This should be deleted

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

tonyisnt
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:30 am UTC

This should be deleted

Postby tonyisnt » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:57 am UTC

This should be deleted
Last edited by tonyisnt on Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:28 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Postby Hawknc » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:58 am UTC

Tony isn't, clearly.
ImageImageImageImageImage

User avatar
pixelfehler
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:30 pm UTC

Postby pixelfehler » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:44 pm UTC

Well, stuff like this happens to a species when their evolutionary programming ("eat all the sweets and fats you can get") runs into the present time.

And industries just satisfy demand, so... blame the customers?
"Say something witty and the world will remember you forever" --Anonymous

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:52 pm UTC

Be aware that longer lifespans is a huge factor in this.

As far as I'm aware, there isn't a huge unknown factor in the cause of cancer that "industry" could be causing.

When nothing except for cancer kills you, you are more likely to die of cancer. When you get wealthy, your chance of dieing to anything except (cancer and blood-clotting deseases) plummets. The result isn't mysterious.

User avatar
Xanthir
My HERO!!!
Posts: 5311
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 12:49 am UTC
Location: The Googleplex
Contact:

Postby Xanthir » Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:45 pm UTC

Nod. Longer life inevitably leads to more cancer. Nothing else is really required to explain this trend, though other factors may be influencing it as well. As soon as we stop being reproductively viable, there's little to no selective pressure against developing cancer.

User avatar
LE4dGOLEM
is unique......wait, no!!!!
Posts: 5972
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:10 pm UTC
Location: :uoıʇɐɔol

Postby LE4dGOLEM » Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:45 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:Nod. Longer life inevitably leads to more cancer. Nothing else is really required to explain this trend, though other factors may be influencing it as well. As soon as we stop being reproductively viable, there's little to no selective pressure against developing cancer.


Soylent cancer is people?
Image Une See Fights - crayon super-ish hero webcomic!
doogly wrote:It would just be much better if it were not shitty.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Postby Vaniver » Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:50 pm UTC

Others believe "cancer is somehow inevitable, that one is predisposed to it genetically. Again, that's not true. Forty percent of cancers can be prevented by simple changes in lifestyle."
So... over half of cancers are inevitable, but, *somehow*, cancer is not inevitable?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
bookishbunny
Posts: 1509
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:24 pm UTC
Location: Lost in the Doll's House
Contact:

Postby bookishbunny » Wed May 02, 2007 8:56 pm UTC

The time in life when cancer strikes, and what kind of cancer it is, may determine whether or not it could have been avoided or, at least, put off.
~Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you push them down the stairs.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, Dauric and 15 guests