The Evo-Stress Blog

Companion to the Center for Adaptive Stress

Rethinking Clinical Pathology Through Stress, Neurodiversity, and Trade-Offs

“Pathology is still real—but it doesn’t always mean broken. It can also mean overloaded, misaligned, or stuck in a feedback loop.”

Pathology can also mean adaptation under strain. This article introduces a complexity-informed framework for clinicians, drawing from allostasis, interoception, and evolutionary trade-offs to explain why divergence and disease often coexist. When we stop mistaking overload for brokenness, clinical reasoning becomes more precise, personalized, and humane.

Think of the body like a thermostat system that’s supposed to adjust to temperature. When it’s working right, it reacts to the room and keeps things stable. But what if the thermostat is constantly trying to keep up with a wildly changing environment, or the wiring is pulling it in two different directions? It’s not broken—it’s reacting in a way that makes sense, given the signals it’s getting. But that doesn’t mean people don’t get cold or overheated. We still need to fix the problem.

Pathology—like anxiety, burnout, chronic pain, even neurodegenerative diseases—can be understood this way. The person’s system is trying to adapt, but the load is too high or the environment too unpredictable. So yes, it’s still a problem. It still causes suffering. But rather than thinking only in terms of what’s defective, we also ask: what system was this response built from? what was it originally trying to do? what changed in the environment?

Just like chronic inflammation starts as a helpful immune response, but then becomes damaging over time—many “disorders” start as adaptations that went too far, got stuck, or were pushed by too many demands.

This perspective doesn’t erase pathology—it reframes it. It says: Yes, intervene when people are suffering. But also understand the deeper system patterns, or we’ll keep treating symptoms without changing the conditions that created them.

That’s the value of looking at diversity and trade-offs—not to excuse illness, but to understand it better, and treat it with more precision.

Recontextualizing Pathology through Allostasis and Evolutionary Stress

Introduction: Allostasis, Interoception, and Neurodiversity

Modern physiology recognizes that organisms maintain stability not by rigid constancy, but through allostasis – the dynamic, anticipatory regulation of internal processes (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry) . Unlike homeostasis (which aims to keep variables within narrow ranges), allostasis adjusts these setpoints in response to predicted demands. For example, the brain raises blood pressure and heart rate before strenuous activity, preparing the body in advance. This adaptive strategy, termed “stability through change,” allows an organism to cope with stressors and maintain viability. When functioning optimally, allostatic responses activate and shut off efficiently as needed (Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load – PubMed). However, if these responses are overused or dysregulated, the cumulative strain – known as allostatic load – accrues as the “wear and tear” on the body, eventually predisposing to disease (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry). Over time, excessive or chronic stress can push allostasis into allostatic overload, a state of breakdown where adaptive systems themselves become sources of pathology.

Integral to allostasis is the concept of interoception: the nervous system’s sensing and regulation of the body’s internal state. The brain continuously integrates signals about blood pressure, blood sugar, gut distension, immune activity, and more, constructing a moment-to-moment map of internal conditions. These interoceptive signals inform the brain’s predictions and adjustments—raising cortisol if blood sugar is low, triggering thirst if dehydrated, modulating immunity during infection, etc. The interoceptive system includes a dedicated neural network (notably involving the insular cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and brainstem autonomic nuclei) that monitors the internal milieu and executes visceral adjustments. This interoceptive network enables the brain to anticipate needs and manage internal resources. For instance, if the environment signals threat, the brain’s interoceptive hubs (like the anterior midcingulate and anterior insula) help initiate a suite of bodily changes – increased heart rate, redirected blood flow, released glucose – preparing for “fight or flight”. In essence, interoception is how the brain feels and regulates the body from within, forming the foundation of emotions, stress responses, and basic survival drives.

Importantly, brains do not perform these tasks in a vacuum; they continually compare interoceptive feedback to expectations and correct errors. This aligns with the Predictive Coding framework, or more broadly, the Free Energy Principle, which posits that the brain is a prediction machine minimizing the gap between expected and actual inputs. In maintaining allostasis, the brain uses prior experiences to predict internal needs and preemptively satisfy them – a process termed predictive allostatic regulation. If predictions are accurate, physiology runs smoothly; if there’s a mismatch (prediction error), the brain updates its model or triggers a stress response to resolve the discrepancy. Over time, this calibration process can lead individuals to develop distinct stress-response profiles. Evolutionary-developmental theories like the Adaptive Calibration Model suggest that early life conditions tune an individual’s stress reactivity to match their expected environment (The adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity – PubMed). In other words, what we think of as a person’s “stress sensitivity” or emotional temperament may be an adaptive calibration – a phenotype optimized for survival in an environment with certain demands or dangers. These calibrations contribute to divergent neurotypes: natural variations in neurobiology and behavior. For example, a child raised in chaotic, high-threat conditions might develop a hyper-vigilant, quick-trigger stress response (an adaptation to danger), whereas one in a stable environment can afford a calmer, exploratory profile. Neither is inherently “defective” – each represents a strategic trade-off. The concept of neurodiversity similarly holds that conditions like autism, ADHD, or anxiety are part of the expected range of human variation, forged by different developmental and genetic pathways rather than uniform pathology. Indeed, mounting evidence indicates that many neurodevelopmental “disorders” are underpinned by atypical allostatic-interoceptive tuning. For instance, a recent review identified alterations in predictive allostatic interoception in autism and attention-deficit conditions, linking these neurodivergent profiles to differences in how the brain anticipates and regulates internal states . This perspective reframes neurodivergence not as a broken version of a normal brain, but as a differently calibrated brain-body system.

Figure 1: Conceptual diagram of allostatic interoception. Panel (A) illustrates the brain-body network that anticipates internal needs (key regions include aMCC, ACC, amygdala, and insular cortex). Panels (B–D) depict how cumulative environmental exposures over the lifespan (infections, attachment disruptions, social stress, etc.) and inherent biological predispositions (cardiovascular, metabolic, inflammatory reactivity, and genetic/epigenetic factors) interact to shape an individual’s stress regulation. Such models emphasize that pathology arises from complex interactions between environment, interoceptive regulation, and genetic makeup, rather than from isolated defects.

With this foundation, we can better appreciate that what we call “pathology” often emerges when allostatic and interoceptive systems – which normally confer adaptability – are pushed beyond their optimal range or become misaligned with the environment. Chronic psychosocial stress, trauma, pollution, and other aspects of the modern exposome (total environmental exposures) can overwhelm these systems (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry) . The result is a cascade of physiological changes: stress hormones chronically elevated, inflammatory pathways overactivated, metabolic signals perturbed. Over years, this can translate into hypertension, insulin resistance, neurodegeneration, and other disease processes. Crucially, individuals vary in their susceptibility to such overload. Divergent neurotypes – for example, someone with an anxiety-prone temperament or an autistic individual with sensory sensitivities – may experience the same environment very differently at the level of interoceptive stress load. What one person’s brain deems a minor nuisance might register as a severe threat in another’s system, and vice versa. These differences are not flaws but reflect bio-neurodiverse stress-response profiles, shaped by both genetic inheritance and life history. An autistic person, for instance, might have an unusually heightened attunement to internal sensation and external stimuli, leading to faster allostatic activation in stimulating environments; at the same time, that attunement could confer advantages in perception or focused interest (as discussed later in the autism case study).

