Slashdot Mirror

That's something we already know. It's how humans got viral genes, how cows got snake genes, how a sea slug got algae genes, and how a pea aphid got fungal genes, among other known examples. It's pretty rare unless you're giving things an evolutionary time frame, and has little to do with genetic engineering, either in terms of scientific or patent related concerns.

Actually, Neanderthals had bigger brain mass than we do. So it was the dumbest species that won, not the smartest. I imagine your eyes have grown a bit bigger now ?

I don't get why the article feels the need to grab to these far-fetched explanations. They do not seem to have read the speciation theories of Charles Darwin (which, unlike his evolution theory, is still pretty current). It basically states that if any 2 groups can (and do) interbreed, you might expect their genes to mix in their offspring. But that only happens in the short term. In the medium to long term one set of genes, never a mix, will "win out".

It could simply be that we were at peace with the Neanderthals, and intermarried, but moderns had greater numbers. If neanderthals allowed sufficient modern human genes to enter their race, they would have disappeared that way, like so many of the bird species Darwin described. There would have been a few mixed specimens, but only a few generations. The mixed Neanderthal-Modern "hybrid" humans would only have existed for a short period, maybe even only half a millenium (even shorter is possible, Charles Darwin described races disappearing in less than 10 generations, which for birds is less than a decade), which could explain why we haven't found them.

And yes the same will happen to current human races. They only developed because different human groups got separated, and now that we're flying humans around the planet, it is a matter of time until only a single species is left. The question is which one, of course. It seems a safe bet to say that Africans are doomed (they're getting near majority mixed blood and there are already reports of mixed-blood Africans getting white children (because both parents have black skin but 75% or more indo-european genes), something which will massively increase in the future), unless something changes, and so are ethnicities like Arabs. But a winner is not certain, Indo-Europeans have a decent shot, but are currently losing ground, while the Han Chinese are gaining ground. A distant third is the Indians. They're probably out of the race too, but ... you know, maybe. And of course, a big war might change the equation entirely.

Some groups do not have the numbers to defend their genes in, shall we say, the "open market", but intermarriage does not seem to occur, well, almost not at all, really. Obvious examples are the Japanese and Ashkenazi here. Something is holding up the barrier between those ethnicities and others. Those ethnicities will definitely not take over the planet, but they won't disappear either, unless something changes.

The weird part is how fast this will occur. In 100 years black skin will be a rare sight indeed in America. Another skin type will be about as common as blacks are today, and maybe white will have been replaced by yellow. Interesting times.

Actually, considering that many animals show evidence of intentionally seeking out alcohol (overripe fruit, etc.), and some such as elephants actually make it themselves (pulping and burying fruit that they later dig up and consume)

I think this is baloney. When I Googled for information on elephants making their own booze, I instead got a page full of articles debunking the myth that they even get drunk at all, much less make their own. Here is a link from National Geographic. There are plenty more like it.

How about African Animals Getting Drunk From Ripe Marula Fruit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5E5TjkDvU0

Actually, considering that many animals show evidence of intentionally seeking out alcohol (overripe fruit, etc.), and some such as elephants actually make it themselves (pulping and burying fruit that they later dig up and consume)

I think this is baloney. When I Googled for information on elephants making their own booze, I instead got a page full of articles debunking the myth that they even get drunk at all, much less make their own. Here is a link from National Geographic. There are plenty more like it.

National Geographic is conducting the Geno 2.0 study that is tracking human migration patterns based on genetic markers. If you want to participate, you can buy a kit and send in a cheek swab.

The test results include how much Neanderthal DNA you have. Many people of European ancestry have about 2% Neanderthal DNA. So, yes, there was interbreeding, and Neanderthals have not exactly died out.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

Indeed, global warming may result in more iceburgs.

It's not just flowers the bees might feed on:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/pictures/121011-blue-honey-honeybees-animals-science/ :)

The specs are so amazing I do wonder if they are true.
All that and only 16g. Not easy to even get a high quality video camera+transmitter that weighs much less than 16g.

