Insects Develop Pesticide Resistance Through Symbiosis With Gut Flora 144
First time accepted submitter blinkin247 writes "The indiscriminate spraying of pesticides has probably caused as many problems as it has solved, but here's one that was not expected: some bacteria have decided that insecticide is a very tasty meal. Unfortunately for us, one of the strains of bacteria that has evolved the ability to digest the toxin happens to be able to find a home in an insect's gut. When it does so, it provides the insect with resistance."
Curses! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Your species is "a strain of bacteria that lives in the gut of insects" ?
Yet you've mastered the art of using slashdot ?
Well let me be the first to say: I for one welcome our new intelligent bacterial overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta hand it to you, you got guts kid.
Re:Curses! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Curses! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes. The creationists will have a hard time explaining this one.
My guess is they'll say that bacteria with this resistance already existed in the population, but spraying made it so only those bacteria survived.
And for all I know, in this case they might be right.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. The creationists will have a hard time explaining this one.
My guess is they'll say that bacteria with this resistance already existed in the population, but spraying made it so only those bacteria survived. And for all I know, in this case they might be right.
They would almost certainly be right. What you have just described is natural selection, in a nutshell. Natural selection can only work on existing variation in a population. If no resistant bacteria were present in a population, then the entire population would by wiped out by the pesticide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are few creationists who deny natural selection, at least if you are patient enough to explain it to them. And that's the doorway to getting them to accept the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The *really* annoying thing is how smugly confident they are. Everyone knows that scientists lack the solid, down-to-earth common sense of the average man. Fuckwits.
I'll bet there is nothing in your personality that would cause them to reject you as a teacher.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's the part about disagreeing with them that does it more than anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Curses! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what the second law of thermodynamics means. That paper equivocates the meaning of order and disorder several times, dipping into the formal definitions to make the math work. Order and disorder are metaphors for thermodynamic entropy, but dS is not the change in chaos, it's the change in entropy. He defines order as the opposite of entropy, which is misleading to begin with and downright false when he starts using the word order to mean things other than the opposite of entropy (or X-entropy) in his paper.
It doesn't make any sense to ask whether the increase in solar engery makes spaceships not extremely improbable. No matter what happened, it was extremely improbable because there's a huge timescale and the chances of everything happening the same way twice in a huge timescale are nil (if they did happen the same way twice, that would pretty much imply that there was little to no entropy from start to finish).
He has this line:
"If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is
open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable."
He's removed all precision from this. Undoing his re-definitions, this de-sugars to "if a decrease in entropy is a decrease in entropy when the system is closed, it is still a decrease in energy when the system is open, unless something is entering that has high entropy".
As a counterexample: spaceships do happen. Unless you claim that God made cars, or something, it follows that this localized order did in fact come from an external source, for surely the spaceship did not assemble itself. And I guarantee that humans are inputting far, far, far, far less energy into their spaceship creations that the sun is inputting into the Earth. Life does happen. Following this rationale, unless you insist on a continually-active creator god which is continually inputting order to supplement the sun which is apparently insufficient, there's no way there can be population growth, since that's an "increase in order". Plants grow. They're creating "order" very specifically from the input of the sun.
Not to mention he completely skips his proof that the "order" coming from the sun is strictly less than the "order" appearing on Earth.
But aside from that. Genetic mutations plus natural selection = evolution. Or more precisely, inheritance with mutations, where the mutations are not always a net negative in every possible respect, plus some form of selection = evolution. Even if that did violate the second law you'd have to come up with a way to reconcile it, for it isn't enough to say "these things contradict", you have to figure out which is wrong and why, instead assuming thermodynamics always wins and that somehow like magic the other thing must be wrong even if you can't point out what's wrong about it (we know it doesn't actually win at the microscopic level, as indicated in that paper).
Re: (Score:2)
The entire paper is about the _rate_ of change of entropy or order.
Quoting the paper: "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere."
