

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#103

Post by newsclues »

agumonkey wrote: post #95
mikewarot wrote: post #75

When I saw a great^n grandmother's 1870 census entry, which said she had 7 children, 1 of which was still alive (at 55), the reality of life back then hit me hard. This a meaningless question for most people, if it helps save lives in the future, great. I think you should also pay attention to Bret Weinstein's work on telomeres and cancer. If the environmental pressures are for a low age, you end up with long telomer…

But did they die of cancer ?

Most didn’t live long enough to die of cancer.

I think infant mortality was high, and the likelihood of simple infection killing you was high.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#104

Post by Kejiti »

tejtm wrote: post #87
Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Not a biologist, but been around them long enough. I been cultivating a theory that mammals strategy is more or less "go fast; break things". That is, asteroid or not, we were on track to out evolve everything that came before by extending and exploiting explosive cell growth. No animal converts matter & energy to body-mass faster than young mammals, the cold blooded do not stand a chance. The competition would get l…

We humans are very unique though on how much care and dependency babes need.

From an evolutionary perspective natur might have just stoped after we gave birth but for humans you need to be still very healthy for much longer.

We have a second evolution which we as a species gained due to our more generic and bigger brain and therefore being able to retain and learn more even through generations.

Whenever nature stoped we continued (glasses, cancer treatment etc.)

I personally would not subscribe to your idea that cancer is our basis and we just let loose.

Cancer is just one sickness of a highly complex system.

And after all why would longevity even be a goal for evolution? It's a wishful human idea of lifing forever. I myself I'm looking forward to NOT life forever and still today the thought of not being able to end my life for good is my worst nightmare next to loosing my mind.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#105

Post by okaram »

strken wrote: post #26
Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Perhaps they control for age? A lot of the lower life expectancy was sky-high infant mortality, and if you made it to 10 in 1850 (hardly preindustrial, but preindustrial stats are harder to find) you could expect to live to 60 or so. Presumably you'd compare the cancer rates of your study's skeletons with the cancer rates of today's 60 year olds.

I don't have data, but I assume that is only for rich males? Maternity mortality rates were horrible, wars etc

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#106

Post by CyanBird »

tejtm wrote: post #87
Sebb767 wrote: post #12

One thing which I always thought of, but which the article doesn't mention, is age. Especially older people seem more prone to cancer, so in my mind a lower life expectancy will naturally lead to a lower cancer rate, as people die before cancer "is able to get them". Or am I missing something?

Not a biologist, but been around them long enough. I been cultivating a theory that mammals strategy is more or less "go fast; break things". That is, asteroid or not, we were on track to out evolve everything that came before by extending and exploiting explosive cell growth. No animal converts matter & energy to body-mass faster than young mammals, the cold blooded do not stand a chance. The competition would get l…

I think it is a cute hypothesis, but I don't believe it is fully functional, how would this explain megafauna? An I am not talking of moose, but of ice age gigantic mammals, which were just gigantic

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#107

Post by slumdev »

JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #11
sharklazer wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

Last time I reviewed the glyphosate literature it wasn’t that impressive of a link between Roundup and cancer. Has anything changed? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/ I agree Monsanto is a horrible company, but for other reasons.

Are you from the Agvocate "Tough Conversations" team?

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#108

Post by slumdev »

sharklazer wrote: post #9
newsclues wrote: post #2

Did the age of oil or age of nuclear power have more unintended consequences?

The age of glyphosate, an antibiotic that has been sprayed so much that it’s testable in the rain and in sources of groundwater at this point. The effects of long-term antibiotic exposure are up still being learned. But it clear means a gut biome disruption. Thanks Monsanto. Err... Bayer (same people who sold Heroin over the counter 100 years ago)

The evidence of Roundup/glyphosate's carcinogenicity is playing out in courtrooms around the world.

And it ain't looking good for Bayer.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#109

Post by lurquer »

Kejiti wrote: post #104
tejtm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a biologist, but been around them long enough. I been cultivating a theory that mammals strategy is more or less "go fast; break things". That is, asteroid or not, we were on track to out evolve everything that came before by extending and exploiting explosive cell growth. No animal converts matter & energy to body-mass faster than young mammals, the cold blooded do not stand a chance. The competition would get l…

We humans are very unique though on how much care and dependency babes need. From an evolutionary perspective natur might have just stoped after we gave birth but for humans you need to be still very healthy for much longer. We have a second evolution which we as a species gained due to our more generic and bigger brain and therefore being able to retain and learn more even through generations. Whenever nature stoped…

> We humans are very unique though on how much care and dependency babes need.

The marsupials of Australia called and would like a word with you.

Re: Was cancer less likely in a pre-industrial world?

#110

Post by pfdietz »

adolph wrote: post #55
7952 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think evolution plays a part in why older people are more prone. A debilitating illness in your teens is likely to stop you reproducing and is more likely to vanish. But a genetic trait for cancer later in life can get past on.

There must be some evolutionary fitting function that mutations serve that have prevented them from being selected out.

And in very large animals there are adaptations that keep cancer in check, even though they have many more cells. IIRC, elephants have many copies of genes that induce suicide in aberrant cells.
Post reply on HN