In summary, allostasis and interoception provide a lens to understand human diversity in health and disease. They shift our focus from static “normal values” to dynamic regulatory patterns, and from isolated organs to brain-body networks. This systems view sets the stage for rethinking pathology: instead of merely cataloguing deficits (what’s “wrong” compared to an abstract norm), we examine how each condition might arise from adaptive systems under specific constraints or trade-offs. The following sections build on this idea, arguing that many forms of pathology can be seen as trade-off outcomes of evolutionary stress adaptations, especially when viewed through principles like non-linear dynamics, predictive regulation, and evolutionary selection pressures.

Beyond the Deficit Model: Pathology as Adaptive Trade-Off

Traditional medical models often frame disease strictly as a deviation from normal function – a deficiency, defect, or dysregulation to be corrected. While this deficit model has yielded effective clinical criteria and treatments, it can obscure the bigger picture of why certain pathologies exist in the first place. An alternative approach is to consider pathology through the lens of evolutionary trade-offs and nonlinear dynamics. In complex systems (of which the human body is a prime example), “dysfunction” may be less a sign of breakdown of a single part than a byproduct of the system’s overall adaptive strategy. Evolutionary processes optimize for reproductive fitness in specific environments, not for perfect health or longevity per se. Thus, many traits that are advantageous in one context can become liabilities in another – these are trade-offs inherent to natural selection. Likewise, physiological systems are governed by nonlinear interactions, feedback loops, and tipping points. A small perturbation (e.g. a minor genetic variation or a slight hormone imbalance) can, under the right conditions, snowball via positive feedback into a major pathological state. This means cause and effect in pathology are rarely linear; they often involve upstream factors (like developmental environment or evolutionary history) that set the stage for downstream manifestations (symptoms).

One key insight from evolutionary biology is that organisms face constraints – energy, resources, and design limits that necessitate compromises. Every adaptation carries a cost. For example, a powerful immune system that quickly eradicates pathogens might also predispose to autoimmune disease (where that same vigilance causes self-damage). A brain wired for intense focus and repetitive interest (as in autism) can excel at detail-oriented tasks but may struggle with flexibility in social novelty. Rather than viewing the latter as “defect,” we can see it as the flip side of the former advantage – a trade-off. Evolutionary medicine has documented numerous such trade-offs leading to disease. An illustrative case is the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy, where a gene yields benefits early in life but harms the organism later. Natural selection strongly rewards traits that improve early survival or reproduction, even if they incur problems post-reproductively (when selection is weak) () (). Human diseases of aging often reflect this: genes or pathways that promote growth, fertility, or brain development in youth can drive cancer, metabolic disease, or neurodegeneration in old age once their context shifts. We will explore concrete examples of this in Alzheimer’s and cancer below.

Viewing pathology as an outcome of adaptive logic also encourages us to look for what the system is trying to accomplish in its maladaptive state. A classic example is fever: a high body temperature is technically “abnormal” and can be dangerous, but it is the body’s adaptive attempt to fight infection (making the environment hostile to microbes). Likewise, in chronic diseases, some ostensibly harmful features might be remnants of useful responses. In evolutionary terms, stress responses are generally adaptive – they mobilize energy, sharpen alertness, and enhance short-term survival. But these responses evolved for acute threats (e.g. escaping a predator). When modern life triggers them chronically (deadlines, social conflict, pollution), the adaptive logic goes awry. Our physiology, in effect, is applying an old solution to new problems. The result can be metabolic syndrome, anxiety disorders, hypertension – chronic conditions that arise from stress mechanisms running on overdrive outside their original context. This mismatch paradigm is well-recognized: many modern pathologies (from obesity to autoimmune diseases) are partly attributed to our Stone-Age bodies coping poorly with 21st-century lifestyles. The stress–response system, in particular, may act as if we are in an environment of intermittent acute dangers, whereas we are actually in one of relentless mild stressors. Evolution hasn’t had time to fully recalibrate our allostatic programming to these novel conditions, leading to a disjunct between what our bodies expect and what they experience. Pathology can emerge from this gap.

Nonlinear dynamics further complicate the picture. Biological systems often have thresholds beyond which behavior qualitatively changes – akin to a dam that holds water until a tipping point, then suddenly breaks. Consider a healthy liver enduring years of toxin exposure: it may compensate (increasing enzyme activity, activating stress responses) up to a point, then abruptly decompensate into cirrhosis once cell death and fibrosis pass a critical threshold. Similarly, the brain’s allostatic load might accumulate silently until neural networks can no longer maintain stability, precipitating a depressive episode or a metabolic collapse. These phase shifts defy the simple proportional input-output assumption of the deficit model. Instead, they suggest that to understand (and ultimately prevent) pathology, we must identify the upstream pressures and thresholds – the conditions under which the system’s adaptive responses become self-perpetuating maladaptations. For instance, chronic inflammation can create a feedback loop: initially a defense against infection, if triggered in excess it damages tissues, which then release more inflammatory signals, and so on. Such vicious cycles are self-sustaining and can lock a person into disease states even if the original trigger is gone. This concept has been described in terms of attractors in dynamical systems – once the system’s variables enter a certain range, they tend to stay there unless a strong perturbation pushes them out. A clinical example is type 2 diabetes: by the time hyperglycemia is persistent, the interactions between insulin resistance, pancreatic beta-cell stress, and inflammatory signals form a network that resists returning to normal glycemic control. Breaking such a cycle often requires multifaceted intervention (diet change, exercise, medications) to push the system out of the diabetic “attractor basin.”

In light of the above, reconceptualizing pathology involves asking different questions. Instead of only “What is the defect and how do we fix it?”, we also ask: How might this condition have arisen from normal adaptive systems? What trade-offs or predictions is the body making? And under what environmental conditions would these responses have been advantageous? These questions do not negate the need for treatment – rather, they enrich our understanding and can reveal novel intervention points. For example, if we recognize that depression might involve the body’s attempt to conserve energy during perceived adversity (a sort of metabolic shut-down adaptation), therapies might aim to gently signal safety and surplus energy (through improved sleep, nutrition, or psychedelics that “reset” entrenched predictive models (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry)) rather than solely boosting neurotransmitters. If autism is seen partly as an adaptive neurodevelopmental variant tuned for intense focus and sensory acuity, support strategies might shift toward leveraging strengths and optimizing environments (low overstimulation, clear routines) instead of trying to normalize the individual through coercive therapies ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ). In each case, acknowledging adaptive logic and trade-offs opens the door to more holistic and perhaps respectful management of conditions.

Theoretical Frameworks: Free Energy Principle and Functional Information

Two interdisciplinary theories strengthen this evolutionary, systems-based reframing of pathology: the Free Energy Principle (FEP) from computational neuroscience, and the proposed Law of Increasing Functional Information from complexity science. Each offers a high-level explanatory framework for why living systems (including their pathologies) behave as they do.