Of course for some perspective, you can compare the specs with a dragonfly or hummingbird to see there's still much progress to be made in some areas ;)

Dragonfly
weight about 1-3grams
fully autonomous
self refuelling, self manufacturing.
maximum speed about 30+kph.
nonstop flight - more than long enough for me:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/dragonfly-1.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8149000/8149714.stm
Some even fly at altitudes up to 6000 metres
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantala_flavescens

Hummingbird
weight : 3-4 grams typical, 8 grams max fuel.
nonstop flight - 800km with full fuel load.
flight speed max = 50-80kph

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030120/full/news030113-10.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122112023.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120730-caffeinated-seas-pacific-northwest-caffeine-coffee-science/

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/caffeine.aspx

Man, if you want to start getting down to the part-per-trillion and part-per-quadrillion levels, we'll be able to see variation in 'pollution' levels for any known substance. Example, the National Geographic article notes the 'polluted' seas had caffeine levels of 45 ng/L. Compare that to a 12 oz. drink with 100 mg of caffeine in it. The 'pollution' we're talking about is at 0.0000016% the concentration found in caffeinated drinks.
I know a lot of scientists really want to ask and answer questions like "can increasing caffeine levels 0.000002% in the environment cause problems?", but the fact is until we actually understand how the environment works as a system and how living creatures' bodies work as a system, we will not have the tools at hand to answer them. The statistical tools we have developed instead of this systemic knowledge are constantly abused, either by failing to control for variables, or simply ignoring basic assumptions underlying the physical and/or statistical model.

Top level scientists in the 21st century are dropping the ball.

http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030120/full/news030113-10.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122112023.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120730-caffeinated-seas-pacific-northwest-caffeine-coffee-science/

http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/caffeine.aspx

How about National Geographic? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Nuclear propulsion has this nasty side effect of fallout opposite the direction of travel. That's ok for space outside of Earth orbit, but I wouldn't use it at launch.

The highest density of accessible natural antimatter in the solar system is Earth orbit. One source of generation is thunderstorms. We need to have a way to store antimatter in quantity longer than 16 minutes for antimatter to be useful.

As far as SpaceX goes, I'm looking forward to seeing their BFR, Big F-kin' Rocket, a.k.a. Merlin 2. Something has to get us off this rock and a space elevator isn't going to be built for a long time. If they publish the date of their first launch, I'd like to see it in person.

Nuclear propulsion has this nasty side effect of fallout opposite the direction of travel. That's ok for space outside of Earth orbit, but I wouldn't use it at launch.

The highest density of accessible natural antimatter in the solar system is Earth orbit. One source of generation is thunderstorms. We need to have a way to store antimatter in quantity longer than 16 minutes for antimatter to be useful.

As far as SpaceX goes, I'm looking forward to seeing their BFR, Big F-kin' Rocket, a.k.a. Merlin 2. Something has to get us off this rock and a space elevator isn't going to be built for a long time. If they publish the date of their first launch, I'd like to see it in person.

The NERVA test engine is on display at Johnson Space Center, as I understand it.

National Geographic confirms your understanding.

So now you want to conflate eating meat with rape, and then tell me I need to study formal logic a bit more? You need to study your teeth and your stomach a bit more. Presumably you are already sufficiently familiar with your asshole.

Carnivore teeth:
1) Tiger
2) Baboon

Herbivore teeth:
1) Deer
2) Horse

And finally, human teeth.

We like to think of ourselves as "King of the Jungle", and we are. But that's not due to our physical power, but rather, to our brain power. Also - our teeth are much closer to the herbivore's teeth than to the carnivores. We don't have the ruminant stomachs, but we have the ruminant teeth with a carnivore-lite's stomach. Which suggests to me that we're probably designed to eat mostly plants but can digest animal protein if we come across it.

....had nothing to do with "climate change" or "global warming" or whatever the AGW supporters are calling it this week. Even the climatologists said as much:

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/07/csu-researchers-say-sandy-wasnt-influenced-by-global-warming/

Ferret

While we don't need religion to tell us that murder is wrong,

Although arguments have been made regarding humanity's innate moral sense, I still have to ask, are you quite sure about that?

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
Human sacrifices 'on the rise in Uganda' as witch doctors admit to rituals
Four held for kidnapping kids for human sacrifice
Nigeria: Prevalence of ritual murder and human sacrifice and reaction by government authorities (March 2000-July 2005)"
Evidence found of human sacrifice in North America
"Chilling" Child Sacrifices Found at Prehistoric Site

Many in the West cannot conceive of things being different in any way if foundations of its morality and culture are destroyed, but that is an epic mistake. Things will change, and many of the possibilities make for something that may not be nice at all.

