Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Homemade 'Mars In a Bottle' Tortures Bacteria

Posted by timothy on from the why-don't-high-schools-do-this-more dept.

astroengine writes "The only time we've ever directly looked for life on Mars was during the 1970s, when NASA's Viking landers attempted to make direct measurements of Martian microbes metabolizing. Even today, the results of these groundbreaking experiments are hotly debated. Although the Viking experiments were often considered premature, a team of scientists hope to refine the next life-searching experiment to be sent to the Red Planet by building a Mars habitat on Earth. Imagine a Mars environment 'goldfish bowl' complete with UV radiation, dust, chilly temperatures, and an extremely low atmospheric pressure. So what have they done with this micro-Mars environment? They've been torturing various terrestrial microbes to see how they enjoy stints on the Martian surface. Their results have shown that even Earth microorganisms have a trick or two up their sleeves to survive in this alien environment."

154 comments

  1. Contamination by arunce · · Score: 1

    If so, hope that we didn't contaminate the whole planet.

    1. Re:Contamination by arunce · · Score: 2

      And in some millions of years, future lifeforms will have good theories about panspermia.

    2. Re:Contamination by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the Viking probes and all that other shit we threw at the planet already did. You can't get them microbe-less once the components are exposed to air, some spores will survive.
      There was some controversy that the activity seen in the Martian soil by the Vikings was due to terrestrial contamination (or the chemical activity of the soil), so the soil tests were deemed inconclusive (Gas Release was negative, along with Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer readings, and pyrolitic release. The only positive was labeled release, which may have been due to inorganic reactions), and most scientists do not accept them as proof of life.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    3. Re:Contamination by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Wait, what, "contaminate"? You're anti-life?

      Literally worse than Hitler. In the literal sense of literally.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:Contamination by pizzach · · Score: 2

      News for ya: if bacteria survives as implied by the article, Mars was likely contaminated long ago even before humans started space explorations. Most likely by a comet bashing into things.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    5. Re:Contamination by mpsmps · · Score: 1

      The concern is that our microbes may be the "invasive species" that destroys the native life on Mars, which would literally be a genocide.

    6. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good on us then. Saddle up ladies, we're terraforming!
      Oh, and look up words in a dictionary before you use them. Unless there's intelligent life on Mars, it isn't genocide.

    7. Re:Contamination by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      I know some spores and microbes can survive the harsh conditions of space for a while, but what are the chances that those particularly tough critturs were the ones the Mars landers were contaminated with?

    8. Re:Contamination by advance-software · · Score: 1

      who cares - surely we should be trying to inject life into this planet.

    9. Re:Contamination by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 3

      100%.
      Those fuckers can survive damn near anything, and they're omnipresent (the archeobacteria and other extremophiles present around geothermal vents, in deep drill-cores, and all those other places aren't the only indestructible microbes). The law of large numbers practically requires them to have been on the landers.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    10. Re:Contamination by eyenot · · Score: 2

      Hold still. There's one on your eyeball.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    11. Re:Contamination by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      You mean ... the Lifestream? :)

      Seriously, while we should strive to protect this planet (it's the only one we've got, so far. And the only place with beer!), we should also be looking towards other planets, with a colonial eye. The only way forward is up, and off this rock.
      Let me quote myself, from the prologue and epilogue of my thesis:
      "Space is the final frontier(1). After Humanity has conquered the seas and the sky, there will be no other choices for expansion, than out: breaking free from the planet, and creating new colonies in endless void of space, just as Columbus did in his time."
      [...]
      "[...] Because we cannot, and must not stop after one step. [...] Resource demands will grow, just as population will, and we will be forced to consider our future. If by then we were legally ready for the conquest of these lands, we could accelerate the process, and could even find a solution for the impending energy- and resource-crisis, or the planet's overpopulation, in the near future. And we have to be ready, for the time when the XVI. century's wave of colonization repeats itself, on a much greater scale, as Humanity leaves its planet, and the Columbuses of the future set off."
      (Italics added in places to convey the emphasis in the tone of the Hungarian text)
      1: Star Trek reference was initially unintentional, but later left in place. I liked the tone too much.

      But until this can come to pass, you're right: we should do everything in our power to keep our world liveable, as long as it doesn't impact our capacity to expand.

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    12. Re:Contamination by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Isn't it venocide if eradicate an entire genus? *shrug*

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    13. Re:Contamination by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and look up words in a dictionary before you use them. Unless there's intelligent life on Mars, it isn't genocide.

      Unless it's the planned, premeditated destruction of an ethnic or racial group, with the expressed intention of utter and complete eradication, it's not genocide. Legally speaking.

      Although I'd love to see the Hague tackle 'Negligent Genocide', or similar. Maybe someone read a scroll of genocide, thinking it was some recipe?

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    14. Re:Contamination by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      All probes have been sterilized, so 0%. If you don't trust the sterilization, both our numbers are speculation.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    15. Re:Contamination by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Let me quote myself, from the prologue and epilogue of my thesis:

      Jesus wept.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Contamination by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Weren't there fungi growing on the *outside* of the windows of MIR at one point ? I seem to remember something like that being in the news.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    17. Re:Contamination by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Are you surprised?

      After all, Jesus died on the cross for our sins.

      Worse, being omniscient, he's actually read the whole thesis.

    18. Re:Contamination by ideonexus · · Score: 1

      My pet hypothesis is that Mars was contaminated by Earth millions of years ago. Thinking about it, we have this planet that's down-solar-wind of our planet, catching the microbes whisked away from our upper atmosphere and into outer orbits... like when Earth passes through the remnants of a comet's path, creating meteor showers for hundreds of years afterwards every time we pass through that region of space. There was a story about Russia planning a space probe to Mars' orbit and back, loaded with microbes, to see if any could survive the journey. If any could, then Mars was populated with microbes from our planet a long long time ago.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    19. Re:Contamination by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      I agree that we should be trying to inject life into the planet but it needs to be done at a controlled pace so we don't make any mistakes.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    20. Re:Contamination by ThunderBird89 · · Score: 1

      Worse, being omniscient, he's actually read the whole thesis.

      Ah, the old question posed in The Tragedy of Man, scene 7: was Jesus and God one and the same, or just fundamentally the same? If just fundamentally, omniscience may not apply.

      But let's not stray from the topic at hand!

      --
      Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
    21. Re:Contamination by belthize · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was growing on the *inside*. Outside would be stunning, inside is interesting.

    22. Re:Contamination by AaxelB · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone read a scroll of genocide, thinking it was some recipe?

      Or maybe they thought it was a cursed scroll of genocide, which would merely send in a few instances of the race in question -- "reverse genocide", as it were ;)

    23. Re:Contamination by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The other question, with spores and such, is whether any of the survivors are surviving actively or passively.