The Free Energy Principle, articulated by neuroscientist Karl Friston, posits that organisms (especially brains) strive to minimize free energy, which in this context is equivalent to surprise or prediction error. In simple terms, living systems must maintain their internal states within viable bounds (e.g. proper temperature, nutrient levels). They do so by continuously predicting sensory inputs and counteracting deviations from those predictions. A creature expects (implicitly) certain inputs from its body and environment; any big surprise indicates something is wrong (a need unmet, a threat present). The organism can respond by either changing its prediction (updating its internal model) or changing its state (through action) to remove the surprise. This predictive regulation is essentially how allostasis is implemented: the brain predicts the need for glucose and triggers hunger, predicts the likelihood of pain and preemptively raises the pain threshold, etc. Pathology, in FEP terms, can occur when the brain’s model becomes biased or inflexible, yielding persistent prediction errors. For example, chronic anxiety might be seen as the brain persistently predicting danger (thus maintaining a state of vigilance) even in safe contexts, due to a learned model that has not updated. Likewise, in autism spectrum conditions, one influential theory suggests that the brain relies less on prior predictions and more on raw sensory data – effectively treating each moment as full of potential surprise. This can lead to sensory overload (too much “prediction error” since not enough is being explained away by prior expectations) but also to extraordinary detail perception ( Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). In fact, research indicates that autistic individuals often show an “eye for detail” and superior memory for exact information, consistent with a predictive coding account where less abstraction and generalization occurs. Thus, FEP provides a unifying way to think about diverse neuropsychiatric conditions: as differing balances in how prediction vs. sensation guides behavior and physiology. In depression, the brain might over-weight negative predictions (“nothing will improve”), failing to incorporate new positive evidence, resulting in a metabolically conservative, withdrawn state (minimizing surprise by avoiding hopeful actions that could lead to error). In chronic pain or psychosomatic illness, the brain’s predictions of pain or malaise may become self-fulfilling, locking the body into a pathological pattern even after tissue has healed. By casting these conditions as predictive regulation gone awry, FEP encourages therapies that target the perception-cognition loop – for instance, meditation or biofeedback to recalibrate interoceptive predictions, cognitive therapy to update maladaptive beliefs, or psychedelic-assisted therapy which might “shake up” the brain’s model and allow it to resettle in a less pessimistic (lower free energy) configuration.

The Law of Increasing Functional Information comes from an effort to find universal principles of evolution across biological, technological, and even cosmic systems. Proposed by a team of scientists including astrobiologist Michael Wong and geologist Robert Hazen (2023), this idea posits that evolving systems tend to increase in functional complexity over time (Scientists Unveil ‘Missing Law’ of Nature That Explains How Everything In the Universe Evolved, Including Us) . In their view, any system that generates variation and selects based on function (whether it be a gene pool under natural selection, a chemical network on early Earth, or even a machine learning algorithm) will, on average, accumulate functional information – essentially, information that has utility or purpose for the system’s survival or goals. This is suggested as a “missing law” of nature to complement the second law of thermodynamics. While entropy (disorder) increases in closed systems, in open systems with energy flow (like Earth and living organisms), we see pockets of increasing order and complexity (e.g. life’s evolution from single cells to multicellular organisms to ecosystems). The law of functional information attempts to formalize this observation: as long as selection is operating, systems will explore configuration space and tend to discover more organized, functional arrangements (Scientists Unveil ‘Missing Law’ of Nature That Explains How Everything In the Universe Evolved, Including Us) . Over the long run, this yields the arrow of complexity we observe – e.g. the human brain is vastly more complex (and contains more functional information) than the earliest lifeforms. How does this relate to pathology? It provides a kind of meta-context: our bodies and brains are the result of millions of years of cumulative functional information gain, and even our illnesses are playing out on this stage of complexity. For instance, the very complexity that allows a human immune system to specifically target thousands of pathogens (a huge adaptive boon) also creates the potential for autoimmune disease when regulation fails. The law suggests that increasing complexity is itself an expected outcome of evolution’s tinkering. Therefore, one might say pathology is often the cost of complexity. A simpler organism might not get Alzheimer’s or autism because it lacks a complex enough nervous system; those diseases are emergent properties of a highly complex brain subject to long lifespan and environmental novelty. In addition, the principle reminds us that evolution “cares” about function (including pathological functions) in context. For example, a gene variant that leads to very strong blood clotting might cause heart attacks (pathology) in today’s lifespan, but if that variant helped an ancestor survive wounds and not bleed out, its functional information was positive in that prior context.

Another aspect is the multi-scale selection processes in our bodies. Cancer is often described as somatic evolution: within the body, cells undergo mutation and selection, proliferating if they gain a growth advantage. From the perspective of the tumor, it is increasing functional information related to cell survival and replication (tumor cells find ways to perform the “functions” of growth, invasion, immune evasion). Those functions are disastrous for the organism, but they represent the internal selection at the cellular level – again a context-dependent increase in complexity (tumors become highly heterogeneous ecosystems of cells) (Life history dynamics of evolving tumors: insights into task specialization, trade-offs, and tumor heterogeneity | Cancer Cell International | Full Text). The law of functional information would suggest that wherever there is a niche for selection (in a tissue microenvironment under stress, for instance), evolution will proceed to explore solutions, not all of which serve the higher-level organism’s interest. In summary, this principle offers a narrative that evolution inexorably explores complexity and function, which can help explain why our biology has so many failure modes: a simpler, less adaptable biology would have fewer points of failure but also far less capacity. Humans are complicated, and so are human diseases. Appreciating this can humble us – we likely cannot eliminate all disease without fundamentally altering the human organism’s complexity. But we can better understand diseases by asking what “functional information” they might be exploiting or representing. For instance, understanding that Alzheimer’s pathology might involve an overactivation of an innate immune function (amyloid production, as we’ll see) frames research questions differently than assuming amyloid is just a waste product. Recognizing that autism genetics may have been selected for certain cognitive strengths pushes us to value neurodiverse contributions instead of only trying to prevent the condition. In short, both FEP and the Functional Information Law steer us toward viewing pathology not as meaningless error, but as meaningful misapplication of biological rules. Each illness has its logic – a context in which its processes would make sense. The task of deep research and clinical science is to unveil that context and logic, because therein lie the keys to more effective and humane interventions.

Case Study: Alzheimer’s Disease – Evolutionary Trade-Offs and Allostatic Overload

Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia, is conventionally characterized by progressive memory loss and cognitive decline, coupled with pathological hallmarks in the brain: extracellular amyloid-β (Aβ) plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles of tau protein. For decades, these plaques and tangles were viewed as purely deleterious accumulations – garbage clogging the neural machinery. However, an evolutionary-stress perspective prompts us to ask why the brain would produce such substances at all. Intriguingly, emerging evidence suggests that Aβ and tau may play protective or compensatory roles under certain conditions, hinting that AD pathology might arise from the overactivation or mis-timing of ancient stress-adaptation mechanisms ( Some evolutionary perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis and pathology – PMC ).

