Evolution doesn't care about individual organisms, it's all about reproduction. Our lifespan is enough to raise a few children and pass genes on, so, from the evolutionary point of view, it's adequate
You would need to explain how populations who did those things were selected against
Instead of the more aligned reality that there was a random attractive or forceful menopausal mutant that popped out alot of babies or put alot of babies in others
speaking of attractive, what we see now is that older women are selected against and everything considered attractive is correlated to ability of carrying a pregnancy to term. which came first? impossible for me to say, would older women have many more pregnancies if the menopause never happened? the viable eggs would have still gone towards zero, unlike other mammals and beings
There will come time when we will grok all this 100% and then can setup whatever we want (its just a bunch of molecules acting predictably), but we are very far from there and there is no point discussing this even for our grandchildren. We will have cyberpunk implants way sooner.
and yes, so I understand that with human cancer, it tends to happen or advance after reproduction has already occurred so therefore those traits are not selected against. it's impossible to weed out with human mating strategies
I would just like to believe the cancer itself is an adaptation preventing something worse, but you're right, it doesn't work with the natural selection theory and so we just had a dead end to our survivability baked in, not so different than how the opposite phenomenon of senescence in cephalopods ends their lives