How old is cancer?

[brachy-pride]

Queen Mary the one which made catholicism in england again died of stomach cancer, she thought she was pregnant for a while

 

[Bugfatty300]

Back then people died so young, they really didn't have time to die of cancer.

 

[Idlenessss]

actually its not true, if u managed to live past infancy in most places on earth you could expect to live just as old as people live today. Except with certain places such as the absurdly unsanitized and overcrowded places as occured in europe.

 

[RubricousMidget]

Actually, no. You could expect to live above the median age of 20-something, but you'd be considered very old indeed to get past 50 or 60, not to mention today's average of 78-80 years (The average life xpectancy for a Roman citizen was, I believe, 50). Most places were "absrudly unsanitized", though not overcrowded, during most of human existence. You'd have to go back to Rome or Greece in ancient times to find mostly acceptable hygiene, even though they, too, left their crap in the streets. Only China has managed to hang onto a minimum of hygiene for more than about a millenium, and Japan is the runner-up. Also, any disease that is fatal unless cured today would kill you back then. You could die from a flu easily. Not to mention all the inmjuries that got infected and killed people and that would be stitched up today with only a scar to show. And then, when you had survived all that, you suddenly found yourself completely worn out from hard work all your life, and died a decade or two before today's average.

I believe they found signs of cancer on the mummy of an egyptian pharaoh. In the jaws, I believe. I also think they found a T-rex who had died from cancer, though both pieces of information would need to be verified.

 

[Plotinus]

I can't find any information on tyrannosaur cancer. The closest I could find was this, an interesting study on mortality rates among the related Albertosaurs. It seems that once Albertosaurs reached the age of two, they tended to stay alive until their teens, at which point the chances of death began to increase. Only 2% reached the maximum size, suggesting that they would not have generally lived long enough to get cancer. Which would be true of virtually all wild animals, I should think, especially large carnivores.

 

[Leifmk]

Actually, no. You could expect to live above the median age of 20-something, but you'd be considered very old indeed to get past 50 or 60, not to mention today's average of 78-80 years

Well, sort of. Without access to modern medicine everyone, at all ages, would face a higher annual risk of death from disease and accidents and so on (or other permanent decline in health, again leading to a shorter life expectancy and lower quality of what life they had left) -- so there'd be a higher attrition rate across the board. In most societies the transition from middle age to old age would come somewhat sooner than it does for us today, and (this is the biggest difference IMHO) people who had made it to being "old" would normally be pretty worn out and frail and not last very long. While there have always been some people reaching great ages and retaining admirable vigour past 60, 70 or even 80, these used to be very rare outliers; now they are increasingly common.

 

[RubricousMidget]

[...] While there have always been some people reaching great ages and retaining admirable vigour past 60, 70 or even 80, these used to be very rare outliers; now they are increasingly common.

That's what I said. Sorta. I hope.
Anyway, it's not true that you'd live as long as now if you just made it through adolescence.

 

[plarq]

I have read materials that indicates plants can also have tumors and cancers, just a mutated organic part may turn out to be cancer.

 

[Leifmk]

That's what I said. Sorta. I hope.

Yeah, I'm not contradicting, just supplementing.

Anyway, it's not true that you'd live as long as now if you just made it through adolescence.

Statistically, you're right -- the mean life expectancy for people who had already reached a given age would always be somewhat lower than it is for modern-day first-worlders. You'd still have a chance of making it to some really old age, just a lower chance than in modern times.

If you look at portrayals of the elderly in contemporary literature and non-fiction sources from various periods, you can also see a quite interesting change in their expected quality of life, just over the past few decades. The idea that it is normal for the 70+ set to be active and vigorous as opposed to being worn-out, frail and nearly dead is that recent -- even though there have always been examples to the contrary, these were considered rare exceptions.

 

[bob bobato]

Well, sort of. Without access to modern medicine everyone, at all ages, would face a higher annual risk of death from disease and accidents and so on (or other permanent decline in health, again leading to a shorter life expectancy and lower quality of what life they had left) -- so there'd be a higher attrition rate across the board. In most societies the transition from middle age to old age would come somewhat sooner than it does for us today, and (this is the biggest difference IMHO) people who had made it to being "old" would normally be pretty worn out and frail and not last very long. While there have always been some people reaching great ages and retaining admirable vigour past 60, 70 or even 80, these used to be very rare outliers; now they are increasingly common.

Um-huh. And thats why roman soldiers retirered in their 50's, because they were so frail by then( the best soldier being weak and close to death,of course).

 

[RubricousMidget]

Um-huh. And thats why roman soldiers retirered in their 50's, because they were so frail by then( the best soldier being weak and close to death,of course).

Actually, I think the "serve for 20 years and get full Roman citizenship and a plot of land of your own in newly annexed territory" clause was a bigger motivating factor for retirement than old age.