[AuthorizedCust]

> boosted by from inflammatory effects of UV damage

That wording supports a notion that the boosting is to encourage the most essential activity of a species—reproduction—in the face of potential harms that may shorten the opportunity for that activity (cancer-induced final exit).

That said, I’m aware of counterarguments to the simplistic takes on “sun bad” messaging and think they have merit. Not trying to open a debate on the latter, just clarifying that I’m not trying to grind an ax with the first paragraph.

[ramblerman]

That seems a bit simplistic of an interpretation when there are no similar effect for dehydration, hunger, loss of a limb, or other potential harms.

Many animals are seasonal. And extra sun exposure might indicate a good time to mate (spring/summer)

[AuthorizedCust]

Your example harms have an immediate effect. Sun exposure usually does not.

[treeman79]

Sun exposure causes a severe inflammatory exposure for me. Spent a day at the beach and it was 7 months of burning nerve pain before I got it calmed down. Side effect of autoimmune Sjogrens.

I don’t go out if UV is above a 2 anymore.

[whatshisface]

There's no way that we evolved to chemically respond to an effect that takes fifty years to happen.

[AuthorizedCust]

Evolution is a long tail game. Over eons, any mutation conferring an increased likelihood of sustainable reproduction can “win”, including this one.

[sdwr]

Thats what came to my mind too.