Comment by yieldcrv
4 hours ago
in my futile searches for meaning I’ve wondered whether cancers in humans are a failsafe to something else or preventing something worse
more specifically the lack of more failsafes seen in some other mammals are a reaction to something besides happenstance
Was actually a great article on this last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49832938
Cancer is the price we pay for complex multicellular life. It’s not a failsafe, it’s the failure of all failsafes to regulate cellular growth within an organism.
Larger mammals with many more cells have additional protections against cancer
Such as longer and more numerous telomeres
Hence why the human situation stands out to me and can’t be reduced to “it just is“. Some other mammals have it worse though
> wondered whether cancers in humans are a failsafe
I don't think so, but in the context of theories that are more-interesting than "stuff just breaks sometimes", I'd like to suggest the atavistic aspect.
Some cancers resemble a return towards unicellularity, as if "newer" multicellular rules have broken down. Not in any remotely-effective "our genes shall survive the dark times as goo" way, though.