One hypothesis gaining traction is that Aβ peptide is part of the brain’s innate immune arsenal. Researchers have discovered that Aβ has potent antimicrobial properties, capable of binding and neutralizing bacteria, fungi, and viruses. In animal models, overexpressing human Aβ helps mice survive lethal infections of the brain by trapping invading pathogens in amyloid fibrils. In vitro, Aβ can destroy microbes, behaving like an antimicrobial peptide. This aligns with the “Infection Hypothesis” of Alzheimer’s, which posits that chronic infection or microbial debris in the brain (perhaps from oral bacteria, or viral reactivations) might trigger an excessive Aβ response. In an evolutionary context, brain infections were often fatal; any mechanism to fight them would confer a huge survival advantage. Aβ’s ability to oligomerize and form sticky aggregates that ensnare pathogens could have been a lifesaver in our ancestors, despite its side effect of plaque deposition (The Emerging Role of Innate Immunity in Alzheimer’s Disease | Neuropsychopharmacology). Thus, what we see in AD patients – amyloid plaques – may not be mere junk, but the aftermath of the brain’s innate immune response (a functional activity) gone into overdrive or persisting without resolution (The Emerging Role of Innate Immunity in Alzheimer’s Disease | Neuropsychopharmacology). In line with this, some AD researchers have reframed amyloid as possibly preservative or restorative in the short term, attempting to protect neurons from microbes or other stressors, even though chronically it becomes neurotoxic ( Some evolutionary perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis and pathology – PMC ).

Tau protein, which forms tangles in AD, also has normal roles – stabilizing microtubules in neurons and perhaps aiding in neuronal stress responses. There is speculation that tau aggregation might initially occur to shore up microtubule structure or to sequester misfolded proteins, a sort of compensatory response to neural injury. Like amyloid, it could be a case where a protective mechanism (tau phosphorylation and aggregation in response to cell damage) overshoots or fails to turn off, thereby contributing to disease. Supporting this, some studies have found tau levels rise in acute brain injury and may help neurons hunker down. Only when it becomes misregulated (due to aging-related changes or persistent stressors) does it form the insoluble tangles that choke the neuron’s internal transport system.

From a genetic trade-off angle, Alzheimer’s offers a striking example: the APOE gene. Apolipoprotein E (APOE) comes in three common variants in humans (ε2, ε3, ε4). The ε4 allele is the major genetic risk factor for late-onset AD – having one copy roughly triples risk, and two copies increases risk up to 10–15-fold ( Some evolutionary perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis and pathology – PMC ) . Yet, ε4 is considered the ancestral form of the gene; our hominin ancestors likely all carried APOE ε4. Why would evolution preserve a variant that predisposes to neurodegeneration? The answer may lie in trade-offs. APOE is involved in lipid transport, neuronal repair, and immune modulation. Some evidence suggests APOE ε4 might enhance certain functions like more robust neural development or immune responses early in life, or aid survival in environments where higher cholesterol was beneficial. APOE ε4 has also been hypothesized to help with fertility or brain plasticity in youth. Only in the context of extended human lifespan and high-fat diets does its liability surface as Alzheimer’s risk. In evolutionary past, when life expectancy was much shorter, the detrimental effects of ε4 in old age would have had minimal impact on fitness, so natural selection did not strongly purge it () (). This is a classic case of antagonistic pleiotropy: a gene that is potentially helpful early (or was neutral for most of natural human history) but harmful late. Meanwhile, the APOE ε2 and ε3 alleles emerged later in human evolution and seem to be protective against AD ( Some evolutionary perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis and pathology – PMC ). Why didn’t they completely replace ε4? It could be that ε4 still offered some benefits in certain environments (for instance, some studies suggest ε4 carriers recover better from brain injury, or that ε4 might have helped cognition under malnutrition). Thus, humanity ended up with a polymorphism – different variants balanced by trade-offs.

Another angle is allostatic load and metabolic trade-offs in AD. The brain is an energy-hungry organ, and maintaining cognitive function over decades is an evolutionary novelty. There is evidence that chronic systemic stress – e.g. midlife hypertension, obesity, inflammation – significantly increases AD risk. Longitudinal studies link elevated cortisol (a stress hormone) and inflammatory markers in midlife to earlier cognitive decline. The allostatic overload framework suggests that decades of stress (financial insecurity, caregiving stress, lack of sleep, etc.) accelerate brain aging. One mechanism might be through epigenetic aging: for instance, patients with Alzheimer’s show accelerated epigenetic clocks in their blood and brain, consistent with cumulative stress exposure (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry). Stress can impair insulin signaling in the brain and reduce its plasticity, which led to the characterization of Alzheimer’s as “type 3 diabetes” by some researchers – pointing to a trade-off between metabolic stress and neural integrity. Indeed, insulin resistance (common in chronic stress and obesity) can deprive neurons of glucose and exacerbate amyloid accumulation. Evolutionarily, our ancestors experienced episodic stress but not the prolonged metabolic stress of modern diets and lifestyles. Our brains may not be well-adapted to handle decades of caloric surplus, sedentary behavior, and chronic psychological stress all at once – factors that collectively can tip allostatic systems into breakdown.

An evolutionary perspective on AD also considers why such extensive neurodegeneration is even possible. Many animals do not live long enough to manifest AD-like pathology, but interestingly, some long-lived species do show parallels. For example, certain whale and primate brains can accumulate amyloid with age, suggesting the underlying biology is conserved. It may be that large, long-lived brains have to deal with protein aggregation (like amyloid and tau) as a byproduct of longevity. From this view, Alzheimer’s is partly the cost of an extremely prolonged post-reproductive lifespan that is unique to humans (and possibly some domesticated animals). Our species has grandparents – individuals living many years past reproductive age – which might be a byproduct of selection for prolonged learning and culture transmission. That selection for longevity and brain plasticity might come with the side effect that eventually the maintenance mechanisms can fail. Evolution had little reason to invest in perfect maintenance of the brain into the eighth or ninth decade of life, because such ages were rarely attained in the ancestral environment. What we see as Alzheimer’s could thus be an expression of various latent vulnerabilities (protein misfolding, microglial cell activation, vascular issues) manifesting once the evolutionary “warranty period” on the brain has expired. In other words, engineered senescence: we outrun the designed capacity of our brain’s repair systems.

Yet, not everyone develops AD even today, suggesting interplay of genes, environment, and chance. Populations that follow certain diets (like Mediterranean diet) and lifestyles (physical activity, social engagement) have lower incidence, supporting the idea that we can mitigate the trade-off outcomes. Those lifestyles might more closely mimic the environment our brains are adapted to (nutrient mix, exercise level, cognitive stimulation), thereby reducing the mismatch that leads to pathology.

In summary, Alzheimer’s disease can be recontextualized not just as a destructive mystery ailment, but as a convergence of evolutionary trade-offs and stress responses: an immune-defense mechanism (amyloid) gone awry, an energy trade-off (long-lived, big brains vs. late-life metabolic vulnerability), and an antagonistic gene (APOE4) that helped in youth at the expense of old age. This view encourages researchers and clinicians to seek interventions upstream: anti-microbial strategies for the brain, stress reduction and metabolic health in midlife as prevention, and even personalized advice based on APOE genotype (for instance, APOE4 carriers might particularly benefit from low-inflammatory diets and avoiding head injuries). It also counsels humility – AD might not be 100% preventable because it is tied into fundamental aspects of being human (immunity, aging, brain complexity). However, by understanding its evolutionary logic, we can chip away at the edges where that logic is exploitable, potentially delaying onset or mitigating severity by working with the body’s adaptive systems rather than merely against the pathology.