The reason? "[the equations for entropy] also say that in an open system the X -order [reverse of entropy] cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary
Other reading (Score:2)
See also:
Journal Censors 'Second Law' Paper Refuting Evolution
http://www.icr.org/article/journal-censors-second-law-paper-refuting/ [icr.org]
After the paper was accepted for publication in Applied Mathematics Letters, an anti-design blogger wrote to the editor, warning that the journal's reputation would be tarnished if the paper was printed. So, the journal's editor withdrew it. Sewell, who has authored at least 39 other technical papers, then took legal action. Since the journal's own policy states that withdrawing
Re: (Score:2)
The energy that the sun inputs into the earth (radiation, gravitational) has no order to speak of. So the _rate_ at which order is imported into the interface is basically zero.
This is the problem with using "order" to mean "negative entropy" -- it invites inappropriate application of human notions of what seems like "order". If you insist on using "order" to mean "negative entropy" then you need to remember that "negative entropy" is what matters, not "stuff what looks organized to me."
The entropy contained in the slice of solar blackbody radiation that is heating the earth is significantly less than the entropy in the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth in all directions i
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you might be interested in more justification for this:
The entropy contained in the slice of solar blackbody radiation that is heating the earth is significantly less than the entropy in the blackbody radiation emitted by the earth in all directions into space. The earth has a net entropy output. Ergo the entropy input to earth is negative.
The entropy of blackbody radiation is S = (4/3)U/T, where U is the total energy and T is the temperature. When the earth is in thermal equilibrium then the amount of energy received by the sun is equal to the amount of energy radiated away from the earth (ignoring the contribution of heat from the earth's core which is relatively small). The sun's surface is at 5800K. The earth's surface is at about 280K. So there's about 20 times less ent
Re:Curses! (Score:4, Informative)
Few creationists deny natural selection. Few creationists deny genetic mutations occur.
Great! Then few creationists would deny evolutionary theory! Because natural selection + mutations explains the diversity of species very, very well!
Effectively, what we do deny is that these mechanisms can violate the second law of themodynamics
Creationists always try to use the second law,
to disprove evolution, but their theory has a flaw.
The second law is quite precise about where it applies,
only in a closed system must the entropy count rise.
The earth's not a closed system' it's powered by the sun,
so fuck the damn creationists, Doomsday get my gun!
- MC Hawking, "Entropy"
Re: (Score:2)
On a side note, I personally think that all of this gives a nice, if not a little superficial, definition of life. That is that life is the o
Re: (Score:3)
The earth may not be a closed system, but the universe is.
And the entropy of the universe is undoubtedly increasing. The second law does not preclude local, temporary decreases in entropy (which is what we are) so long as the total in the system increases, which it is. Eventually the entire universe will have such high entropy that essentially nothing will ever happen -- heat death -- regardless of what we do during our brief existence.
Energy alone is not enough to increase order.
Yes, you need some other mechanisms that make use of energy, like chemistry.
On a side note, I personally think that all of this gives a nice, if not a little superficial, definition of life. That is that life is the organized resistance to entropy.
So you personally think crystals are alive. You're
Re: (Score:2)
I never attempted to define what evolution is or is not but rather was refering to the apparent order found in biological systems and in the world around us. I am confussed by your aparent dislike of the word "order".
quote/ moron
Tushay, your stunning whit and eloquent use of the english language have certainly proved me to be in error.
quote/ The universe isn't fucking Pokemon where organisms are "more evolved" than others.
I see now were the problem is in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't explain anything, it just shows how stupid the author is. We are not in a closed system, and he admits that. So we're not violating the second law. Duh.
Who cares how "improbable" it is for life to have started up randomly and evolved? All it takes is for it to happen one time in any of the perhaps billions of Universes that have existed or do exist, and here we are asking the questions and making up thousands of gods that are suspiciously similar to ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I can sum up your argument with this:
http://i.imgur.com/5Nad9.jpg [imgur.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Natural selection IS evolution in action
Rubbish.
Natural Selection is the selection of pre existing characteristics. (Creationists agree)
Evolution is the mutation/creation of NEW genetic information that produces new beneficial function that was not there before. (Creationists disagree)
Re: (Score:3)
No, evolution is the union of both things, although "beneficial" isn't strictly necessary, and "NEW genetic information" is ill-defined.
Do you disagree that mutations happen: insertions, deletions, changes? All have been observed.
If so, we can walk down the road of those proofs. If not, what mechanism do you propose that prevents these things from producing "NEW genetic information". be sure to define "NEW genetic information".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I believe insertions, deletions, changes occur, but I also believe that random changes produce increased disorder not order.
