The really big deal is that bacteria may require communication to become pathogenic, which means we might be able to interfere with them as pathogens without actually killing them. Why is this better than killing them? Because any measure we take to kill some bacteria (i.e. antibiotics) inevitably exerts selective pressure, eventually resulting in the evolution of antibiotic-resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria. If we can obviate their pathogenic behaviors by interfering with their communication and without killing them, we don't push their evolution, and we don't get sick. Very cool stuff.
1
Wow, man. Bacterium are living beings, too. Maybe we can talk to them about the problems they're causing and make them understand all the hardship they cause. Then we can all live together peacefully; humans and bacterium hand-in-hand, living and loving. Awesome.
Posted by: brousch at April 29, 2009 07:05 AM (5EbLC)
2
Why you always gotta turn it into some hippietastic love-in thing? I'm thinking more along the lines of enslaving and dominating lower life forms for our own benefit.
If this perspective feels alien to you (you utter pansy), it helps to cackle madly. Puts one into the right mindset for proper mad science.
Posted by: leoncaruthers at April 29, 2009 09:55 PM (JSO4h)
Neanderthin, week 1 recap
After posting about it last week, I got inspired, so I've been eating paleo starting with breakfast last Friday. Those loyal readers who recall the pitiful failure that was Meat Week (which ended on day 5) will be pleased to know that so far I've been able to keep to it rather easily. Fruit, vegetables, and nuts help a lot. Slight deviation on Easter for a piece of apple pie and a roll, other than that I'm solid. TMI stats below the fold. more...
Posted by: leoncaruthers at
06:37 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
Pretty sure this amounts to a Seastedding manifesto
I'm interested conceptually, and for the same reason that I'm interested in Martian colonization: lacking a frontier means that established nations need only compete with each other. There are, of course, exceptions to that as various nations fail and new quasi-states arise, but by and large the majority of the habitable land on the planet (and effectively in the entire universe, since there's nowhere else to go yet) is claimed and spoken for by some political reality. There are certainly small islands and even continental regions that are uninhabited, however, so I remain unconvinced that the same ideas could not be tried out on existing land somewhere, but I concede the point that claiming any land on earth under a new flag is bound to constitute an act of war to someone. Defense is -- to my mind at least -- still the primary risk in any such venture.
1
Well, you could try to empty out land like our forefathers did: kill most of them with disease then declare the stragglers savages (terrorists might work better in today's world).
Posted by: brousch at April 07, 2009 12:45 PM (5EbLC)
2
The land really was mostly empty when the settlers got here. To be fair, the germs and disease were incidental. The whole "cholera-infested blankets" thing has never been substantiated. European settlers just carried a ton of diseases to which they were already immune.
Also, your guilt is showing. Pull your pants up.
Posted by: leoncaruthers at April 07, 2009 03:38 PM (PH0UW)
3
Our forefathers killed everyone with disease. Riiiiiiight. Why don't you progressive dirtbags just leave? Go to.. Venzuela or something where you'll be happy.
Posted by: tangonine at April 25, 2009 01:52 PM (C8Pcc)
4
Eh, brousch is okay. He's not a real hippie, he's just baiting me.
Posted by: leoncaruthers at May 03, 2009 10:10 AM (JSO4h)
Tooth Decay
Deideldorfer linked me this article on reversing tooth decay with changes in diet. It's an excellent article, and I think my long stint with the Neanderthin diet (book's out of print now, sadly) is part of why my teeth aren't a lot worse than they are. On the other hand, for about 20 years now, we've had what amounts to a vaccine for caries (cavities). The process works by replacing the streptococcus mutans in your mouth (everyone has their own indigenous strain) with a genetically modified strain that excretes alcohol as a byproduct rather than acid. Before you get too excited, it's not enough to get you drunk, or even enough to taste, but it is enough to keep your teeth clean pretty much all the time.
Posted by: leoncaruthers at
09:52 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.
Another nice page on LFTR
At Coal2Nuclear. While I could live without the ongoing emphasis on AGW and CO2 as some sort of dangerous poison, I'm also cynical enough that I don't really mind capitalizing on the hype to get us started on seriously replacing our coal infrastructure with nukes. LFTR is a game-changer, and is probably an excellent bet to bankrupt the House of Saud. Coal would be better used as feedstock for all the things we'll be using graphene for in the years to come, like lighting, electronics, and computation. Getting it from the atmosphere is easy enough, sure, but it also means we're competing with crops for something they can't get any other way.
Not welcome in the tent
Every month or so, I take a quick look around the netiverse to see if any new (to me, anyhow) content or sites about human enhancement have popped up. Once again, I was disappointed to see that nothing new had appeared, at least to my casual surfing. Further, I'm once again furious to see that the face of the transhumanist movement continues to be a bunch of Obama-worshipping, Anthropogenic Global Warming-believing, rabid atheists. It's enough to make a Classic Liberal (i.e. modern conservative/libertarian) that knows Al Gore is a hoaxster and Obama is a sure disaster feel positively unwelcome in the transhumanist tent, let alone cool stuff like Lifeboat.
I'm not saying all transhumanists are like this, but the face of the movement continues to be. There are a few bright spots, however. Al Fin, reason, and Brian Wang all touch on human enhancement and strong, freedom-based improvements to the human condition, and all three manage to do so without alienating readers (well, maybe not Al, but I'm biased, he only tries to alienate idiots, global warmenists, and O-tards, but I repeat myself). Brian is fantastic on keeping up with a whole spectrum of tech advances, but pays admirable attention to things like strength enhancement, tissue regeneration, and enhancement drugs. Reason is the first, best source for all things longevity science, and while he never writes politically, it's obvious that he favors a capitalist approach to enhancement and life extension.
Anyhow, part of the reason I started this blog to track what I called "upgrades", human enhancements. There's not a lot of that in the explicit dextrosphere, and I think it's a real shame. Freedom to enhance oneself follows logically from the core principles of conservativism: my body (and just my body, no burgeoning offspring), my property, my freedom. There's also a real danger that the early adopters of enhancement technologies may become yet another trend that the conservatives just plain miss out on (real libertarians won't, I expect).
Posted by: leoncaruthers at
08:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 334 words, total size 2 kb.