Slashdot Mirror
8 Million Year Old Bacteria Thaws, Lives
Jamie found a New Scientist story about 8 million year old bacteria that scientists thawed out, and now it's alive. Also somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.
...which is why this is safe. Same reason particle physics experiments are safe: even higher-energetic particles hit the earth all the time.
Seriously, that was a terrible summary. The reason the scientists think it's okay and not dangerous is because the process of old ice melting and bacteria being reintroduced happens all the time.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
TFA says it is global warming uncovering these bacteria that are 8 million years old...
They don't point out that in the last 8 million years the earth has been much warmer than it is today, at many different times.
At least they didn't break out the OMG its humans driving SUVs stuff. Still though, it seems like an article with an agenda. Just report about the bacteria, kthx.
If bacteria can survive that long, and I'm sure longer, this means there is a good chance that there may be life on planets with ice in our solar system. All we have to do is go find it!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If you are going to worry about bacteria, worry about the stuff that is now actively learning how to resist all of our antibiotics and hanging out in our hostpitals, not the stuff that hasn't encountered it before. You might as well blame Bush or AlQueda and claim we need to nuke the ice sheets to stop this while you are at it.
Furthermore, the bacteria in question is almost certainly safe because it evolved 4 mya, in the ocean, in the absence of humans, and likely in absence of a dense population of mammals of any kind. Now ask yourself, how many bacteria are there, and how many are harmful to humans. Further, probe how the few harmful strains became that way, and you'll find that they almost all developed as a result of centuries to millennia of interaction with dense populations of humans and other domesticated animals. The likelihood of a bacteria isolated from humans that is harmful to humans is so small as to be negligible. We might as well be worried about pushing asteroids off course...
"We'd be a lot better served by real discussions"
Indeed.
But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem. The preponderance of evidence says that global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic.
What should be done about that? Anything?
Who knows... there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss that. Instead, all of the efforts made by the non-fanatics has been focused on attempting to educate the large proportion of the population who are sadly actively working at remaining ignorant in an attempt to completely ignore the issue by denying that there is an issue.
If you really want real discussion, then work at getting people to admit that global warming exists. Until that happens there can't be any discussion of what actions to take, or even if we should take any action at all.
So, by the same token, murder is no worse than someone falling off a ladder.
Should we let the murderer go free, then?
Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?
-Peter
But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem.
And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.
He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
That's not what he said. He said that you cannot use absolutes to define one type as worse or better than the other.
You can have situations where murder would be acceptable.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
asse? chodderhead?
are you bulgarian or something?
well the issue is that Ice starting to melt faster and in areas that normally don't melt seasonally. This could all be part of a natural cycle but not a part of a cycle that has happened during the course of human history, so it's hard to tell what kind of immediate impact it will have.
Sure it's exactly what he said. If there was no value difference between intentional and unintentional action we would react no differently to either event. This is plainly not the case.
I think posters are getting too hung up on the "prehistoric killer bacteria" story and not the fact that something frozen for 8 million years can be thawed and live again (not sure how new this news is). So, we could potentially have a solar system filled with seeder asteroids (meteoroids?) from massive impacts with Earth or an older life-bearing Mars.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I think he might be more upset at the "logic" some people use when discussing climate change. In many cases, it seems to run directly from "temperatures appear to be changing" to "change is bad, and man must be causing it, because we've only recorded the change after industrialization and/or nature never changes." There seems to be the underlying belief that the climate is naturally stable, and that humans are the only things that can cause it to change (never mind ice ages and all that...).
I'm not saying we should just chug along blindly and not do anything. Though I'm still not convinced that man is the primary force behind the current noticed changes (or even that these changes will continue long-term), I still support most environmental efforts--cutting emissions and such certainly can't harm the situation, and definately would help clean out the smong and all that. But I think those who put forth the above reasoning are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot; the more irrational your argument is, the less likely people are to take you seriously. And the attitude of "this is the Truth, and anything you say is Lies" without solid proof just makes it worse. It's no better than the crazy homeless guy on the corner with a sign saying "The end is near!" harassing pedestrians and telling them they're going to hell.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
I don't give a shit about politics, about Al Gore, about Green Peace or a pack of greasy university kids marching to save the planet. What I do care about is that the vast majority of climatologists, while rejecting some of the doomsday notions of the activists, state very clearly that the evidence for climate change being caused by human activities is compelling and growing. To call these scientists "political" is nothing more than an invokation of a conspiracy theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.
Everything to which the bacteria had adapted is 8 million years dead.
Poor little feller... :(
No, that was the popular opinion. In the 1400s, most scientists believed the Earth was round. I think you unintentionally drew a parallel.
I find your analogy flawed.
:-)
To be more specific, I know that you only get out of a computer model what you put into it. Period. That leaves a lot of room for uncertainty.
But I'll make you a deal; find me a model that starts from a base state in (say) 1800, and then accurately models regional temperatures and storms year-by-year. If you have such a model, and then choose to run it forward a few decades, I would be happy to entertain that as solid evidence.
I would also be amazingly impressed.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
There is only the value that you (and/or society) assigns to the event.
That's what the OP and GP are trying to get across.
Gold cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than titanium.
Snow cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than rain.
Kosher cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than Halal.
Country cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than Emo.
Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change.
That is why "you cannot use absolutes to define one type as worse or better than the other," because values differ. Maybe you used a poor example, but I suspect you were just making an appeal to emotion.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Ya, but it makes a difference to the rest of us, which is the point.