Changed DNA can result in
- reduced function (on a scale from death to barely percieved)
- no change in function.
- increased function
If I have a billion self replicating programs, and randomly change the object code in all of them every second, they all won't suddenly die, but I will see the entire population gradully LOSE information and thus FUNCTION. Beneficial mutations are poss
Re:Curses! (Score:5, Informative)
If I have a billion self replicating programs, and randomly change the object code in all of them every second, they all won't suddenly die, but I will see the entire population gradully LOSE information and thus FUNCTION.
You should actually try this. I have. So have many others. What we've learned by doing it is that if you just randomly modify your billion programs with an external program and use this same program to do the copying (so none of the population of programs you're "evolving" can ever fail to reproduce), and nothing else then yeah you'll just get a big mess of programs that mostly don't work.
However if you constrain those that are allowed to be copied in some way, for example by running them through some tests to see if they have the desired functionality and only copying the best-working programs then randomly modify them, you prevent regression and select for enhancement. Iterating on this process, you'll find that you can achieve order and you can increase function. Dramatically so, and faster than you would think, too.
There's a whole field of computer science on the subject: genetic algorithms. They're only like biological evolution in principle, but it's the principle of random changes resulting in increased order that you have an issue with. Well, genetic algorithms provide a mathematical description of how that is not only perfectly possible, but a common, expected outcome.
We call the criterion we use to decide what solutions will be allowed to propagate the "fitness function", and it is the main thing that guides what the solution looks like, so defining it well is the major issue when you're a human trying to solve a specific problem. Even if you do a good job, you can still get solutions that are wildly outside what you assumed the solution should look like -- which is one of the strengths of genetic algorithms.
In nature, the "fitness function" is the same as the problem to be solved: Survive to reproduce. And what we see is the incredible number of ways that problem can be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring the effect of natural selection. It is true that mutation, by itself, tends to result in individual organisms less-adapted to survive and reproduce in their environment then their predecessors. However, while the organisms with harmful mutations die out, the ones with beneficial mutations out-compete their peers. As a result, the beneficial gene is passed on to an increasing share of the population with each generation until it becomes dominant.
There is more to evolution than random mutatio
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there is a whole field of AI called genetic algorithms. It doesn't randomly change the object code, but the 'dna' of the algorithm used to solve a specific problem does change via mutations generation to generation. Most of the offspring generate mutations that are unhelpful and get discarded via natural selection, but the rare helpful mutations tend to stick around and combine together. It doesn't matter how often it occurs unless you are worried about how fast evolution needs to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet there is a whole field of AI called genetic algorithms. It doesn't randomly change the object code
Most of the time because the problem you're trying to solve can be parameterised more simply, but it's certainly possible to "evolve" object code, even object code that is responsible for its own replication.
I do like how the GP presented this concept of billions of self-replicating computer programs as if it was a hypothetical, but one that would obviously result in disorder.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely correct. Except you've forgotten the next step: natural selection causes a quick end to the reduced function ones, and amplifies the increased function ones.
Mutation DOES increase "disorder" and decrease the mean fitness of a population, if left to itself. When paired with natural selection, the opposite happens - mutation introduces variation and natural selection selects only the fitter side of the distribution.
Funny how in your post you basically describe how to test the hypothesis wi
Re: (Score:3)
Aaah, but your experiment has no natural selection.
When you add a selective element that actively culls the population of bad mutations the good ones not only win out but become dominant.
In fact this exact process is the mechanism we use to do evolve learning into neural networks. Your exact experiment - only with a selective pressure added.
It gets better we've used the process to evolve HARDWARE using programmable logic chips. The chips were initially programmed with random junk. Then a criteria was chosen
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of biological evolution loss can a beneficial mutation. e.g. animals which live in constantly dark caves losing sight, pigmentation, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi! I'm also a genetic code: GTCCATCTTCACGCATAC
Which one of us is more "ordered" and why? Also, if one of is a mutation of the first, is the other one less orderly? If so, is the opposite also true?
Re:Curses! (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is they'll just say "meh", and shrug their shoulders.
