Your first objection is silly, every metaphor, by definition, is reductive, you’re reducing an entire thing to a mere comparison.
Second of all, despite your very smart response, you seem to have misread the text. I’ll quote the relavent part:
So saying that the degradation of p53 would benefit the individual cell doesn't make sense.
Cells cannot resist the temptation to steal from that surplus. Their genetic morality degrades as tumor suppressor genes fail. The only way to stop them is by punishment.
The p53 are not “tumor suppressor genes” which fail in old age (like telomere caps), they are the “punishment” of the next sentence.
then it's the structure itself that is inherently flawed and becomes more and more corrupting as time goes on.
I disagree that what you’ve written is implicate, regardless, that is still a valid argument people can, and have, made about societies, don’t you think?
Your first objection is silly, every metaphor, by definition, is reductive, you’re reducing an entire thing to a mere comparison.
Second of all, despite your very smart response, you seem to have misread the text. I’ll quote the relavent part:
The p53 are not “tumor suppressor genes” which fail in old age (like telomere caps), they are the “punishment” of the next sentence.
I disagree that what you’ve written is implicate, regardless, that is still a valid argument people can, and have, made about societies, don’t you think?
Much ado about nothing imo