      In spore/inactive form, some of the hardier microcritters won't even blink at truly alarming temperature excursions, stints in hard vacuum with a side of radiation, or potentially years to centuries of storage under martian conditions. However, they won't actually do anything until somebody takes them inside and gives them something closer to the weather they actually like.

      Such a contamination situation isn't ideal(you'll have to ensure that it isn't just them waking up during all your 'is it life?' experiments, which will be a pain); but it also isn't a deal-breaker: in inactive form they won't be mutating, or reproducing, or modifying their environment, so their numbers will be fixed and small and their impact quite minimal until we get around to doing some more experiments.

      If, on the other hand, we accidentally introduced something that is active under martian conditions, it could be merrily mutating and terraforming its way through whatever pockets of mars are only moderately hostile, which would render them pretty much hopeless for research into possible martian life.

    24. Re:Contamination by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      He probably did not mean the literal version of "literally". He's literally not the first person to make that mistake.

    25. Re:Contamination by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Xenocide according to Orson Scott Card.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Contamination by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Nope. That didn't happen until later. NASA freely admits their old procedures left gaps. They've later confirmed its extremely likely some bugs got at least as far as the space voyage there. As we can't physically check on the far end, it is technically possible none arrived on Mars but the chances of such are a very, very long bet.

      Of course modern procedures are far more efficient and effective.

    27. Re:Contamination by jouassou · · Score: 1

      Some tardigrades could easily have survived. The things are known to survive temperatures from 73 K to 424 K, pressures up to 6000 atm, up to 10 years in a dehydrated state, and they even survived and reproduced after being stuck on the outside of a Russian spacecraft for 10 days in outer space.

    28. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These microbes weren't growing in space, but they survived being unprotected.

    29. Re:Contamination by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Would you want your kid knowing everything you know?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    30. Re:Contamination by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Isn't it vinocide if I finish a bottle of wine?

    31. Re:Contamination by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Would you want your kid knowing everything you know?

      Absolutely. I want my kid to know everything I know and a lot more.

      You don't have kids, do you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it to have sex with your wife? Do your kids know?

    33. Re:Contamination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. Could be unterraforming, making Mars permanently incapable of being terraformed except by heroic measures.

      If it is uncontrolled, you have no idea what type of organism will predominate. Needn't necessarily be one that creates oxygen as a byproduct. May even be poisonous or harmful to humans, so that if you just breath the air you die.

      If you think about it, with whole planet to colonise, then it is far larger than any possible human experiment, and one single micro-organism capable of surviving will go through billions of billions of descendents.

      There may be life there already - and it may have come from Earth too - but spacecraft can bring many new organisms.

      Even if we have already brought some micro-organisms to Mars, with the early Viking spacecraft. should be very careful before adding any more. Maybe the situation is still recoverable. But keep throwing life at it and the more of a mess it becomes, at least until you know what you are doing.

      Life on Earth is in a balance, maintaining the planet at a temperature suitable for life etc. Maybe Mars can do the same, but maybe it might fail to reach the balance, don't know enough to say whether it is something life does automatically - or Earth is the one success out of millions of planets that have had life that started, went out of balance and made the planet uninhabitable.

      E.g. if the wrong organism flourishes, it might cause what is left of Mars' atmosphere to be lost in a short time geologically so that it becomes even thinner, more like the Moon and uninhabitable.

      Or may convert a fair amount of the CO2 and the ice etc. into some chemical that is a poisonous gas for humans - plenty of organic poisons that could be created. So then how do we clean it up?

      Maybe there are several possible different equilibrium states for Mars (and maybe some chaotic continually changing end states) and maybe some of those are fine for some types of life but hostile to Earth life as we know it.

      Basically, need to be very careful, only at the first baby steps of study of terraforming at present. I think any vehicles to Mars need to be carefully sterilised even more than at present - and no humans should visit it directly at all until much more is known.

      And any life that evolved there independently - even if derived from Earth life,via meteorites, if it has been separated from us for e.g. even just a few million years, it may even if single cell, be interestingly different and we may learn much from it and many new discoveries.

      That's my take on it. Softly softly. Though if you do sterilise carefully enough maybe humans can explore Mars by telepresence from satellites in orbit around the planet. Not sure if we are able to sterilise our spacecraft as well as that quite yet though since spores are so long lived and hard to get rid of - can survive for literally hundreds of thousands of years on Earth - and just a small covering of dust will protect from UV.

      IN their sterilisation protocols at present they don't aim to completely remove all life, just reduce to a certain very small number of organisms per surface area of the spacecraft. Better than not doing it, far better, but if somehow you could make it so there is no life at all would be better. E.g. maybe make the spacecraft on an asteroid in a sterile vacuum atmosphere, and no humans ever enter the manufacturing facility, etc, that may be how Mars exploration craft are made a few decades from now and may look back at our current methods in same way we look back to the Viking spacecraft.

    34. Re:Contamination by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Of course modern procedures are far more efficient and effective.

      Allegedly.

      But, before you flag me as a NASA-denier, I'll add that more modern procedures have been extensively tested and quantified ; no doubt blank samples have been put through the sterilisation mill along with other demonstrations of efficacy. When the last round of Mars landers were built, they'd have had accompanying packages of microbes go through the processes with them (and then be cultured - to see if they survived). All of which costs money and takes time.

      The degree to which modern procedures are better and more effective can be much better quantified, and is much better documented. So if we later find (2020, say) PRNA-based organisms on Mars, but find that Earthly PRNA-based organisms (discovered in 2016) are all killed by the processes used on the current crop of Mars rovers (launched in 2013), then we can quantify our confidence that the (putative) detection of PRNA-based Martian organisms are of Martian origin, not Earthly contamination.

      Sorry, subtle point. But important.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Animal torture by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    I imagine animal protection groups will be all over this in no time. They are probably planning bomb attacks as we speak.

    1. Re:Animal torture by satuon · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but seriously, I wonder which species do qualify for animal protection. Mosquitos, slimy worms, etc., they're animals too after all.

    2. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they do (in the eyes of some). But those cases are more difficult to spot and probably less likely to be taken seriously by most people (because they don't care about them, and that isn't necessarily a "bad" thing).

    3. Re:Animal torture by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      Cuddly, furry ones. And trouser snakes.

    4. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a vegan pinko hippie who loves you all, this one has been weighing on my mind recently. My partner (who is omnivorous, but supports cruelty-free farming) decided to get some live mealworms a few days ago to breed and feed to the birds, explaining that the cat has been quite the bird assassin the past few months and this may help strengthen up the population.

      While there's certainly no intention to "torture" the mealworms, just give them comfortable living conditions until they are put out where birds are likely to eat them, there's still the issue of sending little creatures to their death. Do I worry about it less because it's a worm and not a lamb? Or a dog?

      (I have this image now of that strip where two guys are discussing some problem on the golf course and a black guy appears and says, "Is this the sort of problem white people have?" Really, I'm very grateful that I'm in a position where I can worry about stuff like this, although we have significant health difficulties in the family so it's by far my greatest worry... life's weird...)

