In that case it shouldn't be a problem to boost the innate immune system, as long as you have surplus calories to spend. But it could be something else entirely.
The current framework of our immune system could go back quite some time. Even to our mammalian cold-blooded ancestors, 200? mya. When I think of cold blooded, I think of creatures able to remain static and at rest for a long time, periods of low-energy usage. So maybe this framework comes from before warm blooded mammals?
And, if it works well enough that people can breed (which used to be 15 years to 30 years old), and if dying after, oh well. Why evolve better? Or maybe too much monkeying has downsides.
Look at sickle cell anemia. Quite beneficial with malaria parasites around, not so much without them.
So I'd lose weight too? Sign me up yesterday.
Graves’ disease, lupus/SLE, psoriasis, type 1 diabetes, myasthenia gravis, Addison’s disease, Hashimoto, Goodpasture, etc.
One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go.
It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea.
Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna.
> One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go.
Evolution can't look into the future. (And eg bats are pretty much always on with their immune system.)
Sure. But yesterdays mistakes can be punished today. ie all evolution happens in retrospect - a mutation haopens - the world tells you after the fact whether that was good or bad. Evolution is hindsight in action. In hindsight - taking antibiotics everyday might have been a bad idea.
> Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna.
Sure - thus increasing your chances for being colonised by an unfriendly and antibiotic resistent bug - which may result in your death - which in hindsight was obviously a bad idea....
ie what has driven human population growth - a fundamental change in availability of natural resources or a fundamental change in how humans exploited them?
I'd argue it's the latter, and that's driven by accumulated knowledge - and before writing - the key repository of that was - old people.
Part of the reason it benefited us that some but not all people become old is because people require more attention during two phases of their lives. Our biological evolution has prioritized care for the very young over the very old, with respect to a limit on resources (like attention), effectively until the modern age. In some cultures, for instance, those with teeth must pre-chew food for those without, or expected members to engage in ritual suicide at a certain age.
It's like saying cars pistons are designed to wear out - because they do and as the car is perfectly designed ( the mistake ) then it must be for a reason.
Also take menopause - it happens a female has all the oocytes ( eggs ) they will ever have already at birth. Menopause happens when they run out.
What you are arguing is that the number at birth is optimised with a very indirect feedback loop - as oppose to a very direct one of how much resources do you put aside for eggs in terms of maximising number of direct children versus resources used. Occams razor suggests the latter is going to be stronger.
If what you say is true - think about it - old people wouldn't gradually crumble due to wear and tear, they would have evolved some much more efficient death switch. ie Women don't suddenly die post menopause.
How much accumulated knowledge do hunter-gatherers have?
You probably know that antibiotic use is rampant in industrial livestock. But do you know precisely why?
Antibiotics aren't just given prophylactically to prevent infections; constant low doses actually *increase the animal's size*. The animals can put more energy into growing larger, and spend less on their immune system.
But isn't that what the adjuants that are currently in nearly every vaccine do anyway. That is forcing the triggering of immune response when there wouldn't be none or very little response naturally?
Auto-immune diseases are the downside. There is no way that this ends up being safe or recommended for use outside of epidemic situations or short term occupational hazards.
Couldn’t you apply this logic to any medicine?