Case Study: Cancer – Carcinogenesis as an Evolutionary Trade-Off

Cancer is often described as the price we pay for being multicellular. In a multicellular organism, individual cells must cooperate, often at the cost of their own proliferative potential, for the good of the organism. Evolution has instilled strict regulatory programs that tell cells when to divide, differentiate, or die. Cancer occurs when some of those cells rebel against the program – they start to grow and divide uncontrollably, evolving within the body. From a classical viewpoint, cancer is a breakdown of regulation, a series of DNA mutations that disable normal growth controls. From an evolutionary-stress perspective, cancer can be seen as an adaptive response at the cellular level that has become maladaptive at the organismal level. In other words, the seeds of cancer lie in mechanisms that are normally beneficial: wound healing, tissue regeneration, and adaptive cell proliferation.

One way to frame this is through somatic evolution. Each cell in our body lives in a microenvironment and experiences selection pressures (like oxygen level, immune surveillance, space constraints). Under chronic stress – say, long-term inflammation or exposure to a carcinogen – certain cells may gain mutations that let them survive better (perhaps by ignoring signals to stop dividing, or by becoming resilient to low oxygen). Those cells clone themselves (much like a species invading a niche) and can eventually form a tumor. This is Darwinian evolution in miniature (Life history dynamics of evolving tumors: insights into task specialization, trade-offs, and tumor heterogeneity | Cancer Cell International | Full Text). Indeed, when pathologists sequence tumors, they often find complex “phylogenies” of cells – some mutations are common to all cells (the original ancestor), while other mutations branch off in subclones. Tumors are ecosystems, and their progression (benign to malignant to metastatic) is an evolutionary journey of accumulating functional information that favors cell persistence and spread. For example, a primary tumor might accumulate a mutation that allows cells to digest the surrounding matrix (conferring invasive ability). Those invasive cells might travel to another organ (metastasis), where again only some variants survive and proliferate. At each step, selection is at work, sometimes leading to trade-offs: a highly proliferative cancer cell may divide so fast it exhausts its local resources, whereas a slightly slower-growing cell might take the time to recruit blood vessels (via angiogenesis) and thus ultimately outcompete its neighbor. Studies show a kind of life-history trade-off within tumors – cells often either specialize in rapid growth or in migration/invasion, with a trade-off between proliferation and metastasis traits (Life history dynamics of evolving tumors: insights into task specialization, trade-offs, and tumor heterogeneity | Cancer Cell International | Full Text). This mirrors how organisms might trade off reproduction vs. dispersal. The existence of these trade-offs in cancer tells us that tumors are not just random chaos; they are evolving systems constrained by physics and biology, trying different strategies for survival.

From the perspective of the whole organism, we might ask: why hasn’t evolution eliminated susceptibility to cancer? If a hypothetical mutation made us completely cancer-proof, it should be favored, right? The reality is complicated by trade-offs at the organism level. Many cancer protection mechanisms exist (DNA repair enzymes, tumor suppressor genes like TP53, immune surveillance). But making these mechanisms ultra-stringent can compromise other functions. For example, TP53 is crucial in preventing cells with DNA damage from dividing – it either fixes them or triggers their suicide (apoptosis). Mice engineered with extra copies of TP53 have lower cancer rates but tend to age faster because their tissues don’t regenerate as well (their cells choose death over repair too readily). This illustrates an inherent tension: robust cell proliferation and regeneration (good for growth and healing) versus stringent control of proliferation (good for cancer prevention). Evolution often strikes a balance. Species that need to regenerate tissues quickly (like animals that regrow limbs, or simply young humans who need to heal fast) can’t have too hair-trigger a self-destruct on cells, or they’d never repair damage. But that means some cells with mutations slip through – setting up future cancer risk. Humans, compared to some long-lived animals, are actually somewhat cancer-prone. Elephants, for instance, have evolved around 20 copies of TP53 in their genome (versus our one), which is thought to be a strategy to avoid cancer given their large size and long life. Why did elephants evolve that and not us? Likely because each species faces different trade-offs; elephants have huge bodies (more cells at risk) and low reproductive rates, so longevity is crucial – they invested in extra anti-cancer measures. Humans, until recently, didn’t live as long and had high early reproductive output, so there was less evolutionary pressure to fortify cancer defenses beyond what was needed up to age ~50. Now that we routinely live to 80+, we experience the consequences of a body not fully optimized to suppress late-life cancers.

On the genetic level, numerous alleles that slightly increase cancer risk persist in the population. Why are these not selected out? Often because those alleles have benefits or neutral effects in early life. For example, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes when mutated greatly increase risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women (and prostate in men). Yet these mutations remain at low frequencies in the population. Some theories propose a fertility benefit – carriers might have higher fertility or other advantages that kept the mutations around despite later cancer risk. This is hard to prove, but one study of historical Icelandic populations suggested BRCA mutation carriers had more children on average (before succumbing to cancer later in life). Another example comes from evolutionary ecology: in certain fish, a gene that causes melanoma (a deadly skin cancer) also makes males more colorful and dominant, thus mating more frequently; it persists because the reproductive advantage outweighs the shorter lifespan () (). Humans aren’t so different – traits that confer success early in life can propagate even if they carry cancer baggage later. A comprehensive analysis across countries found an association between high birth weight and higher cancer risk for several cancers (kidney, melanoma, pancreas, etc.) () (). The interpretation is that genetic and developmental factors that lead to a heavier birth (often a sign of robust early growth and survival advantage) may predispose to cells growing out of control much later in life () (). Birth weight is just one proxy, but it hints that factors promoting growth and size – beneficial in infancy – might lay the groundwork for malignancy decades on. This is antagonistic pleiotropy at the population level.

An evolutionary perspective also shines light on curious links, such as between cancer and other traits. One remarkable hypothesis connects human brain evolution, placental biology, and cancer. Humans have very invasive placentas – our embryo aggressively implants into the uterine wall to tap maternal blood supply (more so than many mammals). This invasive growth is mediated by genes that are also implicated in cancer (like certain matrix metalloproteinases). Evolutionarily, a more invasive placenta may have allowed bigger brain development by securing more resources for the fetus, but those same invasive traits in adult life can be co-opted by cancers (especially reproductive system cancers). Some researchers describe metastatic cancer as “placenta-like” in its ability to invade tissues and evade immune detection. The implication is that genes enabling our large-brained babies to thrive create a latent vulnerability to malignancy (a trade-off between reproductive success and later health) (Malignant cancer and invasive placentation – Oxford Academic).