    5. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why no activist complains that the Naked Mole Rat is used for testing sometimes too.
       
      Actually, that's less cruel. Due to a strange genetic quirk, NMRs are incapable of feeling pain.

    6. Re:Animal torture by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

      If you set up a booth at a market where you let people tear the wings off of mosquitos for fun, you could possibly (and rightfully imho) face animal abuse charges. If you instead set up a mosquito trap killing 100000 mosquitos in an evening you should get a medal instead. In other words, it has all to do with intent. In the first case you're causing pain for profit and sadistic pleasure, in the second case it's just thoughtless killing. With this definition (my own) of what is animal abuse, killing cute animals IS worse than killing insects or other slimy/creepy animals because killing a cute animal requires a colder heart. Also, torture is worse than causing a painful death because of neclect, which in turn is worse than simple thoughtless killing.

      --
      My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    7. Re:Animal torture by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      The result for the mosquitoes is the same either way. Actually, the retail torture kills fewer of them. You're criminalising behaviour because it makes you feel icky. Brainstem logic.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.

      "There's no divine right of kings." What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Blacks are people too." What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Class isn't a birthright." What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Chimpanzees have behaviour suggesting very human-like emotion and intelligence." What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Dogs may not be as bright as humans, but they have capacity for pain and suffering which must be taken into account." What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?" What the fuck is wrong with you?

      "Or should we judge a species' worthiness to life by its intelligence rather than its perceived pain responses? If so, why shouldn't we judge humans similarly?" What the fuck is wrong with you?

      I'm allowed to think about the questions. I'm not imposing any conclusion on anyone - I haven't even made one yet. Maybe I never shall, but in the meanwhile I retain an open mind. Does this worry you? Do you want me to angrily tell you that you're a murderer if you swat flies? Are you simply annoyed that I think about these sorts of things rather than whatever you like to think about?

      What stereotype would you like me to conform to in order to reinforce your beliefs about those who disagree with you?

      (in b4 ybht)

    9. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Are a few incidents of torture (assuming mosquitoes so experience it) resulting in death better than mass execution? What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?

      What about the knock-on effect of promotion of torture?

    10. Re:Animal torture by Tx · · Score: 2

      I think what the most eloquent AC was trying to say is that predation is entirely part of nature - animals eat other animals all the time - so it makes no sense to worry about it. Those little mealworms are, by being eaten, fulfilling their manifest destiny as part of the chain of life, and you should send them on their way knowing that you have only helped them do what they exist to do in the first place. Possibly the AC's version was more succinct though ;).

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    11. Re:Animal torture by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Ah, that explains why my petition to save the Australian blobfish was turned down!

    12. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 3

      You're certainly right that it's nature's way, but the question mark appears when I'm making a conscious decision to have a hand in the process. The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice. I do have a choice to help the birds, or help the worms, or leave everything alone, or give some balanced input to offset the tremendous impact my modern lifestyle is having.

      The Duke of Edinburgh, bless his privileged socks, fairly effectively summarised two different approaches in a recent interview: you can be an conservationist, concerning yourself at a species level with extinction and other large-scale changes; or you can be a "bunny hugger", worrying too much about the plight of some random donkey. I'd like not to lose sight of the wood for the trees without losing the compassion of the latter sort.

    13. Re:Animal torture by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      What if the mass execution has a life-affirming purpose, e.g. to save humans and livestock from malaria?

      So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay? What if the booth also was about improving the quality of life for some humans?

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    14. Re:Animal torture by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      The ones with nervous systems complex enough to be considered "brains".

    15. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      So if it's about improving the quality of life for humans and animals humans care about, its okay?

      It's not black and white, is it? Consider: experiments on animals for lifesaving medication, carefully designed to minimise use of animals and to minimise suffering of those animals, is considered acceptable by many. But this does not preclude considering animal testing of cosmetics unacceptable - indeed, the EU imposed a testing ban in 2009.

      One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human. The conclusion usually follows that the only way of doing this is to kill yourself (even then, you're wishing a death sentence on all the bacteria inside you, more numerous than your own cells!). But every argument about protecting animals must in fact draw a line to show thee extent to which it is acceptable to harm the quality of life of living organisms. The line may be determined by quantity or human need or intelligence or sentience of the victim creature. It's these details, and the principles which lead to their application, which are up for debate.

      What if the booth also was about improving the quality of life for some humans?

      Torturing is not improving any quality of life, not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer. Torturing for fun doesn't even admit argument.

      In addition, the end does not justify the means. "For every kitten you torture we'll donate $1 to a cancer charity!" is not acceptable. Nor, indeed, is, "For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation." There is no need to harm the kitten or the 1 man to achieve the goal. But, to stop the spread of malaria, it may be necessary to kill mosquitoes.

    16. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiger worms; they're juicey and they'll eat anything, including egg shells. Their piss and shit is good for your crops.

      As for the murdering cat; plant lillies (and feed them worm piss and shit). The murdering cat will find the pollen to be most dissagreable.

    17. Re:Animal torture by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      "The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice."

      If you'd spent anytime observing birds and bird behavior, you'd know that some birds very well have the capacity to make a choice. Humans aren't the only animals on the planet that kill other members of their own species or members of other species just for the sake of killing or territory.

      I have an older (16 year old) Green Iguana who understands the concept of glass and doors,* he will go taunt smaller lizards (Central Inland Bearded Dragons, Uromasytxs) who don't understand how glass works. He will get them spun up with head bobs, then leave to go piss off the others, once all the smaller lizards are upset, he will retire to his room to bask.

      * - Not all lizard species understand what glass is, even larger ones like Agamid lizards, so they spent hours "glass surfing". Monitors and Iguana often figure out what glass is, and sometimes even mirrors.

    18. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with /. is that you can't tell satire from earnest statements anymore. By the way, what exactly is the fuck is wrong with you?

    19. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an arrogant twit if you really believe your "conscious hand" is something different. You don't need to give balanced input because you don't need to seek balance in everything, nature is not balanced, it is not even in equilibrium and you're really just regurgitating some stupid thoughts that make you feel like you're a special and nice person.

      I'd like not to lose sight of the wood for the trees without losing the compassion of the latter sort.

      Yes, you're a fucking arrogant twit.

    20. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Any animals kills if it helps its own survival. We are no exception. The question if this is okay is pointless.

    21. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      It depends how you define "choice", obviously. I can make a careful and informed rational choice. I don't think the bird can. I don't think your iguana can. Maybe we'll learn that these creatures are way smarter and more insightful in the reasoning behind the choices they make. It doesn't matter, really - what matters from my PoV is that I know I am capable of making such a choice.

    22. Re:Animal torture by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      One of the traditional anti-animal-rights strawmen is to claim that all vegans/animal rights activists/etc want no harm whatever to be caused to any living organism by any human.

