cancer caused by capitalism

[Comrade Anarchist]

corporations have been creating chemicals and spreading them for over 60 years and these chemicals are being sprayed everywhere even today. the cancer rates have jumped along all over the world especially in areas where these chemicals were used. The corporations say that there is no proof to show the connection between their chemicals and cancer because every damn chemical that scientists says cause cancer are used over every inch of this earth. Why do our governments just ignore these findings and continue to let cancer causing chemicals to be spread. well it is obvious why because the corporation and the government are one. So cancer is caused by capitalism and our governments.

[Dr Mindbender]

We will still have cancer after the revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

There are two main reasons why cancer rates are higher today than they were, say, 100 years ago.

1. Longer life expectancies. The longer you live, the more likely you are to develop a cancer, since for the most part the risk of cancer increases with age.

2. Improved screening and diagnosis. We're better able to diagnose cancer, which increases cancer prevalence rates.

[LOLseph Stalin]

There are two main reasons why cancer rates are higher today than they were, say, 100 years ago.

1. Longer life expectancies. The longer you live, the more likely you are to develop a cancer, since for the most part the risk of cancer increases with age.

2. Improved screening and diagnosis. We're better able to diagnose cancer, which increases cancer prevalence rates.


Things such as smoking contribute to causing Cancer as well. There are also arguments out there stating that things as simple as hair shampoo contain Cancer causing agents.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Cancer existed before capitalism and will exist after. People with a genetic history of cancer who take all possible precautions can still develop cancer. People who do everything you can imagine that is linked to cancer don't develop cancer.

There are certain things correlated with cancer. When do tests, people are more likely to have cancer if they smoke. A smoker could be one of the theoretical view people who, when they smoke, will not develop cancer. Right now, we have no way to know if there is something to distinguish these people or it's just luck. Someone who assumes they're special with no evidence is called an idiot (assuming they continue smoking because they think they won't get cancer).

Has cancer increased because of capitalism? In what sense? The disease itself exist because of a variety of causes we don't know. Does a free market that allows the use of chemicals to increase efficiency increase cancer rates, yes. However, chemicals don't effect genetics. Once a child is born, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, of bioaccumulation of cancer causes across generations. This is Lamarkian evolution, which is dismissed. In theory, we already can alter sperm to influence generations. Could a chemical theoretically do that? Maybe. However, that's a lot of animal testing over a long period of time.

As far as the evidence is concerned, there aren't any environmental causes creating a cancer increase over generations. The corners we cut for efficiency in development give us strong reason to believe carcinogens are responsible for the high rates of cancer.

While Vanguard makes a good point, the longer life expectancies don't explain away the carcinogens that show individuals dieing earlier than others, on average, due to exposure to certain chemicals. The point about improved screening is also true, but they take account for those things in studies. They look at cancers that have clear symptoms and the cancer rates still increase with carcinogen exposure.

If you think technology and life expectancy explains the majority of cancer cases, I think you greatly overestimate the effects chemicals have. The cancer rates are increasing systematically because we've polluted the air, for one thing.

If humans don't cooperate to solve our environmental problems, we're in trouble. Even if we can use technology to solve the problem, that doesn't mean people will be willing to foot the bill for it. It won't necessarily be cheap.

Oh well. When people start getting cancer at twenty and the rich are living in special air purified cities, maybe we'll start giving a shit.

[Vanguard1917]

Of course, although cancer rates have increased, we are -- at least in rich, economically advanced countries -- in a better position to treat cancers than before. In such countries, people are on average living longer and healthier lives than they ever did, and a key reason for that is economic development.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Of course Cancer will always exist, Oh wait...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=199&pictureid=2650

[Comrade Anarchist]

i know it existed before and will exist afterwards but im talking about the ones that are caused by this chemicals that companies dumped on the american landscape, vietnam, japan, and etc and of these they are doing nothing to accept responsibility and the government wont make them take responsibility

[absurdao]

It is a fact that in many industries, the companies which outsource their more hands-on work force their employees to work under inhumane conditions, in which workers are often exposed to dangerous chemicals. There are loads of stories of Mexican workers who have developed all sorts of illnesses from working with these chemicals, and the companies provide no compensation for their employees when they can no longer work. It's also dangerous for their families, who are exposed to the chemicals through contact with the workers.