Moreover, the risk of cancer is modulated by life history strategy – essentially how our bodies allocate energy over the lifespan. Under chronic stress or certain environmental pressures, organisms might shift into a “fast life history” mode: mature earlier, reproduce sooner, invest less in long-term maintenance. There is evidence that early adversity (like childhood trauma or poverty) correlates with earlier puberty and also higher cancer risk decades later. One could speculate that the body, calibrated to an environment where long-term survival is uncertain, doesn’t invest as much in meticulous DNA repair or anti-cancer defenses, analogous to a business not investing in long-term infrastructure if the short-term outlook is dire. This ties into the adaptive calibration model mentioned earlier – the body might accept a higher somatic mutation rate (risking cancer) if it prioritizes immediate survival and reproduction. On the flip side, a very protected early life might incline the body toward a “slow life history,” emphasizing longevity and extended maintenance, possibly lowering cancer risk. These ideas are still being tested, but they underscore that cancer susceptibility is not just random bad luck; it’s interwoven with the organism’s overall strategy and history.

From the perspective of functional information, cancer is chillingly innovative. The “hallmarks of cancer” (self-sufficient growth signals, evading apoptosis, inducing angiogenesis, etc.) can be seen as the functional toolkit a cell acquires to become a successful parasite on its host (Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Anticancer Adaptations) (Darwinian Dynamics of Intratumoral Heterogeneity: Not Solely …). Each hallmark corresponds to a normal function hijacked – e.g. angiogenesis (growing new blood vessels) is a normal process in wound healing and menstrual cycling; cancers co-opt it to feed themselves. Immune evasion is something embryos do (so that the mother’s immune system doesn’t reject them); tumors often express embryonic proteins to hide from the immune system. We can thus see tumors as throwing development in reverse – as they progress, they often activate genes from earlier life stages. This is the basis of the atavistic theory of cancer, which suggests cancer is a reversal to a primitive cellular phenotype, as if cells fall back on an ancient “toolkit” when stressed. For instance, under oxygen deprivation in a tumor’s core, cells may activate glycolysis (anaerobic metabolism) which is a throwback to how single-celled organisms survived before Earth’s atmosphere had oxygen. One might say cancer cells regress to an evolutionary ancient form of life – single-celled, competitive, and unbridled. This atavism idea is still theoretical, but it intriguingly casts cancer as a sort of built-in fail-safe: when the cooperative multicellular regime fails, cells remember how to be unicellular. That is not so much a bug as a deeply ingrained feature of our multicellularity. It was never completely erased, because it couldn’t be – the genes that drive cell division and survival are essential in early embryonic life and in tissue repair. They must be tightly regulated rather than deleted, so if regulation fails, the program runs again.

Clinically, thinking in terms of evolutionary trade-offs and somatic ecology has tangible implications. Cancer prevention might focus on minimizing the chronic tissue stresses that fuel somatic evolution: avoiding smoking (which creates a field of mutant cells in the lungs), controlling chronic inflammation (e.g. Hepatitis infection leading to liver cancer), and maintaining healthy tissue microenvironments through diet and exercise (which can modulate hormones and growth factors). There is also a movement toward “evolutionary therapy” for cancer: instead of trying to obliterate every cancer cell (which selects for the most resistant ones), some propose maintaining a stable tumor by strategic therapy that keeps a population of chemo-sensitive cells in play, thus holding resistant cells in check – an idea inspired by pest management in crops (Evolutionary Dynamics Unifies Carcinogenesis and Cancer Therapy) (Life history dynamics of evolving tumors: insights into task specialization, trade-offs, and tumor heterogeneity | Cancer Cell International | Full Text). This treats the tumor as an evolving system and tries to manipulate its ecology. Another implication: if some cancer-related genes are antagonistically pleiotropic (good early, bad late), screening for them (like BRCA) and taking preventive action (mastectomy, or tighter screening schedules) is a way of acknowledging the trade-off and managing it proactively.

In sum, cancer exemplifies the maxim that pathology can be “the shadow of evolution’s handiwork.” Every capability we have – to grow, to heal, to reproduce – can, under unbalanced conditions, contribute to malignancy. The evolutionary-stress perspective neither blames the body nor absolves the disease, but it explains it: cancer is what happens when cells, responding to their local stresses and guided by evolutionary ancient programs, prioritize their own survival over the organism’s. It’s a tragic outcome of a thousand small adaptive steps. Recognizing this helps doctors and scientists to anticipate cancer’s moves (like understanding it will adapt to single-drug therapy, so use multi-pronged attacks) and to reinforce the body’s own defenses (like fortifying immune surveillance, which itself evolved to eliminate nascent tumors). It also reminds us of our shared fate with other species – nearly all multicellular life can get cancer, highlighting how fundamental this trade-off is. Even plants get tumors (galls) when growth control is subverted by insects or microbes. Thus, cancer is less an aberration and more an unwanted, yet almost expected, byproduct of being a complex, stress-adapting organism.

Case Study: Autism – Neurodiversity, Trade-Offs, and Adaptive Stress Responses

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is typically defined by challenges in social communication and the presence of restricted interests or repetitive behaviors, often accompanied by atypical sensory processing. The classical view regarded autism as a neurodevelopmental deficit – a case of a child’s brain failing to develop “normal” social cognition. However, a growing body of research and advocacy (the neurodiversity movement) has pushed back on this narrative, highlighting that autism also involves strengths and unique information-processing styles, and may represent a naturally occurring cognitive variant. Utilizing our evolutionary-stress framework, we can interpret autism as an alternative calibration of neural and physiological systems – one that carries trade-offs, but is not simply broken functioning.

One key insight comes from the realm of allostasis and learning. A recent theory proposed that autism results from a variation in allostasis-driven learning, meaning the process by which the brain learns to manage social and environmental demands via internal regulation is tuned differently ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ). In typical development, infants and children use caregivers to help regulate their interoceptive needs (feeding, calming, etc.), gradually internalizing those regulatory mechanisms. Social engagement becomes tightly coupled with allostasis – for example, a hug from a parent both meets an emotional need and regulates physiology (reduces stress hormones). Over time, most children learn that social interaction is rewarding and helps maintain emotional equilibrium, reinforcing more social learning. In autism, however, evidence suggests this feedback loop may differ. The hypothesis is that autistic individuals might not get the same allostatic reward from social interaction, or they may process those interactions through more domain-general circuits rather than specialized “social” circuits ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ). In other words, their brains may not assign special status to social stimuli in driving interoceptive comfort. This could result in a child who does not instinctively seek out eye contact or joint attention to regulate themselves, because their internal calibration doesn’t find those cues as salient or soothing as a neurotypical child would. It’s not that social ability is inherently absent; rather, the motivation and automatic tuning to the social world is configured differently – a trade-off that might favor other domains (like focused interest in objects or patterns that provide comfort or predictability). One set of findings supporting this is that many brain regions involved in managing body states and attention (like the insula and amygdala) show differences in autistic individuals, hinting that their internal prediction and reward systems operate in a distinct way during social versus non-social situations ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ). Notably, this perspective reframes autism as dysregulation instead of disorder: the autistic child is regulating attention and stress, just perhaps not in the socially conventional way.