      I've seen some resort to the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy by claiming that because animal rights activists typically harm plants, they are hypocrites (and therefore no one should listen to them).

      not least because it is psychologically damaging to the torturer

      What? If he finds it fun and enjoys it, then claiming that he's "evil" or that he "needs help" isn't going to change that (and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place).

      In addition, the end does not justify the means.

      That depends on who you ask.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    23. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      You don't need to give balanced input because you don't need to seek balance in everything, nature is not balanced

      So you're saying that I need to be a slave to your perception of nature?

      It's natural for the early bird to eat the unearthed worm. And it's just as natural for me, the human, to contemplate on it and wonder whether I should act like the bird or behave differently.

    24. Re:Animal torture by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Any animals kills if it helps its own survival.

      And just because it happens in nature or everything does it, that does not mean that it is 'okay' (not sure if that is even what you meant). However, I don't think that this must be true. Why couldn't something refuse to do so?

      The question if this is okay is pointless.

      To you, perhaps.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    25. Re:Animal torture by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      After living with that Iguana for 16 years, I know he makes choices when he wants to.

      Like when told to "stop running across the room!" He will skirt the walls, trying to avoid detection, to get to his goal. Or if he's been locked in his room because humans have been on vacation, he will spend two or three weeks trying to get to my shoes so he can poop in them. Not any shoes, just his owner's shoes.

      Observe Ravens in an urban setting, they make rational choices, observe food and objects closely, test for traps, coordinate as a group, it's not just instinct.

    26. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't something refuse to do so?

      Evolution. Genes that do not maximize chances of survival get replaced by genes that do.

    27. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Your careful and informed rational choice is still based on primitive emotions that you can't control.

      What's the rational reason killing is bad in the first place ? I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival. Feel free to come up with others (just make sure they are rational).

    28. Re:Animal torture by LibRT · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't understand the belief system which posits humans are not only not animals, but are somehow worse than animals, and that animals are all wholesome and pure, with winning personalities to boot. Humans are part of nature in the same way your ill-fated mealworms are. By the same token, skyscrapers and highways are perfectly natural in just the same way as birds' nests and beaver dams are: in all cases it's simply an animal, or a group of animals, reordering their environment to suit their purposes.

      So give yourself a break from the self-imposed anguish of struggling with the mealworm destiny issue - feed 'em to the birds, don't feed 'em to the birds, light them on fire, flush them down the toilet, throw them in the next pie you bake or let them loose in your back yard and consider them "free range". In the end, whatever you do is simply nature playing itself out.

      In short: less drama, more mealworm death.

    29. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate mealworms so much? Nothing but speciecide is good enough for you?

      Let those poor mealworms have the chance of life, however short, that they wouldn't have had if there weren't birds to feed.

    30. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      I can only think of one: killing is bad if it negatively affects your own survival.

      I'll have to stop you there. Why is my own survival rationally important? I'm not disagreeing, but I would like to know your answer - in particular, I want to make sure that your answer isn't begging the question with something like "because nature is about [genetic] survival".

    31. Re:Animal torture by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

      "I honestly don't understand the belief system which posits humans are not only not animals, but are somehow worse than animals, and that animals are all wholesome and pure, with winning personalities to boot."

      I blame Disney. And the Bible.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    32. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Why is my own survival rationally important?

      I wouldn't say it was rationally important. It's just the fundamental thing that drives all living species, including determining every action they take (directly or indirectly). In other words, if you didn't think your survival mattered, you might as well end it right now.

    33. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      You're deliberately choosing a different sort of question which only requires a more primitive thought process. Experiencing empathy and pondering high and low level decisions you could make when presented with the option to cause or not cause damage to strangers is not the same as judging the best route from A to B while avoiding C. Even then, the level of input and processing an iguana can put into route optimisation is far exceeded by the level of input a human can put.

      I have no doubt that many species can make immediate plans, but that's not the same as contemplating in the abstract. Do you think that a tiger about to catch a deer ever stops and thinks, "You know, I won't catch that deer today... I'm a little hungry but around this time of year another one is bound to come along, and it's clearly still looking after its young. Its young are too small for meat, and they'll slowly starve to death if I eat the mother. So I'll wait for a buck." (Don't sidetrack with an argument about whether that reasoning is entirely optimal! The question is whether it's possible for a tiger to contemplate like this.)

      tl;dr Iguanas may be cunning beasts and capable of demonstrating a lot of the abilities we have but I don't think they'll ever manufacture computers or write philosophy treatises. It's not because they don't choose not to but because they can't.

    34. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      There's another post in this thread which covers the false dichotomy you're generating.

    35. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Like I said, feel free to come up with a better rational reason. After all, without some axioms ("my survival is good for me"), it's impossible to create any meaningful rational framework at all.

    36. Re:Animal torture by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      As the omnivorous partner of a vegetarian, I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity. Some animals (actually most, because most are wormy type things and insects) just don't have the mental capacity to be worth moral consideration in and of themselves in my opinion. Clearly there's a grade--we should consider our treatment of dogs more carefully than flies, for example. I see this as hard to deny, even if we are uncomfortable with its ramifications for humans (are stupid people less worthy of moral consideration than smart ones?).

    37. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      So we've gone from reason to axiom.

      OK.

      Now is what is "good for you", good?

      Although, TBH, I'm not that interested in this sort of argument, because there's so much cookie-cutter work to move on from your oft-heard pronouncement to productive debate.

      There's lots of work scrawled about veganism and animal rights which come down to weighing minimisation of exploitation (in the widest sense, of nature in general including other humans) against causing yourself excessive hardship. Sometimes there's an underlying philosophy about man using his uniquely powerful mind to achieve some form of balance; sometimes it's merely applying pragmatism to a sense of compassion.

      Examine the beliefs of the Vegan Society or the BUAV or any number of groups which are about promoting alternatives, carefully avoiding PETAesque "man is evil and must die" groups. Consider also the more middle-of-the-road position of the British Humanist Society which focuses on minimising suffering.

    38. Re:Animal torture by mangu · · Score: 1

      The fox which digs a hole which exposes the worm and the bird which takes the worm don't really have the capacity to make a choice.

      Now you're contradicting what you said before: "Much simpler organisms appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us - do they feel pain too?"

      If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?

      I think there's no definite point at which we can say for sure there's no self-consciousness below it. However, the simple fact that an organism reacts to stimuli is not enough to call it conscious or assume it follows some internal thought process.

      A light switch reacts to the pressure of my finger by turning on a light, does that mean we should never harm light switches?

    39. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      There is no absolute good or bad. The question whether something is absolutely good is therefore pointless.

      Why is "minimization of exploitation" good ? And even if we assume it's good, it still doesn't tell us much. For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them, therefore reducing the sum of their future exploitation to zero. If we do it swiftly, they won't even suffer.
      They're going to all die anyway, and natural deaths aren't usually pretty.