Most creationists don't have a problem with "evolution" as an adaptive mechanism, just the particular application of evolution that posits that trillions of iterations of evolution moved life from primordial sludge to sentient life.
The idea that the species existed in a "perfect" unchanged state from the point of creation until the present time was rejected as religious dogma even before Darwin.
Re: (Score:2)
I will agree. One of my coworkers (who's a great wor
Re: (Score:2)
By standard Evolutionary theory, bacteria should actually have much less chance per unit of having a beneficial mutation than for more 'advanced' organisms. It's just they have a lot of both sheer numbers and fast reproductive cycles to make the individually unlikely collectively more likely.
Details: any organism, from bacteria to blue whales, can be assumed to be pretty well adapted to its environment - wildly ill-adapted means dead. So small tweaks in genes are more likely to be beneficial than big change
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that they will (rightfully) say that this isn't evolution, it's symbiosis. People need to rtfa, and not trust a poorly written intro paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a stock response for these: "adaptation within a species is not evolution. Species can adapt and change, both from human choices (breeding) or natural pressures, but they cannot change into an entirely different species".
I don't agree in the least, but I've heard the argument so I know how it goes.
Re: (Score:2)
no, god planned it this way (Score:1)
its all in the bible, if you would only learn to read it properly.
(unless you are muslim, which in case, its all in the koran, if only you could learn to read it properly)
(unless you are zoroastrian... which in case... hey , zoroastrian, thats a hell of a scrabble word...)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not evolution. It's symbiosis. Certain bacteria can eat the pesticides. The bugs ingest the bacteria which live in bugs gut. Bug eats pesticide. Bacteria eats pesticide, bug lives.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
any evolution could be dismissed as such a small modification caused by an external force.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Adding a symbiont doesn't require insects to have modify their DNA.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry: "... doesn't require insects to have modified DNA"
Re:Curses! (Score:4, Insightful)
The symbiotic organism evolved against the pressure, and since it is symbiotic with the insects, fitness is acquired. Classic darwin in the true complexity of life.
Re: (Score:3)
Genetic change by a non-sentient living organism is still evolution, nimrod. Did the genetic change give us any useful advantages?
Thank you, ancestral survivors of the Black Plague, for bestowing genetic immunity against 95% of known HIV upon me, through knocking out my CCR5 receptor.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, ancestral survivors of the Black Plague, for bestowing genetic immunity against 95% of known HIV upon me, through knocking out my CCR5 receptor.
Hey! My ancestors survived the Black Plague too, and all I got was an immune system that kills most stuff at the cost of going apeshit at the drop of a hat and giving me allergies. Not that I'm complaining, but suddenly I feel ripped off.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the person you're replying to didn't rtfa and thought there was a genetic change...which there wasn't. It's just symbiosis. The same way we have bacteria in our guts to help us digest things.
Re: (Score:2)
Their certainly was genetic change in the bacteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then what IS evolution?
Evolution is specialization over time among organisms, brought about by selection against traits that arise from genetic mutation.
Spider mites (Score:2)
This is a big problem here in BC because of grow ops. Some off these spider mites are resistant to shit that will kill/fuck us up easily.
Re: (Score:1)
Even trailer park boys knew what to do with spider mites.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWOIsopqK6A [youtube.com]
Spraying any sort of insecticide on spider mites is stupid and short sighted.
Simple Solution (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Now put bacteria in farmers (Score:4, Informative)
Yay! So now we can put those bacteria in farmers, and they won't get sick or die when they spray their farms.
Great... (Score:3)
Great... Just what we need...
Pesticides with Antibiotics mixed in there too. I for one welcome our new superbug overlords.
Organic farming is not for hippies (Score:3)
Personally, I think of it as a very Taoist way of solving these problems--instead of a frontal attack (insecticides) plant symbiotic plants nearby that ward off insects, and things like that. Go with the flow...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, will you be the first to sign your own death and the death of 4 billion other people? Organic farming is unsustainable for our population levels.
Re:Organic farming is not for hippies (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart people would make changes in farming and population control over the sae timeframe. Sadly, lots of ignorant people will die because they were born from ignorance and largely dont improve from the cycle.... and so 4+ BN will die, not that any sane human wouldnt be apalled by natures big push back.
