# Pain, Evolution and Terminal Cancer. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 13, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403 "2005-07-13T20:27:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/21 "2005-07-16T01:53:00Z")
> [@Jon the Geek](#): > > Um, yeah. That was the point. > > To answer **John Mace’s** question, during most of our evolutionary history the maximum breeding age for most men was, what, about 40? …. Well we can never know for sure, but based on modern HG societies that are always the best point of comparison in these cases then that’s not true. John Mace is correct, reproductive span and life span for HG males are the same. Men will continue to take young brides until the day they die and continue to father children. In most cultures the oldest men get first refusal on new brides and so are more likely to father children. I’d also like to add that we shouldn’t confuse life expectancy with adult lifespan. HGs may have ahd alife expectancy of around 30 but that’s because of high juvenile mortality and warfare associated deaths. If a man survived to become an elder he was probably going to live to see 60. > [@Liberal](#): > > Isn’t the OP’s underlying presumption that evolution works by the survival of individuals through intrinsic advantages just plain wrong? Yep, pretty much. Any advantages have to be reproductively useful, not simply advantageous. In this case the gene will only confer an advantage after the individual is no longer likely to reproduce and has little to offer the tribe. It’s about as useful evolutionarily as a gene that confers benefits to a corpse. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/22 "2005-07-19T01:31:17Z")
> [@Jim B.](#): > > As some of you may know by now, I am a staunch believer in the theory of evolution, which by the way, I think in no way conflicts with my belief in _some_ Supreme Being. But I do have one question about the “logic” of evolution, if you will. What possible evolutionary advantage could there ever have been to having people feel the sometimes extreme pain that accompanies terminal cancer? Pain is a survival mechanism. It tells a creature that something is causing damage to the body, take action to prevent further damage. A child that reaches toward a fire gets its hand burnt, and withdraws from the flame, and learns not to do _that_ again. If it walks into a prickly bush, it feels pain, and learns not to do that again. But sometimes, there is nothing to be done. The pain receptors indicate that damage is occurring, but no action (within our current aility) can stop the damage. In this circumstance, the pain has no advantage. Why do we still feel it? Because we haven’t yet evolved a way of avoiding it. It would perhaps be a better world if our pain receptors were to think “well, the situation is hopeless, no point in working any more, we’re going to die might as well make it comfortable” but the mutation that makes it possible hasn’t happened yet, unfortunately. Having pain when damage is happening is usually a survival advantage. It doesn’t stop working when there’s no hope. In terms of survival of the species, the advantages outweigh the problems. And that’s why terminal cancer hurts. ---
**Author:** ![Wake\_up\_call](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/dec6dc/32.png) [@Wake\_up\_call](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wake_up_call)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/23 "2005-07-19T14:27:05Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Puberty. Pretty much as soon as the hormones kick in, a male is capable of producing a child. > > Some scholars have speculated that perhaps puberty hit our ancestors at an earlier age than it does today, due to their shorter lives. **Lissa** , I believe **John Mace** question was “what is the maximum age for a male to be capable of producing a child”. You seem to have interpreted his question as “what is the minimum age”. Could you answer **John** ’s question based on the former interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/24 "2005-07-19T18:11:55Z")
> [@Lissa](#): > > Some scholars have speculated that perhaps puberty hit our ancestors at an earlier age than it does today, due to their shorter lives. Which scholars would these be? I was under the impression that the age for puberty was consistently _decreasing_, especially in girls, due to more plentiful food, particularly fat. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/25 "2005-07-20T05:31:30Z")
> [@Peter Morris](#): > > But sometimes, there is nothing to be done. The pain receptors indicate that damage is occurring, but no action (within our current aility) can stop the damage. In this circumstance, the pain has no advantage. Why do we still feel it? In a way, isn’t shock an example of pain turning off in a hopeless situation? How did shock evolve, anyway? I never understood that one. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/26 "2005-07-20T21:10:08Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > In a way, isn’t shock an example of pain turning off in a hopeless situation? > > How did shock evolve, anyway? I never understood that one. To my knowledge (IANAD) most sock relates to blood or fluid loss. You get super low blood pressure which allows very little blood to the brain, which then starts to malfunction. I believe you are talking about people who, perhaps at the sight of blood, lose it. [This site](http://www.mdadvice.com/library/symp/illness474.html) seems to think that is a totally different thing, but I can’t seem to find any information on it. I, too, would like to know. Heck, it may just be a common malfunction of a machine as complex as the brain, like depression. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403/27 "2005-07-20T21:20:43Z")
> [@flight](#): > > Which scholars would these be? I was under the impression that the age for puberty was consistently _decreasing_, especially in girls, due to more plentiful food, particularly fat. I think she was talking about ancestors earlier than Homo sapiens sapiens. For instance the Turkana boy (a nearly complete Homo erectus specimen) was estimated at around age 12 due to his level of maturity…tooth eruptions, bone fusion, etc. However, I seem to recall an article that said the new estimate was that he was 8 years old when he died, implying that Homo erectus reached maturity sooner than Homo sapiens sapiens. For the life of me I can’t recall what the evidence was for the younger age estimate however. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pain-evolution-and-terminal-cancer/312403.md?page=1)