    40. Re:Animal torture by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So where do you draw the line?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    41. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      If the fox reacts in a similar way to us, couldn't it follow a similar reasoning process, therefore taking conscious choices?

      It could. But it's a huge leap to assume that it reasons like us in general just because it reacts like us to specific immediate stimulus.

      A light switch reacts to the pressure of my finger by turning on a light, does that mean we should never harm light switches?

      Why is it a habit of geeks to make horribly over-simplifying analogies? :-/ Oh well, I'm sure I've been guilty of it too from time to time. The question I gave was about simpler organisms which appear to react to stimuli we'd regard as painful in a similar way to us. Light switches do not react like this.

      If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishable from a fox, then - as many have argued in many places - there is a good case for looking at it from an ethical PoV as if it were a fox. The ultimate AI achievement of building an AI indistinguishable from a human would result in regarding the AI from an ethical PoV as if it were human.

      (This of course leads to the suggestion that building a human-like AI may in practical terms be a massive waste of time: if you need more ultra-intelligent tools then it's ethically no worse to simply breed slave humans.)

    42. Re:Animal torture by Dragon_Hilord · · Score: 1

      How about we use the same measures for executing animals for food as we do people for crime? Generally, the consensus is they should die (not here, we use prisons, so lets think to a few countries that support "humane execution"), but it is widely held they should not suffer.

      If we use the same techniques on animals...? I'm no vegan or anything, I like my meats and fish, etc. As a grower of chickens, I also don't get that "product of animal" thing either that PETA freaks so much about. I *DO* agree, some eh... slaughter houses out there (literally) are cruel and without a care to how much the animal suffers, which I agree is wrong.

      Back to worms though, really I don't see some harm in irradiating a few crawlers now and then for science. We've done some messed up things to chimps and people too (look up space flight and rocket chair respectively). In the end, the general consensus is and shall remain: it's good for science and our understanding of our world/universe.

      --
      Cheers, DH.
    43. Re:Animal torture by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And yet, still, it isn't impossible to make that choice. You may die, but the choice was still made.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    44. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      For instance, we could minimize the exploitation of whales by killing every single one them

      If you've ever had the misfortune of looking into PETA (or, worse, working with people in PETA *shudder*), you'll hear its adherents say things like that - not only of animals which are hunted or farmed but also of pets. "Every dog is better off being put to sleep than living or having lived as a companion slave!" This was one of the main reasons I suggested avoiding them, except to see how far away from reasonable you can travel without actually going around killing people.

      Do you not see how killing an animal in this context is exploiting it for the furtherance of your (possibly insane quasi-religious cult) philosophy? If you see nature in terms of struggling species as well as living individuals, do you not see that the worst possible exploitation could be regarded as one which eradicates a whole species?

      I know it requires more effort but I suggest again that you read the views and writings of some of those organisations listed. Your questions and strawmen are understandable but typical. If this were some computing topic, it'd be the time I'd politely suggest that you read the fine manual.

    45. Re:Animal torture by gilleain · · Score: 1

      If you were to build a robot which acted in a manner indistinguishable from a fox, then - as many have argued in many places - there is a good case for looking at it from an ethical PoV as if it were a fox. The ultimate AI achievement of building an AI indistinguishable from a human would result in regarding the AI from an ethical PoV as if it were human.

      This reminds me of a part of the book 'The Tin Men', where a researcher is building ethical robots and putting them on rafts in a swimming pool with other robots, to see if they will throw the other off to save themselves.

      Worms may feel pain - even plants might - but they can't reason about that well enough to truly suffer. Therefore, feeding them to birds is not a moral issue. It's like when people say "meat is murder!" and imagine that simply redefining "killing humans" as "killing animals" makes any kind of difference to the argument. Meat is _slaughter_ not murder, unless you are a cannibal.

    46. Re:Animal torture by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. After all, they are called "meal"worms, right?

    47. Re:Animal torture by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I've always argued that it's clearly got to do with mental capacity.

      The more like us something seems, the less we want to harm it. A worm is about as far away as you can get - they are repulsive looking and superficially resemble us in no way. Dogs are the other extreme - they have co-evolved with us such that they present behavior that seems like human emotion. So we put dogs on a higher pedestal than any other animal - even our 98% similar chimp cousins.

      Sometimes a weird accident of genetics produces something that is not much different from a regular fish, but has some feature that we deem worthy - like a seahorse or starfish. Butterflies fall into this category, too.

      So yes, mental capacity is part of it - but it's bigger than that. Dogs and horses seem to get most of our respect, despite there being birds with larger mental capacity (or at least tool use). Dogs and horses are the only animal in the US with a taboo on eating. In fact, I think in might actually be illegal! How's that for irrational?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Animal torture by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Mod parent +1 interesting. I had no idea Iguanas could respond to words, and I was even led to believe they lack high level emotions. You know, with reptilian brains being kind of the 1.0 versions from which the brains of birds and mammals evolved, adding more sophisticated emotions and intelligence wich were lacking before? Apparently that was way off the mark, then, and reptiles evolved just as much as the others.

    49. Re:Animal torture by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You're criminalising behaviour because it makes you feel icky.

      Intent is often the most important facet of a law. Take manslaughter/murder. A serial killer with 20 victims will get a life sentence or be executed. A bus driver who falls asleep at the wheel can kill the same number of people and get a few years in prison.

      Another example would be taxes. If you make a mistake and short the government money on your taxes, they will demand repayment and fine you. If you deliberately evade the same amount in taxes, you go to jail. Either way, the effect is the same - but you consider intent.

      So then we get to Per Wigren's example: killing mosquitoes for public health/comfort reasons is a necessary evil. They are parasites that bite us and suck our blood. Deriving pleasure from the torture of mosquitoes is disturbing and probably warrants some attention. Not that you can torture something with such a simple nervous system, but I digress...

      You might point to fishing as an example of acceptable torture (especially "catch and release"), but I've yet to meet a fisherman who fishes to inflict pain on the fish. Most are there for the challenge. If you meet someone who just likes getting hooks in fish, keep an eye on that one!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:Animal torture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure I've seen you wearing a sweater of your own hair handing out pamplets and crying in front of the grocery store. We just think you're loopy because you seem to believe that the world exists for group hugs and drum circles.

    51. Re:Animal torture by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      "For every 1 man you kill we'll donate $1,000,000 to save a thousand from starvation."

      Do I get to choose the guy?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    52. Re:Animal torture by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >The same question is asked of everyone who raises an ethical or philosophical question before its time.

      Unfortunately - it's also the same question we ask of people who are batshit insane and/or just plain wrong.

      Now what are the odds you are in the former category ? Slim to none.
      That said you can hugely improve those odds if (like everything in your list of examples) the arguments in favor of your suggestion are logically strong, and the arguments against them (e.g. in favor of the status quo) are logically weak.
      So you ought to evaluate a suggestion by the strength of the arguments for and against it - the number of people making each side's arguments is completely useless information (and in fact - it's consideration is a fallacy).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    53. Re:Animal torture by Arlet · · Score: 1

      I suggest again that you read the views and writings of some of those organisations listed

      I doubt they'll give a rational reason why killing animals is bad. All they offer is a simple appeal to emotions. We hate to see animals suffer because of our mirror neurons. Seeing someone suffer, makes us feel the pain, and that's unpleasant, so we try to stop it.

    54. Re:Animal torture by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Brain scan testing and other tests have shown that dogs have far higher stress levels than their wild counterparts - not fear stress, worry.
      Dogs have been shown to have a sense of time, a sense of themselves as being within time - and a sense of belonging and self. Wolves and foxes don't - but wolves and foxes raised in captivity do.

      In one set of tests it was shown how "solve the puzzle" behavior could be triggered in some species of shrimp, remove the puzzle and the shrimp who had come to "enjoy" it - would reject the reward.

      Everything in modern neuroscience says our "consciousness" is largely NOT biological - our brains aren't all that special (despite being weight for weight something we have a lot off). What makes us human is interacting with other human beings.
      The constant challenges we set for each other drives us all onward, we speak and learn to understand, we lie and learn to detect liars...

      Animals which interact with humans learn to think more and more like humans - we inspire "mind" like consciousness because what you need to get there is NOT a lot of brains - but the right kind of stimulation of the brain you have.
      Now how far you can GO on that path is influenced by your amount of brains, which is probably why we evolved so much of it.

      All this is very relevant to your point of view - because it means everything we know about brains and minds now suggest the only reason dogs aren't building computers is because they haven't been living with human long ENOUGH.

      Because it means EVERY living being with any brain at all is potentially conscious to at least a significant fraction of our abilities -and should that occur their descendents could evolve to match or even exceed us.

      In short... since our brains are not what makes us special... we are NOT special, we just DO something special. Well every animal does SOMETHING special that's the very essence of evolutionary survival.
      And our trick has turned out to be very easy to copy.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    55. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, angling's a toughie. It seems to be inflicting unnecessary suffering and possibly quite damaging trauma on the fish, although it's certainly not torture for its own sake.

      I guess the best approach today is to promote equipment which minimises harm to the fish. This applies to fishing in general, of course - unregulated drift netting, for example, is in the long term wrong on every count.

    56. Re:Animal torture by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Its simple. If the species in question is likely to eat you as a result of you eating them then don't eat that species. For example, humans are off the menu.

    57. Re:Animal torture by bmajik · · Score: 1

      I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British.

      That is to say, none.

      When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.

      The reason I don't _personally_ torture animals that appear to have more in common with me than other life (like the grass in my yard, which i mow with reluctant impunity) is because I don't feel good doing it, and the Tale of the Jewish Zombie (aka the Bible) tells me I am to be a proper steward of the life God has put on the Earth.

      But absent some external moral standard (like a religious beleif), I find nothing compelling to suggest that non-humans have any "rights" at all.

      Unpopular as it is, I'd advocate for the repeal of _all_ animal "cruelty" laws. The purpose of government is to allegedly protect the rights of individuals; animals don't have rights, therefore, the extent to which the law discusses animals should be limited to _property crime_ issues.

      I understand that makes me a "speciesist". I'm fine with that, and as I've illustrated above, I have religious and non-religious arguments for why I'm ok with that.

      If Michael Vick tortures _your_ dog, he should go to jail for destruction of your property. If he tortures _his_ dog, he's just a neighbor with a habit I find disgusting.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    58. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      I recognize all of the rights of mealworms which they fought and secured for themselves by defeating the British. [...] When they make a convicing argument that they have rights and when they are able to assert themselves to that end, I'll listen.

      It's going to be a tough time for babies and the seriously retarded. Unless you think that what one human does determines prae judicio what another unrelated human (but only human) deserves. Though you already admit to being speciesist.

      The [only proper] purpose of government is to allegedly protect the rights of [human] individuals

      It's one of many opinions on the matter, yes.

    59. Re:Animal torture by Terrasque · · Score: 1

      (and I highly doubt that absolute morals exist in the first place)

      Reminds of a Terry Pratchett quote, a conversation between Death and his granddaughter (sort of), Susan:

      'All right,' said Susan. 'I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

      "REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE"

      'Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little- "

      "YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES"

      'So we can believe the big ones?"

      "YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING"

      'They're not the same at all!"

      "YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-- "

      Death waved a hand. "AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED"

      'Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point---"

      "MY POINT EXACTLY"

      --
      It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
    60. Re:Animal torture by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ. Do you realize how ridiculous it is that you are morally fretting over the lives of mealworms? If your partner hadn't gone out and bought the mealworms to feed to the chickens, hell, if the mealworms hadn't been raised as chicken feed, they would just get eaten by some bird or rodent in the wild. You do realize that, in nature, animals kill, mame, and devour each other in a glorious bloody festival all the time right? That's how life grows. That's how things survive long enough to reproduce to allow evoluton. Worrying about the life of every little spec of organic molecules animated via a weak electrical current is absurd. I mean, seriously:

      They are just fucking mealworms.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    61. Re:Animal torture by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

      Have you taken any steps to simply make it more difficult for you cat to kill birds? Like a bell on the collar, etc..?

      If it's becoming a problem (ie, threatening local bird numbers) perhaps your cat should be kept indoors more? (Depending on where you live, sometimes it's safer to keep cats indoors then let them outside where there are significant dangers, and creepy people. =(

      I don't know if breeding meal worms is really a 'solution', or more of a band-aid. What about birds that don't eat meal worms?

      My two cents. =)

    62. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one clear opinion, certainly. And everything you say applies to people. What's more, on a universal scale we're just seven billion tiny sacks of dirty water rolling about on an irrelevant ball of inorganic molecules orbiting an inconsequential sphere of hydrogen and helium in an unspectacular galaxy in an indifferent universe. I mean, seriously:

      We are just fucking humans.

      Don't be a slave to your perception of nature. I'm as much part of nature as you, your dog, and my partner's mealworms. If I can take a different approach to life, it means nature's more variable than you think it to be. Isn't that at least slightly reassuring?

    63. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      Kitty doesn't tolerate a collar and, to coin a local behaviourist's term, I don't think it'd be ethologically appropriate to keep him in any more - he already stays in at night and in the early morning to prevent over-adventuring or encountering foxes and roaming toms. We're fortunate not to have the cat-predators some of my friends across the pond contend with, and the humans are fairly well behaved. He certainly wouldn't like staying in any more, being a young, active and quite social guy. (And has some of the dog-like behaviours which make me expect ocicat heritage, including clear ability and interest in learning commands!)

      But TBH the area's not exactly very urban and I don't think he's making significant impact on the birds. I think it's more an exercise in sustainability and encouraging bird life than saving a population which would otherwise die off. The birds which do not eat mealworms get various nuts and suet things and so on. I really don't know that much about bird life myself, but the topic was in my mind because I was asked by my partner to help out.

      Thanks for your thoughts.

    64. Re:Animal torture by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      When young, he was stupid, didn't understand glass*, about the time he hit 5-6 years old he seems to have started learning faster.

      My wife is an environmental biologist who studied some small lizard species (Sceloporus occidentalis) of the Pac NW in undergrad school, she didn't believe the stories I told about the Iguana until she met him. Other than going out and pissing off the smaller lizards, he only established dominance over her cats once. Theres a cat he likes and will allow it to come sleep by him, there is a cat he will display to and glare at until she leaves.

      He free roams, has a place where he sleeps every night, goes to bed at the same time (within 5-10 minutes window), wakes up at the same time, if you tell him to go to his room, he'll figure it out in 2-5 minutes and head that way.

      * - I think the breakthrough point in reptile intelligence is if they understand glass is there and a barrier. I've had eight species of Agamid and Iguana over the last 16 years, some species and individuals figure it out, some just glass surf and head bob at reflections.

    65. Re:Animal torture by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Their brains work slower and some are obviously smarter than others. Lizards are far smarter than turtles, I also have three species of North American river turtles and let me tell you turtles are flat out stupid animals.

      The Iguana reacts not just to human voice, but can figure out tone, if it's being directed at him, he shows jealously (if the cats are in the room and we pay attention to them, but not him, he narrows his eyes and pouts).

      My favorite is, if the food given to him isn't want he wants, he'll slide the food bowl to the edge of his space, and flip it on the floor with his foot.

    66. Re:Animal torture by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one clear opinion, certainly. And everything you say applies to people. What's more, on a universal scale we're just seven billion tiny sacks of dirty water rolling about on an irrelevant ball of inorganic molecules orbiting an inconsequential sphere of hydrogen and helium in an unspectacular galaxy in an indifferent universe.

      Yup, that's kind of my point. The whole, "sanctity of life," thing isn't nearly as concrete as we may believe it to be. People are going to die everyday. Some will die due to unforseen natural accidents/disasters/whatever. Others will die in some manner useful to another entity (as food, or or maybe as compost). The point is, your chickens need to eat, and if they eat mealworms, feed them some mealworms and stop worrying so much about it. That's just part of how this universe works.

      And to be perfectly explicit, I am not, in anyway, trying to say that humans are just as valuable or just as not valuable as mealworms. We humans have this funny talent at organizing energy in a localized manner which seems to trick (at least for a closed system) the second law of thermodynamics. In my opinion, and it is just an opinion, that alone makes us a hell of a lot more special than mealworms. In other words, start fretting about the lives of your mealworms when they start doing mathematics. As long as we humans possess the ability to modify our environment to suit us, rather than simply adapting to the environment we are provided, I would say that we get a ++ on the sanctity of life scale.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    67. Re:Animal torture by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 1

      That's fair enough. I can see your point and there's no real *answer* except one which selects some fairly arbitrary axioms. It's not even necessary to accept the way nature seems to have been so far - as you say, we can modify our environment to suit us. So if I have an axiomatic thing for reducing suffering in some way then I can achieve that to a certain extent without going insane. To determine what extent is reasonable I need to review, from time to time, questions such as the above.

      'sok, I'm not fretting, just contemplating while wearing my heart a little on my sleeve about life in general. I've been on the internet long enough that I don't really mind sounding soft to strangers here - it acts as its own barrier to the BLAARGH EMOTIONS YOU SUCK responses some people give.

    68. Re:Animal torture by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Though I am very late and a bit off topic, feeding the birds is not a solution. Your cat will learn to stake out the food pile and kill the birds as they are eating. The feeding ground basically becomes a bait pile.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  3. Mutations by DWMorse · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new Mars-hardened bacterial overlords.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  4. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they're breeding microbes that can survive extreme conditions such as lengthy exposure to UV?

    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Nothing. With our global warming efforts, we are just making sure that there is something that survives us.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by gilleain · · Score: 1

      Hah. Perhaps AGW itself is a cunning long-term plan to breed especially heat-resistant humans?

      (Also : fantastic sig. Just finished "I Shall Wear Midnight". I think Blair could do wi' a gud kicking from the Wee Free Men...)

  5. Re:wholesale designer lv luxury handbags on sale by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Dude... Two words:

    Target audience.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  6. Next stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try it on a yard monkey or a muzzie

  7. Torture? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, since when is it OK to torture living things? What the fuck? When did this shit happen? Why is this not being shut down immediately? Let's get the activists on the job, and notify the lawyers. We've got work to do, people.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's bacteria. Products which torment and slaughter bacteria by the hundreds of trillions in a single shot are available over the counter.

    2. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first they came after the bacteria, and I said nothing.

      then they came for the virri and I a said nothing.

      then, they took away the prions, and I also said nothing.

      finally, after they came to take me away there was nobody left to say anything...

    3. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First they came after the weak bacteria, and I said nothing.

      Then they came after the sligtly stronger bacteria, and I said nothing.

      Then they came after the even stronger bacteria, and I said nothing.

      Then the super bacterias came after the they, and I said nothing.

    4. Re:Torture? by jovius · · Score: 1

      Imagine the daily torture of oxygene and water the humans have to endure. Each day to live to just live one day less.

    5. Re:Torture? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      To some bacteria (and similar kingdoms) free oxygen in the atmosphere is toxic and so our current environment is torture ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:Torture? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      I suppose you never clean anything either. Imagine torturing those poor bacteria with soap.

    7. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, since when is it OK to torture living things? What the fuck? When did this shit happen? Why is this not being shut down immediately?

      Since Gitmo and the US President said it was OK.

      Mr DNS-and-BIND, please meet Mr President. Mr President, please meet Slashdot.

    8. Re:Torture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the daily torture of oxygene.[snip]

      Feeling the hatred for Jean-Michel Jarre, now... ;)

    9. Re:Torture? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, bacteria are prokaryotes, so it's outside PETA's bailiwick.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Torture? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I agree, we need to expand our horizons and not be so kingdomcentric.

      Instead of just PETA, we should have:
      People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria (PEToB)
      People for the Ethical Treatment of Archaea (uh oh, maybe PEToA, that's probably going to confuse the mailing list...)
      People for the Ethical Treatment of Protista (PEToP)
      People for the Ethical Treatment of Plantae (PEToPL?)
      People for the Ethical Treatment of Fungi (PEToF) ...although watching some people try to chain themselves to some mushrooms, or (better still) breaking into research labs to release sample of E.Coli into the wild might be hilarious. Or the PETx banquet, when the PETA people and the PEToPL people get into fistfights over the menu.

      --
      -Styopa
    11. Re:Torture? by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      Products which torment and slaughter humans by the hundreds in a single shot are available over the counter.

      Just sayin'...

  8. Thanks KSR by krswan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about "Mars Bottles" in his Mars Trilogy 20 years ago. I'm glad someone is finally trying it!

    1. Re:Thanks KSR by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course, the "Mars Jars" were in a lab... ON MARS

      Hilarity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Thanks KSR by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      On that note, I'm sure it was mentioned elsewhere, but I first read it in Red Mars. What about bacteria living deep underground? Are they planning to test for that at all or are they sticking to surface life for now?

    3. Re:Thanks KSR by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Kim Stanley Robinson wrote about "Mars Bottles" in his Mars Trilogy 20 years ago. I'm glad someone is finally trying it!

      I read about the first "Mars Bottles" being built and used by NASA nearly 40 years ago.
       
      (Creaky first-cup-of-coffee synapses send me off to my bookshelves...)
       
      The earliest published reference to "Mars Jars" (the actual term Robinson used) I could find in a quick search of my hardcopy collection is from 1972. A brief Google search turns up Carl Sagan using "Mars Jars" in the 1960's. The earliest reference I can find in a Google Books search shows them being built as early as 1956.
       
      They've been a standard tool for exobiology research in general, and Mars research in specific, for a long time. They're why the Viking landers were proposed and built in the first place - we already had experimental evidence that unicellular life on Mars was possible.

    4. Re:Thanks KSR by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      I remember reading about lab experiments with "Mars chambers" about that long ago. As soon as people had an idea of the composition and density of Mars' atmosphere, it's a fairly obvious experiment.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    5. Re:Thanks KSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray!

      And currently I am reading Robert Zubrin's "The case for mars" for, what, the 7th time! This book should be mandatory reading for the school children!

  9. Re:wholesale designer lv luxury handbags on sale by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

    He's not trying to get you to buy one, he's trying to get search engines to rank his site for those terms. Just like the 'someone should write a dissertation on diss' idiot, he hasn't yet realised that, although Slashdot has a high page rank, it puts rel="nofollow" on all links in comments, so search engines will ignore them.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  10. Pictures by crow_t_robot · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have uploaded some pics of the bacteria in the Martian atmosphere:

    http://i.imgur.com/WRO02.jpg [SFW - not goatse]

    Enjoy.

    1. Re:Pictures by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So why would we believe you?

      In the name of safety for everyone's mind, I courageously checked the link. He is right, it isn't Goatse.

      Well, not exactly - it's someone who's just seen Goatse.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    2. Re:Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verified not goatse, it's a picture from total recall.

  11. Lets not do anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that will actually help us with our current problems, lets fuck off some more money for a 1950's B movie dream

    1. Re:Lets not do anything by belthize · · Score: 1

      Says the prolific AC, taking time from his busy schedule to post a random thought on a news aggregation site.

  12. Cabon Dioxide? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    They say the atmosphere is 95 percent CO2. They should see if any plant species can grow there.

    1. Re:Cabon Dioxide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The atmospheric pressure on mars, depending on elevation of course, varies depending on the season. It can be as high as 15 millibars but is typically stable around 6.

      The atmospheric pressure at the summet of Mount Everest or K2 is roughly 300 millibars.

      Tree line, while mostly attributed to the cold and sustained snow and icepack, is also affected by atmospheric pressure. The highest treeline in the world is in the Andes, in Bolivia on the volcano Sajama. At 17,000+ feet, it's still 12,000 feet shy of the peak of Everest, with an atmospheric pressure likely somewhere in the 500's.

      In order for complex life, such as trees, animals or large plants to survive, the atmosphere would need to be in the magnitude of 100 times as pressurized. Bacteria on the other hand have been shown to survive, though reproducing slower, at vacuum. Personally, I believe a colony would need to import hydrogen and Nitrogen, compress martian atmosphere and make water with the hydrogen, and use the nitrogen to enrich soil, while using martian atmosphere for a perfect breeding ground for plants.

  13. Re:wholesale designer lv luxury handbags on sale by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    I still don't understand how Slashdot has not been inundated with spammers long before now. Taco must have some kind of secret, but what is it?

    Maybe Spammers simply know that no-one here is going to buy anything.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  14. grants ... by tibbar · · Score: 1

    probably took this long for the grant money to come though ...

  15. don't you mean by SolusSD · · Score: 2

    Enhanced interrogation?

    1. Re:don't you mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in this case, you get actionable intelligence.

  16. Plot to new movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Resident Evil: Evolution

  17. Not torture! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not torture. These are Enhanced Investagion Techniques, and fall well within the realm of scientific war... err, discovery.

  18. If I could keep Mars in a Bottle by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    The first thing that I'd like to do
    Is torture my cold 'til it passes away
    So I can no longer pass it to you!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  19. Hello Godwin!!! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    Fancy that, old chap! I didn't think you'd show up so soon. Would you care for a biscuit, and a cuppa?

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  20. Perhaps the best observation of sentience ever by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    Or if he's been locked in his room because humans have been on vacation, he will spend two or three weeks trying to get to my shoes so he can poop in them. Not any shoes, just his owner's shoes.

    I wrote a whole book on the idea of animal sentience, and you just encapsulated my entire thesis in a run-on sentence and a fragment, involving targeted pooping. Damn your maniacal genius, sir, DAMN IT!

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:Perhaps the best observation of sentience ever by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Thats what happens when I get a migraine, can't sleep and end up on /.

      In regards to my Iguana, he seems to be as smart as a parrot, but it takes time to process the data, you can almost see the thinking going on as he figures it out.

  21. Don't do it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen this episode of the outer limits, they'll form a colony, eventually kill the guy who incubated them, and start taking over!

  22. Re:Torture? Revelation 6 v 12 & 13! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rev. 6 verses 12 & 13 were fulfilled last week. WORRY FOR YOSELF!!! Quck man where's the neaarest Kingdom hall of Jehovah's Witnesses? You don't know?! Well, that means you aren't in the "Great Crowd" at Rev. 7 v 9... so have a nice Eternity with the undergrounders.

  23. Fuck Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you think that's torture, you should see my colon.

  24. Gaia was the first discovery by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Gaia was the first discovery of life from the Mars program.
    Actually read the book, written by the first inventor hired by NASA to build machines to find life on Mars.
    In classic analyst vs management fashion, he showed how life really works and told mgmt they could determine if life existed on any planet merely thru spectrography. That was not want what they wanted to hear so his contract wasn't renewed.

    Read Gaia yourself. It contains more science and better examples than any of the stuff from the Earth Systems Scientists (who reject Gaia based on the general social interpretation (of gaia as Earth goddess) without ever reading the actual book).

  25. Re:wholesale designer lv luxury handbags on sale by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    I'll be sure to add a "joke" tag next time ;)

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/