Neuroimaging and physiological studies reinforce that autistic individuals often have atypical interoception and stress responses. For example, meta-analyses have found that autistic people, on average, have reduced accuracy in sensing certain bodily signals (like heartbeat timing) yet may report higher confidence in their interoceptive judgments ( Characterizing Interoceptive Differences in Autism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Case-control Studies – PMC ). This discrepancy could mean that the calibration between actual internal sensation and perception is shifted – possibly the brain relies more on expectation or different cues. Autistic children also frequently show either heightened or blunted cortisol responses to stress compared to peers; some don’t show the normal spike in stress hormone in mildly stressful situations (like a mock social test), while others over-react to minor changes. This variability suggests their stress-allostasis systems are tuned differently, perhaps as a result of early life experiences or underlying genetics.

On the sensory side, many autistic individuals experience sensory hypersensitivity – ordinary sounds, textures, or lights can feel overwhelming. From an adaptive standpoint, one could ask if this hypersensitivity has a silver lining. Indeed, heightened sensory acuity could improve detection of changes in the environment or detail discrimination. Parents and therapists often notice that autistic people can pick up on patterns or minor differences that others miss. The “weak central coherence” theory by Uta Frith posited that autistic cognition favors local detail processing over global integration ( Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). While this might impede seeing the “big picture” in a social situation, it can enhance abilities like puzzle-solving, memory for facts, or noticing technical errors. For instance, autistic savants can have extraordinary skills in music, art, or mathematics – these talents often directly spring from intense focus and an ability to maintain very exact representations in memory (Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). One study found that a significant portion of autistic individuals (around one-third of autistic adults) have some superior ability (savant-like or at least above average) in domains such as memory, calculus, drawing, or other visuospatial skills ( Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). This is far higher than in the general population. Moreover, a large twin study indicated that the genes associated with “special talents” (music, art, etc.) overlapped with genes for autistic traits, suggesting that what endows one with exceptional analytical or creative ability might also predispose to autism ( Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). Strikingly, the same report noted that common genetic variants linked to autism have been positively selected in human evolution and correlate with higher intelligence and educational attainment in the general population ( Why are savant skills and special talents associated with autism? – PMC ). This provides direct evidence that neurodivergent traits associated with autism were not ruthlessly eliminated by evolution; on the contrary, they may have been favored in certain contexts for the cognitive benefits they confer. Perhaps in ancestral societies, individuals with an autistic cognitive style (detail-focused, systematic, less driven by social approval) could excel at tasks like tool-making, hunting/tracking patterns in nature, or ritualistic knowledge – roles where meticulous attention and persistence were assets. Those contributions would have improved group survival, even if the individuals were less attuned socially.

Another angle is the social stress aspect of autism. Much of the suffering in autism comes not inherently from the neurotype, but from the constant stress of living in a world that is mismatched to one’s sensory and social processing. Social communication for autistic people can be like operating in a foreign language full of unwritten rules – an exhausting allostatic burden. Evolutionary mismatch applies here: society today demands heavy social multitasking and rapid communication (think of a noisy classroom or workplace) which may overwhelm someone whose nervous system is wired for a different pace or style of information flow. In quieter, simpler social environments (perhaps small tribal units or village life with routines), those same individuals might function with less distress. The Double Empathy Problem theory even suggests that autistic and neurotypical people have mutual communication gaps – each has trouble understanding the other, rather than one being objectively deficient ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ) . This reminds us that “deficit” often depends on context. In a population where many were autistic, the communication norms and sensory environments would adjust accordingly, and neurotypicals might then seem the odd ones out.

Physiologically, one fascinating hypothesis ties autism to an altered balance of the sympathetic (fight-or-flight) and parasympathetic (rest-and-digest) systems. Some autistic individuals have baseline autonomic arousal that’s higher (accounting for anxiety and sensory arousal), or sometimes erratically lower (accounting for a subset who appear very calm or unresponsive). These profiles could emerge from early developmental calibration – perhaps prenatal or early postnatal factors (like maternal stress hormone levels, or inflammation) nudge the fetus’s developing nervous system toward a certain settings. There’s emerging literature on maternal immune activation (fever/infection during pregnancy) correlating with higher likelihood of autism in offspring, suggesting an immune-stress influence on neurodevelopment. Evolutionarily, one might wonder: could this be adaptive in some scenario? If a mother experiences significant stress while pregnant, it might signal the womb environment that the world the child will enter is harsh, thus biasing development toward a more vigilant, detail-focused, less socially-dependent phenotype (which could be advantageous in chaotic or sparse social environments). This is speculative but aligns with the idea of fetal programming – offspring tune themselves to expected conditions. If the expectation is a high-stress environment, an “autistic” strategy of intense focus and reduced social distraction might yield survival skills at the cost of social finesse. On the other hand, if a maternal environment signals a very safe, social world, a more typical social brain would be advantageous.

Genetically, autism is polygenic (many genes contribute, each with small effect). Some of these genes relate to synaptic function, some to ion channels, some to neurochemicals like serotonin or GABA. It’s notable that many are not “disease genes” per se but variants of normal genes that slightly shift neuronal excitability or connectivity. It suggests autism arises from combinations of perfectly normal genetic variants that together produce an outlying phenotype. In population genetics terms, these variants have largely been conserved over evolutionary time – again pointing to potential benefits in heterozygous states or in certain combinations. Only in some cases does a rare mutation with severe effect cause autism (e.g. Fragile X or an extra copy of a segment of chromosome); even then, the deficits often coexist with some islands of ability.

From a trade-off perspective, consider social communication versus nonsocial cognition as two ends of a spectrum for resource allocation. A brain has only so much neural real estate and energy. If more is devoted to, say, visual processing and memory, perhaps less is available for social learning. Some autistic brains have enlarged early visual or detail-processing areas relative to frontal social areas. This could be an internal trade-off (developmental focus on one domain at expense of another). Notably, interventions in autism that try to forcefully normalize social behavior sometimes backfire or cause anxiety – possibly because they don’t respect the person’s natural operating mode. An alternative approach is strengths-based: find what the individual excels at or finds regulating (their “special interest” which often deeply engages them and calms them) and use that as a gateway to learning and growth. This aligns with the adaptive view: the intense interests in autism (whether it’s train timetables, astronomy, or drawing anime characters) are not pointless obsessions; they are self-soothing, mastery domains that likely reduce allostatic load. They provide a sense of control and predictability (the same reason the brain evolved to have interests). Tapping into those can make therapy more effective and respectful.

Understanding autism in an evolutionary framework also means acknowledging it has always been part of humanity. Retrospective analyses and neurodiversity scholars point out that many historical figures or innovators showed autistic traits (though it’s speculative to diagnose them). The persistence of autism at roughly 1-2% of the population worldwide indicates it’s not an aberration that selection wiped out – it’s stable. This frequency might represent an equilibrium where the genes involved carry enough advantages (or at least not too high a cost in pre-modern settings) to remain. In fact, the tech-driven society of today finds some autistic traits quite valuable (attention to detail, passion for specialized topics, low susceptibility to social conformity). It’s telling that many companies actively recruit neurodiverse individuals for roles in software testing, data analysis, etc., harnessing abilities that come with the autistic phenotype. This modern development ironically creates a sort of positive selection for autism-associated skills in the current environment – illustrating how whether a trait is considered a “pathology” or an “advantage” can depend on the environment.