Oil resources finite? Check phosphorous peak estimates for a real scary reality check.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
Have a look at terra preta, and biochar.
Simple, inexpensive additions to poor quality soil which make it much more productive than one with chemical fertilizers..
Green manure and compost are very inexpensive, most of what organic soil needs can be sourced locally, the only thing you might need to import is rock dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what difference does it make if what you are saying is true, or if we simply cause super-pests to breed and eventually cause an Irish Potato style famine, due to monoculture farming, for example?
Re: (Score:2)
Then we're fucked. Because conventional farming is also unsustainable for our population levels.
Life will find a way (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter whether you're dealing with antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, or natural predators, life will always evolve to survive.
We all know this. The scientists. The chemists. The engineers. The pharmacorps. The pesticide and herbicide companies.
Hell, Monsanto even gene-engineers such resistance into their tainted products.
But the public doesn't want to accept the truth: we're all on borrowed time. All we're doing is leveraging short-term odds for short-term gain, at the price of long term dissolution. So the marketing experts and technology pundits tell them what they want to hear: that we can win the fight in the long term.
We can't, and we won't. Eventually every single antibiotic, pesticide, and herbicide we have will be useless, and the new generations of such products will be so lethal that we won't be able to use them because they're also poisonous to humans.
And then the shit is really gonna hit the fan, big time.
Re: (Score:3)
We can't, and we won't. Eventually every single antibiotic, pesticide, and herbicide we have will be useless, and the new generations of such products will be so lethal that we won't be able to use them because they're also poisonous to humans.
I'm not sure this is true. It seems that each generation of pesticide is safer, and more targeted than the previous generation. The earlier pesticides, like DDT are much worse than later ones, like paldoxins. Your scenario COULD happen, I don't claim to predict the future, but there is more than one possibility.
And our knowledge of biology is growing and such an incredible pace, it wouldn't be surprising if we get better and better pesticides in the future, at an increasing pace. Once computers are more
Re:Life will find a way (Score:5, Interesting)
Microbiologists ma disagree about the antibiotic resistance cold war component of your point. They often assert that when resistance is evolved against one mode of action, it is devolved from a previous mode.... this is true in bacteria, whereby removing antibiotics from media can generate a dominant species that is absent of resistance in 30 generations (1 to 2 days). This is because without the pressure, the small functional advantage of lacking a useless resistance gene lets the nonresistant mutant outpace its resistant ancestor in 30 doublings.
I am a firm believer in working *with* nature than against it. The future looks dreary...
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, bacteria will survive. Insects too.
It was expected (Score:2)
Synchromysticism (Score:2)
"Gut Flora" was the name of my ska-core band when I was in college. We were originally "Irritable Bowel Syndrome" but the lead singer left the band and he owned the name, Asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gut Flora" was the name of my ska-core band when I was in college. We were originally "Irritable Bowel Syndrome" but the lead singer left the band and he owned the name, Asshole.
No, I own the name Asshole.
Re:Evelution in action. (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't RTFM, but on the surface, although this looks like evolution and symbiosis, it doesn't look like symbiotic evolution. The insect didn't change. The bacteria did, and the bacteria is living in the insect. The bacteria didn't cause the insect to develop a resistance. The bacteria is PROVIDING the resistance. If you were to remove the bacteria from the insect, the insect would be vulnerable again.
Re:Evelution in action. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe in symbiosis. That's why I had all my mitochondria (and bacteria) removed.
If the insects find a way to incorporate some of the bacterial DNA into their own DNA then genetic evolution will have taken place. I think symbiotic evolution such as with mitochondria and chloroplasts is a lot rarer. Those are the only two examples that come to mind.
Actually the finding could be a good news ! (Score:4, Insightful)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Or would you like Monsanto to provide both the meal and the "enhanced digestion additive" for it?
Re:Actually the finding could be a good news ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy
If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment
And your point being ... ?
Re: (Score:2)
The discovery that the bacteria inside insects' guts finds human-made (often very toxic) insecticide "tasty" can actually be a good news for all of us ---
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And allow the said industries to produce other flavors of toxic waste, only cheaper?
Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy
If there are bacteria which can "digest" those toxic waste and break-down the chemicals in such that the resultant by-products lose their toxicity - we should tap into the abilities of those bacteria to clean up the environment
And your point being ... ?
My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.
I won't volunteer my gut for it and various [wikipedia.org] experiments [abc.net.au] of the [wikipedia.org] past [aussiebee.com.au] make me wary of attempts involving evolution and ecology (take TFA for an example of the law of unintended consequences in ecology).
Re: (Score:3)
My point: for the time being, those bacteria requires a gut to function.
Not all of them do. :P Even the summary says this was just one strain of a number of pesticide-eating bacteria.
I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment. When the pesticide is gone, the pressure would be to return towards their previous food sources. Of course I couldn't
Re: (Score:3)
I fully agree with being leery of and avoiding introducing species, but these bacteria evolved in places where there was heavy pesticide use. So they aren't exactly introduced species when used to clean up pesticides, they aren't that far removed from their natural environment.
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
We can tap the ability of those bacteria to "digest" away many of the toxic waste produced by industries
And my objection stems from the two reasons I listed:
1. in biology/ecology, the things have a tendency to go wrong in more ways and much faster anyone can imagine
2. my distrust into the capabilities of the corporations to act responsible (and I'm not necessary hating the player, but the "game" requires them to maximize their profits and
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah... except that my objection to the post I was answering to was not against letting the bacteria do what they were pressured to do, but against tapping into it.
I can't imagine what connotation you are inferring for "tap" that would require I change my response. Taking bacteria cultures and dumping them on locations polluted by pesticides is "tapping" into their capabilities.
Like... potentially importing some bacteria strains into Australia because they aren't present there?.
You know, Australia's soil is quite particular - low concentration of phosphorus [adelaide.edu.au] - so the native flora there adapted to the lack of it.
Hang on, aren't the pesticides mentioned by TFA in this [wikipedia.org] class?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you may need a visit to your local psychiatrist
No one is talking about introducing alien species of bacteria culture into pristine environment
We are talking about cleaning up dangerous and toxic chemicals - ie, brown fields which have been polluted by those toxics - no matter it is in Australia or in Timbuktu, polluted brown fields are polluted brown fields, and the pollution won't go away simply because of your unfounded phobia
If the bacteria can gobble up those toxic substances and reduce them to
His point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His point is obviously that Monsanto expects us to hand over our lunch money for coaxing the bacteria into doing so.
That guy couldn't think out of his self-made box
Just because Monsanto may have cornered the genetic modified food industry does not mean that the same company gonna corner the bacteria industry
Furthermore, the bacteria that can digest toxic chemicals (like pesticide) are not just a single type of bacterium - Even if Monsanto can come up with one type of bacterium (Bacterium Z) that can break down toxic chemicals A, B, C, D, E, does not mean others are being prevented to come up with bacterium Y that can bre
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you like it or not, the industrial complex has been producing, - and is producing - millions and millions of tons of toxic waste every single year. toxic wastes that are very difficult - and very un-economical to un-toxic-fy
I admire yo-yo-your implication FUCK! ASS! that since it's already happening on a huge sss-s-scale FUCK! ASS!, there's really no problem in increase of p-p-p-production FUCK! ASS! of the poison.
Re: (Score:2)
If bacteria start to digest the stuff left behind, then is it really toxic when it's become food for something?
There are substances that are toxic for one species but not for another
There are species that live near underwater volcanoes, for example, and they actually consume the sulphur based chemical soup as food that many other species find toxic
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the 'waste' the bacteria is spitting out, I'd think. It'd suck if the bacteria took in pesticide and spit out, say, cyanide or nerve gas...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what the 'waste' the bacteria is spitting out, I'd think. It'd suck if the bacteria took in pesticide and spit out, say, cyanide or nerve gas...
It could happen that way, but then, it could be the opposite
When living things digest a substance, it break-down that substance to more basic elements - and basic elements are in general less toxic than the longer-chained chemicals
Re: (Score:1)
so what happens when the bacteria start living in our systems. do we become immune to the toxins too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
this needs more mod.
bioremediation is a very exciting field.
Re: (Score:2)
bioremediation is a very exciting field
I was looking for that word - "bioremediation" - but my brain simply refused to work
Thank you for your help :)