While we don't need religion to tell us that murder is wrong,

Although arguments have been made regarding humanity's innate moral sense, I still have to ask, are you quite sure about that?

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
Human sacrifices 'on the rise in Uganda' as witch doctors admit to rituals
Four held for kidnapping kids for human sacrifice
Nigeria: Prevalence of ritual murder and human sacrifice and reaction by government authorities (March 2000-July 2005)"
Evidence found of human sacrifice in North America
"Chilling" Child Sacrifices Found at Prehistoric Site

Many in the West cannot conceive of things being different in any way if foundations of its morality and culture are destroyed, but that is an epic mistake. Things will change, and many of the possibilities make for something that may not be nice at all.

Percentage of Earth's surface covered by water = 75%
Percentage of Earth's surface covered by land = 25%
Percentage of Earth covered by land used for food production = 12.5%
Percentage of Earth covered by land urbanised for cities and roads = 4%

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

Our country made the decision long ago to not pursue DC as our power supply.

Just read this on a DC Breakthrough today.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121128-black-hole-blast-biggest-science-galaxies-space/

Everywhere we've looked on this planet, including sulfuric volcanic fissures miles under the surface, where there's water we've found life. Clearly this planet is infested with it.

At some point finding life in a weird new liquid water-based environment on Earth has to cease being news.

Europe doesn't have much good coal left. After centuries of mining, only crappy coal is left behind. Germany, the world leader in brown coal (the worse of the worse) production and consumption..

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

44% of Germany's power production is still coal. But environmentalists say that nuclear is the problem and shut it down. Because we all know that nuclear power causes global warming, destroyed the ozone layer and killed millions in Chernobyl and destroyed the environment there. :S Right??

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

In reality, radiation "disaster areas" are off limits for humans only. And where there are no people, the wildlife seems to be doing quite well. As it was said before by people much smarter than myself - maybe the only way to save the amazon rainforest is to spread nuclear waste all over it.

The bottom line is nuclear disaster are short term problem for the generation(s) responsible for cutting corners and polluting the area. Overtime, the said pollution disappears (half-life mostly) and future generations don't pay the piper. They get renewed, pristine land instead. Unlike Global Warming, the highest danger is immediate not 400 years from now.

So I must say the anti-nuclear power environmentalists are complete whackos. Somewhere along the line they completely lost their rationality and their actions will fuck over all of us.

Wow, lot's of hostility to my comment, and a few good points too.

Boats - I stand corrected, boats have some modest emissions controls. We could definitely stand to see something stronger though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.

Coal power plants: There is no such thing as clean coal plant. Look at the destruction caused just to GET the coal, let alone burn it. It's dangerous for the workers and disastrous for our environment. Search for images before and after mining, it's unsettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania

Lawn Mowers - Operating a mower for an hour is the pollution equivalent of driving a car 200 miles. Consider how many lawns are in the U.S. alone. That is not insignificant: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html.

Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

Most of Antarctica is technically a desert because it's actually too cold to snow much. Warming the temperature, for example, from -20 to -15 degrees Celcius actually allows more snow to fall, so the ice can grow while the temperature rises. It's a complex system, but here's a National Geographic article that explains some of the complexity.

Remember NASA building excitement over "alien life?"

Don't hold your breath on this one either.

I totally forgot how awesome dinosaurs are, until I saw this. I had the same kind thing in poster form when I was a youngling.

Oh that's nothing. Look at these two animals: (elephant, flounder). The one on the right, experts claim, is smaller purely due to receiving less motherly love.

Wrong. The "big one" they've been warning about was in a completely different region of Japan.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110315-japan-earthquake-tsunami-big-one-science/

This is known long ago... this is also an adaptation because dolphins breathing is not a reflex, so half the brain has to be always awake to remember breathing.

In fact, here's a 2009 article in National Geographic on the exact same topic from 2009. It was not the first, either.

Except evolution has been speeding up in the past century - significantly.
That's because travel is so much easier and there is so much more diversity everywhere.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071211-human-evolution.html

Further some scientists have argued that today evolution of the way we think is very rapid, can't find reference right now :(

100 years ago it was rather rare to see chinese men in america, or african at japan. Nevermind places like Finland where i live.
Still very little cultural mix in most Finnish cities, but in large cities there's a lot of variety. Just here in Helsinki there is A LOT of people form Africa, Turk, Philippines, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Czech Republic, Sweden, Germany, UK, Israel etc. From all everywhere in the world, especially a lot from Russia and Estonia as they are our neighbours.
I know quite a few people who's wifes/girlfriends are from outside finland.

Yes, there has been foreigners for centuries, but in modern day long distance travel is in the reach of all but the poorest!
I even know couple of people who has married with someone coming from very long away. One of my best friends married a mexican girl.

Now tell me that won't speed up things vastly! ;)
Yes it still takes generations to weed out the most desireable genes, but now more genetic variety is being introduced to the pool! :)

Like, I favor the young earth theory. More specifically, I favor the theory that the moon is no older than the Permian Extinction, and I consider the possibility that the Creationists could be right in their Tectonics theories (sudden motion, as opposed to gradual motion). I certainly hope they aren't. But I don't *presume* that the standard theories are right.

So, I'm assuming this last paragraph was what brought on the "troll" mods, as your post was generally interesting.

I had never heard of this Triassic-aged moon theory, which would put the formation of the moon at around 252 million years ago. I poked around and found this theory which freshens up lovely Luna by a couple hundred million years, but still not close to the Triassic. I then found this website which seems to theorize that a shift in the moon's orbit caused the Siberian traps which caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event, though it seems to assume a normal date of lunar formation.

Since I'm tired of googling, do you have any more info on this theory that you mentioned? It's clearly not mainstream, but I'm curious of the details.

You're not fooling anybody. That is obviously the unholy spawn of one of the elder things.

I almost forgot the most interesting counter-argument to your joke! If the world experiences a major catastrophe where agriculture is severely affected it probably would be quite useful to be able to reach the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, hehe.

Try finding the seed bank without GPS and keeping an eye out for the very hungry polar bears that roam there!

Every time I read about a new species of dinosaur I keep this documentary in mind:
A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
  That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

The documentary makes a compelling case that juvenile examples of various species have been misidentified as a separate species of dinosaur.

==========
Did you ever consider that with global warming, with the seas rising, that we are facing another meltdown (or boilup), similar in consequences to the ice age?

Many dinosaurs may be facing a new kind of extinction—a controversial theory suggests as many as a third of all known dinosaur species never existed in the first place.
That's because young dinosaurs didn't look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

The documentary makes a compelling case that juvenile examples of various species have been misidentified as a separate species of dinosaur.

I don't think he expected that, but also he probably didn't assume that he would be prevented from taking perfectly normal pictures with the iPhone 5, pictures that was quite easy to take with the iPhone 4. It's not like its impossible to take decent photos with the iPhone. Well, the 4s at least.

Looking forward to the new Nokia

Yeah, I think it was from the crater of Mt. Nyiragongo, DRC, they even made a documentary about it on Nat. Geo. Region-limited Youtube link. I've seen this show, it's awesome, makes me wish I had a projector and a rocket heater to get the full experience without actually leaving my comfy chair.

there is very little doubt the Sahara and the rest of the sub-tropical deserts will continue to expand

You mean, besides actual observation that Sahara is greening - not expanding?

"Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).

Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The reasoning behind my speculation is as follows:

(1) According to an article in Science News and others referenced from Slashdot, the Moon appears to be from 2 moons, both from the mantle, no major asteroid content, thus no mars-sized asteroid.

(2) If that is the case, then the best explanation is de Meijer's critical georeactor theory: calcium bergs blew up in the mantle. But...

(3) the de Meijer theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.

(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be off, but there will be great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But

(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast.

(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated.

(7) Two such locations exist: the 850 mi-radius ring of Kimberlites around the Hudson Bay (search Canada kimberlite, and Greenland kimberlite), and the ring of Kimberlites around Vredefort that stretches from Brazil, through Africa, through North India, and into Austrailia.

(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon,

(9) At the site of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day.

What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle at the location of a collection of georeactors, near the South Sandwich islands. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to the west.

The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical, creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its k

In science, observation beats models:

Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall.

If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities.

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).

Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

Yes but the corn that is used for making fuels is field corn not sweetcorn or popcorn. The problem is that with the astronomical corn prices (field corn) lots of acreage that could have produced sweetcorn or popcorn was planted with field corn instead. To further make matters worse lots of acreage that would normally have been planted with wheat, oats, soybeans, barley, hay, etc that was capable of producing field corn was plated with field corn instead. Now toss in a crop failures around the globe as well as mandates that we convert a sizable portion of our field corn crop to ethanol (reliable estimates I have found put it at about 40%) and you have the massive rise in not only corn but other grains (less acres and lower yield because of the crop failures) and things that use grain as an input. A recent article that covers some of these issues that I found in a quick search is this one from National Geographic. I have seen other ones in my local paper but don't feel like trying to track those down.

I knew it!
People who don't eat meat are weird.
(Brought to you by the American beef council)

In related news:
Cannibalistic ancestors help against prion diseases.
(Brought to you by the American flesh council)

I don't think millions of people around the world lose their fingernails every day doing things like this.

Did they have you over for dinner?

Some of their DNA lives on. The DNA reveals some surprising dietary history.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0410_030410_cannibal.html

Solar boosters love to talk about "grid parity" but I find the idea that it will be competitive with coal in two years laughable. Anybody who claims this is cherry-picking their figures. There isn't even agreement as to what figures are valid. Some forms of solar energy show great promise (thermal solar could theoretically replace all competing sources) but costs, construction delays, NIMBY issues, and other problems mean it's a long term project, not something that takes over in a couple years.

Carbon sequestration by growing and burying wood? it's a good idea, but it can't be scaled up the way you claim. That takes land, and agricultural land is already maxed out. We're limited to thining out existing forests and burying the wood from them. That would consume maybe 10% of the carbon we're currently pumping into the atmosphere — a figure that's rapidly rising.

There are a lot of good ideas for producing less carbon and sequestering the carbon we do produce, but none of them can be implemented quickly. The only thing that can be done quickly is limiting emissions. Alas, that encounters too much political and economic pushback.

Your final argument is that previous predictions of disaster have been wrong, therefore future predictions must be wrong too. There are multiple problems with that. It's a logical fallacy (the boy keeps crying wolf, therefore there are no wolves). Some of the catastrophes you cite have not had time to lead to real disaster (Peak oil will take a few more decades to screw us over, but a glance at rising gas prices makes me dubious that it's a myth). Some have been avoided because of the warnings of disaster (banning ozone-depleting chemicals seems to have put the ozone holes on the road to healing).

I wouldn't be too smug about not being fooled. You seem to be doing a good job of fooling yourself.

"As ‘Yuck Factor’ Subsides, Treated Wastewater Flows From Taps" -NY Times

When/if the water is treated sufficiently, there is not a problem. Orange County, California does this every single day for years now, and they produce a million gallons of drinking water a day. Where did you get your geek card from? This ain't exactly rocket science in 2012, and it is covered in the mainstream media too. We all must learn to use our precious resources more efficiently. Forget about trips to Mars already, (but relatively low-cost robotic instruments do it for me, I must admit). OK, the astronauts make a big deal about this waste purification technology (recently), but still.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120131-reclaimed-wastewater-for-drinking/
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/science/earth/despite-yuck-factor-treated-wastewater-used-for-drinking.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Except: A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have (they are not produced over the woman's lifetime).

There is research suggesting this isn't true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/

Except this isn't research, it's one researcher with a foregone conclusion simply wishing it to be true.
There is no mechanism for gamete production in human females that have been born.

You're mischaracterizing it. As I understand it:

- Until recently it was assumed that, in mammals at least, females were born with all the egg cells they would ever have, rather than having new ones developed from stem cells over time.
  - But this was apparently based on the observation that the number of immature egg cells present diminished with time from initial numbers were adequate (by a couple orders of magnitude) for the "born with 'em all" explanation to work, not by some hypothetical experiment marking some girl's egg cells and then examining her ovaries later in life to see if there were unmarked cells.
  - Recently it was noticed that the explanation didn't hang together well for mice.
  - Further experiments on mice showed that they had special stem cells in their ovaries (apparently the same kind as produce sperm in males) and that these cells did form new egg cells (or at least immature egg cell precursors) during the mouse's adult life.
  - This new reported experiment shows that human ovaries have the same sort of stem cell, and that transplanting human ovary tissue with labeled pre-egg stem cells into a suitable mouse ovary (where they can be observed and receive both human and mouse signals) causes them to produce new immature human egg cells (in human ovary tissue!), just like the mouse stem cells do for the mice.

This strongly suggests that they may do the same in human ovaries. If so, the menopause is something else shutting down ongoing egg production, not necessarily the exhaustion of a fixed-at-birth supply.

It ALSO strongly suggest that, even IF the human immature egg production IS stopped by the time of birth (or some other very young age) and the menopause IS an exhaustion of a fixed supply, providing appropriate chemical signals could (re)activate the egg cell production, delaying or reversing menopause. (It also hints that this could be done without extensive side-effects beyond those you'd expect from ongoing fertility, because it appears to be a normal mechanism in at least some mammals.)

Either way it shows that drug intervention to delay or reverse menopause in humans is a realistic target.

Further, a releated article referenced from this one ("Old Mice Made 'Young'-May Lead to Anti-Aging Treatments.") describes an in-vitro experiment on reactivating senescent stem cells with signals from non-senescent cells, by growing them in a flask separated by a membrane that allows signaling chemicals, but not cells, through. If the same can be done stimulating egg production in human ovary tissue, an extension of the experiment with the signaling chemicals transferred between separate cultures using an intermediate step that sorts out the chemicals (for instance by chromatography) could home in on the responsible chemicals, leading to their identification and the identification of the relevant receptors. That's enough information to enable the design of drugs and therapies to achieve the same effect in adult humans.

The road is now clearly mapped.

Except: A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have (they are not produced over the woman's lifetime).

There is research suggesting this isn't true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/

Except this isn't research, it's one researcher with a foregone conclusion simply wishing it to be true.
There is no mechanism for gamete production in human females that have been born.

You're mischaracterizing it. As I understand it:

- Until recently it was assumed that, in mammals at least, females were born with all the egg cells they would ever have, rather than having new ones developed from stem cells over time.
  - But this was apparently based on the observation that the number of immature egg cells present diminished with time from initial numbers were adequate (by a couple orders of magnitude) for the "born with 'em all" explanation to work, not by some hypothetical experiment marking some girl's egg cells and then examining her ovaries later in life to see if there were unmarked cells.
  - Recently it was noticed that the explanation didn't hang together well for mice.
  - Further experiments on mice showed that they had special stem cells in their ovaries (apparently the same kind as produce sperm in males) and that these cells did form new egg cells (or at least immature egg cell precursors) during the mouse's adult life.
  - This new reported experiment shows that human ovaries have the same sort of stem cell, and that transplanting human ovary tissue with labeled pre-egg stem cells into a suitable mouse ovary (where they can be observed and receive both human and mouse signals) causes them to produce new immature human egg cells (in human ovary tissue!), just like the mouse stem cells do for the mice.

This strongly suggests that they may do the same in human ovaries. If so, the menopause is something else shutting down ongoing egg production, not necessarily the exhaustion of a fixed-at-birth supply.

It ALSO strongly suggest that, even IF the human immature egg production IS stopped by the time of birth (or some other very young age) and the menopause IS an exhaustion of a fixed supply, providing appropriate chemical signals could (re)activate the egg cell production, delaying or reversing menopause. (It also hints that this could be done without extensive side-effects beyond those you'd expect from ongoing fertility, because it appears to be a normal mechanism in at least some mammals.)

Either way it shows that drug intervention to delay or reverse menopause in humans is a realistic target.

Further, a releated article referenced from this one ("Old Mice Made 'Young'-May Lead to Anti-Aging Treatments.") describes an in-vitro experiment on reactivating senescent stem cells with signals from non-senescent cells, by growing them in a flask separated by a membrane that allows signaling chemicals, but not cells, through. If the same can be done stimulating egg production in human ovary tissue, an extension of the experiment with the signaling chemicals transferred between separate cultures using an intermediate step that sorts out the chemicals (for instance by chromatography) could home in on the responsible chemicals, leading to their identification and the identification of the relevant receptors. That's enough information to enable the design of drugs and therapies to achieve the same effect in adult humans.

The road is now clearly mapped.

Except: A woman is born with all the eggs she will ever have (they are not produced over the woman's lifetime).

There is research suggesting this isn't true.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/

Except this isn't research, it's one researcher with a foregone conclusion simply wishing it to be true.
There is no mechanism for gamete production in human females that have been born.