Biologically, autism might represent an alternative balance of inhibition and excitation in the brain. Some researchers find evidence for hyper-excitability in sensory regions (contributing to sensory overload) but perhaps stronger local inhibitory circuits in other respects (leading to focus). The trade-off of how much neural inhibition (filtering of signals) versus excitation (amplification of signals) is a fundamental design parameter of brains. Autism could lie towards one end of that spectrum (reduced global inhibition – letting more information in unabated). The benefit is more raw data; the cost is difficulty distilling and prioritizing social information. Conversely, another condition like schizophrenia might represent the opposite (too much weight on predictions and not enough on sensory data, causing internally generated perceptions like hallucinations – too much top-down, whereas autism is often portrayed as too much bottom-up).

In terms of stress profiles, autistic individuals often experience higher anxiety and mental health issues, especially in adolescence and adulthood. This can be seen as a result of chronic mismatch stress – the world constantly violating their brain’s expectations or preferences. Some describe it as constantly operating at near allostatic overload just to navigate daily life. It’s no surprise that meltdown or shutdown can occur – those are basically acute stress responses (fight/flight or freeze) when capacity is exceeded. With support and adaptation, however, many autistic people thrive and those stress incidents diminish. This is analogous to providing a correctly fitting environment to any organism so it doesn’t have to be in defense mode all the time.

In summary, autism showcases how neurodevelopment can follow different trajectories that entail trade-offs: social intuition vs. technical focus, sensory breadth vs. filtering, routine preference vs. spontaneity. It is better understood not as a single “disease” but as a cluster of phenotypes that reflect alternative adaptive strategies of the nervous system. By studying autism, we also learn about the broader range of human stress responses. Autistic individuals often articulate that they feel like “on a different wavelength” – perhaps quite literally their interoceptive prediction loops operate with a different gain or tempo. Science is now validating that viewpoint, moving away from purely pathologizing language. For clinicians, this means adopting a two-prong approach: of course ameliorate disabling symptoms (like severe communication barriers or self-injury, which are suffering we want to relieve), but also nurture the distinctive strengths and respect the neurological reality of the person. That could involve adjusting the sensory environment (lighting, sound), teaching skills in a way that syncs with their learning style (maybe leveraging visual thinking), and addressing anxiety not just with medications but by altering the sources of stress (like educating peers, creating predictability, and using the person’s interests as calming anchors).

By moving beyond the deficit model, we see an autistic individual not as a broken neurotypical, but as a whole person whose neurobiology has its own integrity and adaptive logic. As one researcher put it, autism may be “not a broken social brain, but a different brain that learns and develops via allostasis” ( What Is Social about Autism? The Role of Allostasis-Driven Learning – PMC ). Evolution has room for many types of minds – our species likely benefited from that diversity. The pathology in autism, then, largely arises when one type of mind is forced to operate in a world designed for another. Aligning environment and expectations to individuals, and fostering cross-neurotype understanding (so that both autistic and neurotypical people adapt toward each other), can reduce the allostatic strain and unleash the productive potential in this form of neurodiversity.

Conclusion: Embracing Complexity in Medicine

Across these case studies – Alzheimer’s, cancer, and autism – a common theme emerges: pathology cannot be fully understood in isolation from the evolutionary and systemic context in which it arose. Our bodies and brains are products of countless adaptive compromises. When we encounter diseases or disorders, we are often witnessing those compromises under strain or out of context. An allostasis- and evolution-informed framework urges clinicians and researchers to ask deeper questions about origins and purposes. It does not romanticize disease (clearly, Alzheimer’s and cancer are devastating, and autism can bring serious challenges), but it adds layers of meaning that can guide better care.

For clinicians, recontextualizing pathology in this way has practical implications. It encourages a more personalized approach – considering a patient’s stress history, environmental context, and even evolutionary predispositions. For instance, managing Alzheimer’s might not only be about reducing amyloid, but also about lifelong stress reduction and metabolic health, essentially treating upstream risk factors. In oncology, understanding a tumor’s evolutionary dynamics might influence treatment schedules or combinations to avoid selecting for aggressive clones (Life history dynamics of evolving tumors: insights into task specialization, trade-offs, and tumor heterogeneity | Cancer Cell International | Full Text). In mental health and neurodevelopment, it prompts us to support the person in their environmental niche (or adjust the niche to the person) rather than forcing one-size-fits-all norms. It also can reduce stigma: if autism is part of neurodiversity selected in evolution, if depression is partly a reaction to adversity, then these conditions are not “moral failings” or solely individual weaknesses – they are patterns with scientific explanation.

The Free Energy Principle teaches us that each person’s brain is trying its best to predict and adapt; when we see maladaptive behavior or symptoms, we can interpret them as the brain’s attempt to minimize some form of “surprise” or uncertainty that we might not yet understand. The clinician’s role becomes that of a detective, figuring out what the patient’s internal model might be and how it might be updated. The Law of Functional Information reminds us that evolution pushes systems toward complexity and new functions. Sometimes those functions help the organism (as in most of evolution), but sometimes they help only a part of the system (like a tumor cell or a hyperactive immune response). Recognizing which level of selection we are dealing with (gene, cell, organ, or organism) can clarify why a pathology persists. For example, autoimmune diseases might be seen as the echo of hyper-functional immune information that once saved us from infections but now lacks an off-switch in a clean environment.

Finally, this framework fosters an interdisciplinary dialogue. Clinicians, biologists, anthropologists, and even philosophers can find common ground. Concepts like allostatic load are now bridging cardiology, psychiatry, and public health (Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions – Biological Psychiatry). The notion of evolutionary mismatch is prompting changes in nutrition and lifestyle recommendations (like promoting physical activity and natural light to combat the “mismatch” of sedentary indoor life). In education and workplace design, neurodiversity principles are being applied, which indirectly is an application of understanding evolutionary trade-offs in cognition.

In pushing beyond the deficit model, we do not abandon the successes of biomedicine; rather, we enrich them. Pathology can and should be addressed in clinical terms – with diagnoses, drugs, surgeries when needed – but understanding its origins and meanings can improve how those treatments are developed and delivered. It adds compassion, seeing the disease not just as an enemy but as a misguided friend — a part of us that attempted something useful but got it wrong. Thus, the evolutionary-stress framework ultimately supports a more integrative medicine, one that situates the patient’s condition in narrative: how their body’s past (genetic and evolutionary) and present (environment and stress) culminated in the illness, and how we can steer that narrative toward a healthier chapter. As medicine advances, incorporating nonlinear dynamics, evolutionary logic, and adaptive principles will likely lead to more robust interventions – ones that work with the body’s design rather than against it. In the complexity of life, we find that understanding the “why” of illness is as important as the “how,” guiding us to solutions that are not only scientifically sound but also consonant with the very nature of living systems.

Sources:

(Note: All citations formatted in Chicago style with author-date can be cross-referenced to the numbered sources above. The bracketed citations (e.g., (The Emerging Role of Innate Immunity in Alzheimer’s Disease | Neuropsychopharmacology)) refer to specific lines in the source texts for verification of quoted or closely paraphrased material.)

Posted by:

Lori Hogenkamp

Lori’s passion is for food, the brain, science and stress shifting perspectives .

Leave a Reply

About

Recent Posts

Newsletter

Discover more from The Evo-Stress Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading