Comment by acyou

Here is my pet theory, it's not intended to be political, just thinking about evolutionary biology.

There is an optimum lifespan for peak evolutionary population fitness in any group of organisms. Too short a lifespan means not enough time to gather resources and reproduce. Too long a lifespan could mean competing with future generations for scarce resources, which might in theory marginally improve individual fitness, but in the aggregate decreases overall population fitness, and is therefore not selected for.

Over billions of years, organisms evolved built-in control mechanisms to ensure that they live/survive for the optimum amount of time. The evolution of these mechanisms is driven in part by the fact that an older organism under stress being eliminated from the environment will probably improve the population fitness of close relatives.

I believe this is what cancer is. It's one of many, many built-in mechanisms, reinforced by hundreds of millions of years of evolution, to kill us off when our time has come.

So, if there are tons and tons of evolved mechanisms that exist just to knock you out when your time has come. That is the ultimate reason why men die from heart attacks: they have evolved in past generations that if they have extreme exertion at an advanced age, it's an indication that they aren't contributing to population fitness in a useful manner, and that extreme exertion would be more efficiently done by younger individuals. At an old age, they should be at the top of the food chain, guiding and educating and valued and lazy and consuming, and if they are not, better for the tribe for them to die quickly than lingering on.

And there is hope. If we can eliminate stress from our lives, we send a signal to our bodies that we will improve population fitness by continuing to exist, and our bodies may reward us. That's a big reason for longer lifespans. Better diet and moderate exercise is great for sure, but less stress makes a big difference.

But this is only one of a multitude of dynamics that is happening in the complicated system that is the existence of life, and is not necessarily a dominant dynamic.

For prostate cancer, you might get around it temporarily, but something else will get you. Lifestyle changes, medication, placebo and other interventions that reduce stress probably have a better overall shot at increasing your lifespan than any single magic bullet.

I suspect that prostate cancer has to do with being old and not having sex, if you're an older male. An older male who doesn't have sex would have lower individual fitness than an older male who does have sex, and would be competing for resources with younger individuals who might have higher evolutionary fitness. So, there's another solution to prostate cancer that doesn't involve surgery (or even necessarily having sex), I think I read another article that mentioned that, I won't spell it out.

Given that breast cancer happens more to women who have not breastfed after carrying to full term (citation needed), you can draw a parallel. Females who are decreasing population fitness by not having children, and by extension have lower individual fitness, breast cancer and ovarian cancer are some of the main mechanisms. They also think that breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer. Certainly, even females that don't reproduce, but still breastfeed, probably improve population fitness, even if they don't have good individual fitness.