Granny Dumping, Fasting and the Evolution of Cancer
Updated version of this post here
The practice of dumping grannies in the mountains to die, as a form of euthanasia is more a product of Japanese folklore than a real historical practice. But had the Japanese have carried out such a practice, it is possibly to see how, in certain circumstances it would be evolutionarily favoured. Species that are able and willing to dump their forebears in the mountains at such time as they are no longer providing sufficient wisdom or child-minding -- soft or hard contributions to society -- but are still eating and requiring assistance will be ridding themselves of a burden. Killing societal burdens could be argued to be beneficial to society, at least by the Nazis. There would be drawbacks. Any society in which such a practice were overtly carried out would promote the fear, uncertainty, and mutual distrust. It is for these reasons that it is very likely that granny dumping was confined to folklore rather actually taking place. But what if such a nastiness were to occur naturally?
The existence of cancer strikes me as being very difficult to explain. When Steven Fry, an atheist, was asked, 'what would you say to an omnipotent being should you meet one after you die?". As quick as a flash Fry replied, "brain cancer in children?" He proceeded to outline the Dostoyevski defence; an omnipotent deity that created a world like this, with childhood brain tumor, deserves no respect. If worshipping such an entity were the ticket to heaven, then it would be appropriate to say "sorry, but no thanks." "I most respectfully return him the ticket" (Dostoyevski, 1880, ch 35).
Even from the standpoint of evolution, however, cancer still remains difficult to explain. I don't think that there is some bloke with a slide rule doing intelligent design, but all the same things happen for a reason, an evolutionary reason. Random pain and tragedy happen, but it seems bizarre that organisms should inflict such horror upon themselves.
From a perusal of Google Scholar, and the advice of a friend, it seems that there are three ways in which cancer can be explained from an evolutionary perspective.
The first is that cancer is an example of survival of the fittest at a cellular level. Normal cells mutate to become cancer cells that replicate more rapidly, marshal resources more effectively, and are in that sense fitter than their non cancerous peers (Nowell, 1976). This logic is at once irrefutable -- cancers really do mutate in such a way as to survive -- but at the same time seems to require further explanation. Evolution predominates at the level of species and their genes. Evolution cares not for individuals, be they grannies or cells. Bearing that in mind, it is difficult to see why a species of human did not evolve to have an immune system capable of dealing with greedy, destructive cancer cells, unless cancer were beneficial to the species as a whole.
A second explanation for the evolution of cancer is that cancer is carrying out the prime objective of evolution the replication of the fittest variation, where variation implies death. If it were not for the fact that we have built in obsolescence, that we are programmed to age and die, then there would never be variation just a stagnant gene pool of nonagenarians or much older, and above.
But this explanation still does not cut the mustard. Ageing, wearing out, a weakened ability for cell replication is all very understandable but why should there also be this horrible self destruct mode? Cancer seems to be too violent, and gratuitous to be explained solely as another ageing mechanism, though it is generally related to age.
Another possibility (that I have yet to see expressed) is that cancer is an essential by-product of evolution in that species that evolve need to mutate so therefore they will inevitably experience mutation at the cellular level. This is an evolutionary explanation of the first explanation. Species that evolve need to made of stuff that mutates and evolves at an individual, and cellular level. Species are no more than the sum of their parts, so the parts and the whole necessarily correspond to each other in their tendency to mutate and evolve. This explanation sounds plausible too.
However, is this really how evolution occurs? When the proto rhino returned to the sea and evolved into a whale was it by cancerous mutation that its snout moved back to become a blow-hole? Did a cancer ever evolve into anything useful? Were the cells in our retina, prefrontal lobes or opposable thumbs ever once a tumour in one of our ancestors? I am inclined to think not. Cancerous mutation and inter-individual and inter-generational variation, appear to be different things. This is an argument merely from visual confirmation but, cancers just look different from all the variations, big noses, small jaws, and variations in height that we see between individuals and generations. A medical practitioner of my acquaintance tells me that you can spot a cancer. Cancers are not merely different, but cancer-like, and incidentally grotesque.
Further, upon reflection, there are some species of animal such as naked mole rats that do not suffer from cancer. It follows therefore that cancer is not a necessary by-product of evolution due to the covariance of species and cell, else naked mole rats would never have evolved at all.
So what was the evolutionary force that propelled this natural monster into existence?
To explain the titular theory I need to introduce two fields of research, and cut to the chase.