[superiority]

Vanguard1917 was correct when she said that the main cause is greater life expectancy. Take a look at this chart (http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/incidence/age/). Combine that with the fact that in 1900, global average life span was 31 (http://www.who.int/global_health_histories/seminars/presentation07.pdf) and now it's more than twice that, and it's easy to see why cancer rates have spiked.

[OneNamedNameLess]

Fair enough, the main cause of cancer is not a result of the capitalist system, but comrade anarchist is rightfully highlighting that this is yet another example of profit before people. Cancer is not caused by capitalism and the state but examples exist due to carelessness and the exploitation of the working class. Valid enough grievance I suppose.

[Klaatu]

Cancer is caused by
(A) Tobacco (a capitalist enterprise)
(B) Coal-burning electric plants (a capitalist enterprise)
(C) Diesel exhaust from unregulated diesel engines (a capitalist enterprise)
(D) Wood-burning furnaces (a capitalist enterprise)
(E) Food additives and pesticides (a capitalist enterprise)
(F) Nuclear radiation from atomic testing (a government enterprise)
It appears that capitalists are the culprits of cancer. I agree with the original post implicitly.

[Dr Mindbender]

Cancer also has genetic factors as well. The children of cancer victims are more likely to develop cancer.

It is also caused by obesity and over eating. Doctors recently found that cancer has a tendency to first appear in fat cells.

[Klaatu]

Yes, thank you. I forgot the food-marketing companies (capitalists) which urge, encourage, entice, tempt, and almost demand that we eat, eat, eat. Eat till we burst.

Yes, cancer can be genetic, but I've read that over 90% of cancers are environmentally-caused, therefore preventable.

[gorillafuck]

Cancer is caused by
(A) Tobacco (a capitalist enterprise)
(B) Coal-burning electric plants (a capitalist enterprise)
(C) Diesel exhaust from unregulated diesel engines (a capitalist enterprise)
(D) Wood-burning furnaces (a capitalist enterprise)
(E) Food additives and pesticides (a capitalist enterprise)
(F) Nuclear radiation from atomic testing (a government enterprise)
It appears that capitalists are the culprits of cancer. I agree with the original post implicitly.
We'd probably have most of those things under socialism.

[Comrade B]

A close family member of mine and his father used to do welding for a large company in our home city.
Both of them got cancer from a cheaper metal cleaner the factory used. There are safer cleaners, the company wouldn't have profited as much form them though. Capitalism causes cancer through its preference to earnings over lives.

[Il Medico]

Cancer is not a capitalist phenomena. It existed long before capitalism. Everything from the sun to chemicals can activate cancer. Cancer isn't really caused by anything, it is inflamed. Cancer is in everyone's body in small amounts. This spreads when something affects it. So I don't see how capitalism directly causes cancer. Though capitalist factors my increase the rate of cancer spreading throughout the body, but so does the sun, it will be here after the revolution.

[Klaatu]

"We'd probably have most of those things under socialism."
I disagree, because the socialist must answer to the people, (as does democracy) something
capitalists do not have to do unless compelled by force.

Conclusion: Socialism is married much closer to democracy than capitalism could ever hope to be.

[bie]

The rule of profix maximisation creates a barrier for the cancer prevention. There is no doubt that capitalism is partially responsible for the spread of this condition. Socialist society can use its scientific base for the reduction and prevention of cancer, e.g. by switching to safer chemicals and better workers protection.

[joemac]

Cancer would still exist after the revolution however a lot less people would die of it since healthcare would be equal and not in the current situation where pharmaceutical companies bleed dry the health service by charging extortionate rates. Hopefully after the revolution society will be more sustainable meaning less pollution