The first research field is that of paleopathology, scholars of ancient causes of death, find that cancer is rarer in our ancient ancestors. There is a striking rarity of malignancies” in ancient human remains (David & Zimmerman, 2010; see Johnson, 2010). The "cancer is a modern disease" meme allows some to conclude that it is caused by our industrial environment, or the prevalence of cigarettes. Again, this physical environment explanation is persuasive, but didn't our ancestors come in contact with shale tar, or enjoy a paleolithic toke? I suggest something else has changed, an aspect of our diet, which brings me onto the second area of research.
Another fascinating area of research research is that of Dr Valter Longo who finds that fasting is as effective as chemotherapy at alleviating and preventing cancer(e.g. Raffaghello, Safdie, Bianchi, Dorff, Fontana, & Longo 2010; Lee, & Longo, 2011). Fasting is found to improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy, make the after effects of chemo less unpleasant, and even more importantly, cause cancers to self-destruct due to the effects of fasting alone. During a fast normal cells go into hibernation whereas cancerous cells want to eat and eat even themselves.
So, cutting to the conclusion. For much of our paleolithic past humans lived in hunter gather societies in which game and gather were a non continuous source of calories. For much of our evolutionary past therefore, it seems likely that we should have been forced to fast. Individuals in hunter gather societies would have been forced to fast unless that however, they had access to the resources of their peers.
Bearing in mind that cancer tends to effect older persons, and that it can be prevented in large part by periods of low calorie consumption, could it be the case therefore that cancer was a natural granny and grandpa dump? Social species such as humans may have evolved a mechanism called cancer, such that older persons who did not undergo periods of low calorie consumption, and were likely therefore in those societies to have been being a burden on their hunter gatherer peers, should self destruct.
If this is the evolutionary origin of cancer, it would mean that cancer today is even more utterly gratuitous than it appears. In the modern world where older persons are capable of supporting themselves and through their skills, knowledge, and sagacity benefiting the general community, then there is every evolutionary reason for keeping them alive. But for those millennia when humans lived on the calorific brink of extinction, a natural method of finishing off free-loaders may have been evolutionarily preferred.
This is the only explanation for this horror that I can think of, and it still does not explain childhood brain cancer.
The only positive take home from this conclusion is that it may be a good idea to periodically fast, especially in the unfortunate event that one has cancer.
Addendum
If the above hypothesis were correct, then the tendency to get cancer would be expected to correlate to the ability or tendency to freeload. I predicted that animals that do not get cancer would be those that lead a completely solitary existence. It seems however, that the animal most famed for not getting cancer, the naked mole rat is "eusocial". That is to say that rather than being independent, they are the most dependent of mammals, living in communities in which (like bees, wasps, termites and ants) individuals have specific bio-social roles such as breeding queens, and sterile workers. The fact that cancer free naked mole rats are eusocial does not disprove the cancer as granny dump hypothesis. Rather their highly interdependent social existence and freedom from cancer conversely suggests a link. Eusocial animal communities contain individuals that are essentially free-loaders: foraging for food is not a omnipresent function of the naked mole rat. It would make no evolutionary sense, therefore, for mole rats to self-destruct.
Another mammal that is almost entirely cancer free is the bow whale. Bow whales live in isolation or in small groups of up to six. They filter the oceans for sustenance so may have very limited ability to help or sustain their aged, or otherwise compromised, peers, very little opportunity for freeloading, and no need of cancer.
Dr. James DeGregori discusses the evolutionary origins of cancer from about the 40 minute mark in this video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXByvyVgHrI
Contra what I suggest above regarding a possible difference between oncogenic and evolutionary mutation, he is suggesting that they are the same thing, at least in the case of lactose tolerance in adults. And he is saying that the prevalence of cancer in older people is just because natural selection does not protect those that are past the breeding age so cancer is essentially another form of ageing. But then how does he explain those naked mole rats? I have not gotten to the end of the video.
Bibliography
Dostoyevsky, F (1880) The Brothers Karamazov.
Lee, C., & Longo, V. D. (2011). Fasting vs dietary restriction in cellular protection and cancer treatment: from model organisms to patients. Oncogene, 30(30), 3305-3316.
Nowell, P. C. (1976). The Clonal Evolution of Tumor Cell Populations. Science, 194(4260), 23-28.
Raffaghello, L., Safdie, F., Bianchi, G., Dorff, T., Fontana, L., & Longo, V. D. (2010). Fasting and differential chemotherapy protection in patients. Cell Cycle, 9(22), 4474-4476.
Image: Granny Dumping Moon by Yotoshi in the Tokyo Metropolitan museum.
お取り下げご希望でありましたら、下記のコメント欄かnihonbunka.comのメールリンクからご一筆ください。
Granny Dumping, Fasting and the Evolution of Cancer
Updated version of this post here
The practice of dumping grannies in the mountains to die, as a form of euthanasia is more a product of Japanese folklore than a real historical practice. But had the Japanese have carried out such a practice, it is possibly to see how, in certain circumstances it would be evolutionarily favoured. Species that are able and willing to dump their forebears in the mountains at such time as they are no longer providing sufficient wisdom or child-minding -- soft or hard contributions to society -- but are still eating and requiring assistance will be ridding themselves of a burden. Killing societal burdens could be argued to be beneficial to society, at least by the Nazis. There would be drawbacks. Any society in which such a practice were overtly carried out would promote the fear, uncertainty, and mutual distrust. It is for these reasons that it is very likely that granny dumping was confined to folklore rather actually taking place. But what if such a nastiness were to occur naturally?
The existence of cancer strikes me as being very difficult to explain. When Steven Fry, an atheist, was asked, 'what would you say to an omnipotent being should you meet one after you die?". As quick as a flash Fry replied, "brain cancer in children?" He proceeded to outline the Dostoyevski defence; an omnipotent deity that created a world like this, with childhood brain tumor, deserves no respect. If worshipping such an entity were the ticket to heaven, then it would be appropriate to say "sorry, but no thanks." "I most respectfully return him the ticket" (Dostoyevski, 1880, ch 35).
Even from the standpoint of evolution, however, cancer still remains difficult to explain. I don't think that there is some bloke with a slide rule doing intelligent design, but all the same things happen for a reason, an evolutionary reason. Random pain and tragedy happen, but it seems bizarre that organisms should inflict such horror upon themselves.
From a perusal of Google Scholar, and the advice of a friend, it seems that there are three ways in which cancer can be explained from an evolutionary perspective.
The first is that cancer is an example of survival of the fittest at a cellular level. Normal cells mutate to become cancer cells that replicate more rapidly, marshal resources more effectively, and are in that sense fitter than their non cancerous peers (Nowell, 1976). This logic is at once irrefutable -- cancers really do mutate in such a way as to survive -- but at the same time seems to require further explanation. Evolution predominates at the level of species and their genes. Evolution cares not for individuals, be they grannies or cells. Bearing that in mind, it is difficult to see why a species of human did not evolve to have an immune system capable of dealing with greedy, destructive cancer cells, unless cancer were beneficial to the species as a whole.
A second explanation for the evolution of cancer is that cancer is carrying out the prime objective of evolution the replication of the fittest variation, where variation implies death. If it were not for the fact that we have built in obsolescence, that we are programmed to age and die, then there would never be variation just a stagnant gene pool of nonagenarians or much older, and above.
But this explanation still does not cut the mustard. Ageing, wearing out, a weakened ability for cell replication is all very understandable but why should there also be this horrible self destruct mode? Cancer seems to be too violent, and gratuitous to be explained solely as another ageing mechanism, though it is generally related to age.
Another possibility (that I have yet to see expressed) is that cancer is an essential by-product of evolution in that species that evolve need to mutate so therefore they will inevitably experience mutation at the cellular level. This is an evolutionary explanation of the first explanation. Species that evolve need to made of stuff that mutates and evolves at an individual, and cellular level. Species are no more than the sum of their parts, so the parts and the whole necessarily correspond to each other in their tendency to mutate and evolve. This explanation sounds plausible too.
However, is this really how evolution occurs? When the proto rhino returned to the sea and evolved into a whale was it by cancerous mutation that its snout moved back to become a blow-hole? Did a cancer ever evolve into anything useful? Were the cells in our retina, prefrontal lobes or opposable thumbs ever once a tumour in one of our ancestors? I am inclined to think not. Cancerous mutation and inter-individual and inter-generational variation, appear to be different things. This is an argument merely from visual confirmation but, cancers just look different from all the variations, big noses, small jaws, and variations in height that we see between individuals and generations. A medical practitioner of my acquaintance tells me that you can spot a cancer. Cancers are not merely different, but cancer-like, and incidentally grotesque.
Further, upon reflection, there are some species of animal such as naked mole rats that do not suffer from cancer. It follows therefore that cancer is not a necessary by-product of evolution due to the covariance of species and cell, else naked mole rats would never have evolved at all.
So what was the evolutionary force that propelled this natural monster into existence?
To explain the titular theory I need to introduce two fields of research, and cut to the chase.
The first research field is that of paleopathology, scholars of ancient causes of death, find that cancer is rarer in our ancient ancestors. There is a striking rarity of malignancies” in ancient human remains (David & Zimmerman, 2010; see Johnson, 2010). The "cancer is a modern disease" meme allows some to conclude that it is caused by our industrial environment, or the prevalence of cigarettes. Again, this physical environment explanation is persuasive, but didn't our ancestors come in contact with shale tar, or enjoy a paleolithic toke? I suggest something else has changed, an aspect of our diet, which brings me onto the second area of research.
Another fascinating area of research research is that of Dr Valter Longo who finds that fasting is as effective as chemotherapy at alleviating and preventing cancer(e.g. Raffaghello, Safdie, Bianchi, Dorff, Fontana, & Longo 2010; Lee, & Longo, 2011). Fasting is found to improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy, make the after effects of chemo less unpleasant, and even more importantly, cause cancers to self-destruct due to the effects of fasting alone. During a fast normal cells go into hibernation whereas cancerous cells want to eat and eat even themselves.
So, cutting to the conclusion. For much of our paleolithic past humans lived in hunter gather societies in which game and gather were a non continuous source of calories. For much of our evolutionary past therefore, it seems likely that we should have been forced to fast. Individuals in hunter gather societies would have been forced to fast unless that however, they had access to the resources of their peers.
Bearing in mind that cancer tends to effect older persons, and that it can be prevented in large part by periods of low calorie consumption, could it be the case therefore that cancer was a natural granny and grandpa dump? Social species such as humans may have evolved a mechanism called cancer, such that older persons who did not undergo periods of low calorie consumption, and were likely therefore in those societies to have been being a burden on their hunter gatherer peers, should self destruct.
If this is the evolutionary origin of cancer, it would mean that cancer today is even more utterly gratuitous than it appears. In the modern world where older persons are capable of supporting themselves and through their skills, knowledge, and sagacity benefiting the general community, then there is every evolutionary reason for keeping them alive. But for those millennia when humans lived on the calorific brink of extinction, a natural method of finishing off free-loaders may have been evolutionarily preferred.
This is the only explanation for this horror that I can think of, and it still does not explain childhood brain cancer.
The only positive take home from this conclusion is that it may be a good idea to periodically fast, especially in the unfortunate event that one has cancer.
Addendum
If the above hypothesis were correct, then the tendency to get cancer would be expected to correlate to the ability or tendency to freeload. I predicted that animals that do not get cancer would be those that lead a completely solitary existence. It seems however, that the animal most famed for not getting cancer, the naked mole rat is "eusocial". That is to say that rather than being independent, they are the most dependent of mammals, living in communities in which (like bees, wasps, termites and ants) individuals have specific bio-social roles such as breeding queens, and sterile workers. The fact that cancer free naked mole rats are eusocial does not disprove the cancer as granny dump hypothesis. Rather their highly interdependent social existence and freedom from cancer conversely suggests a link. Eusocial animal communities contain individuals that are essentially free-loaders: foraging for food is not a omnipresent function of the naked mole rat. It would make no evolutionary sense, therefore, for mole rats to self-destruct.
Another mammal that is almost entirely cancer free is the bow whale. Bow whales live in isolation or in small groups of up to six. They filter the oceans for sustenance so may have very limited ability to help or sustain their aged, or otherwise compromised, peers, very little opportunity for freeloading, and no need of cancer.
Dr. James DeGregori discusses the evolutionary origins of cancer from about the 40 minute mark in this video
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXByvyVgHrI
Contra what I suggest above regarding a possible difference between oncogenic and evolutionary mutation, he is suggesting that they are the same thing, at least in the case of lactose tolerance in adults. And he is saying that the prevalence of cancer in older people is just because natural selection does not protect those that are past the breeding age so cancer is essentially another form of ageing. But then how does he explain those naked mole rats? I have not gotten to the end of the video.
Bibliography
Dostoyevsky, F (1880) The Brothers Karamazov.
Lee, C., & Longo, V. D. (2011). Fasting vs dietary restriction in cellular protection and cancer treatment: from model organisms to patients. Oncogene, 30(30), 3305-3316.
Nowell, P. C. (1976). The Clonal Evolution of Tumor Cell Populations. Science, 194(4260), 23-28.
Raffaghello, L., Safdie, F., Bianchi, G., Dorff, T., Fontana, L., & Longo, V. D. (2010). Fasting and differential chemotherapy protection in patients. Cell Cycle, 9(22), 4474-4476.
Image: Granny Dumping Moon by Yotoshi in the Tokyo Metropolitan museum.
お取り下げご希望でありましたら、下記のコメント欄かnihonbunka.comのメールリンクからご一筆ください。