Gut Bacteria Affect the Brain

We are a colony organism by RichMan · 2014-02-21 09:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

We are 90% bacteria. It is time we stopped viewing ourselves as a monlithic organism and started viewing ourselves as some sort of managed colony.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...

"We think that there are 10 times more microbial cells on and in our bodies than there are human cells. That means that we're 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human. There's also an estimated 100 times more microbial genes than the genes in our human genome. So we're really a compendium [and] an amalgamation of human and microbial parts."

Re:We are a colony organism by SuricouRaven · 2014-02-21 09:58 · Score: 3

We're more of a bacterial mass-transport vehicle.
Re:We are a colony organism by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-21 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is misleading, because our mass is still predominantly genetically human eukaryotic cells. Bacteria are so tiny that there are a greater number of them, but we're still mostly just human.
Re:We are a colony organism by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-02-21 10:01 · Score: 2

Well, crap. I was taking an antibiotic this week. But not it's starting to sound like genocide.
Re:We are a colony organism by danlip · 2014-02-21 10:10 · Score: 2

Just suicide. Many other instances of those bacteria strains inhabit other people, so you won't be committing genocide (unless you use a blessed scroll).
Re:We are a colony organism by Samantha+Wright · 2014-02-21 10:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

As someone who does this stuff for a living, I'd argue the contrary—that the weight ratio is misleading, because it's an exception. In terms of RNA and protein-coding genes, isoforms, homologues, and selection rates, in addition to more obvious things like number of cells, they vastly outstrip the core of the body. Think also of how much more time they've cumulatively had to evolve and swap genes!
The best analogy for this, I think, is a *nix distro—the human genome is a monolithic kernel, and the bacteria are all the shell scripts and daemons that help manage it.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:We are a colony organism by ColdWetDog · 2014-02-21 10:45 · Score: 3, Funny

I always knew humans were basically full of shit.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:We are a colony organism by ColdWetDog · 2014-02-21 10:47 · Score: 2

The best analogy for this, I think, is a *nix distro—the human genome is a monolithic kernel, and the bacteria are all the shell scripts and daemons that help manage it.
It's funnier if you run it the other way.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:We are a colony organism by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 10:50 · Score: 4, Funny

...the human genome is a monolithic kernel, and the bacteria are all the shell scripts and daemons that help manage it.
So what you're telling me is essentially that the viability of myself and any offspring is going to depend on a massive collection of perl scripts. Lovely. I'm forked. :(

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:We are a colony organism by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-21 11:15 · Score: 1

I agree, it's about the active parts, not the scaffolding. Just as you would judge a home more by its occupants than by the walls and furniture, at least if you were interested in behavior more than artifact and architecture.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 11:22 · Score: 0

But that is like saying a city is made more for roads than it is buildings.
While a city CAN have more roads, realistically it still has more of an influence from the things between those roads, the buildings, than people realize.
These bacteria have been with us since before humans existed, since before most surface life existed.
I wouldn't be surprised if they are prevalent in sea species as well (but I am not 100% sure how bacteria lives in waters as much)
Our body NEEDs them to function correctly. More so than you would need both your arms and legs, in fact. Hell, even your eyes.
You make a body entirely sterile for 20 years and release it in to the wild, it'll die in, pfft, minutes probably. (probably double digits, but likely no more than an hour)
To be honest, you'd be lucky to even live 20 years STERILE in the first place. Most major externally facing autoimmune conditinos are due to low interaction with infection vectors which completely screws the immune response, so it panics and increases it until it finds something, just in the same way that you consciously feel more pressure on the skin until your body lowers the sensitivity. (or less if you scratch it hard enough and then you scratch more and more, endless cycle, eczema is suffering)
This also brings up an interesting thought that some people in the near-ish future will need to figure out.
Space travel is going to be an absolute bitch for this. The further or longer periods of time people spend away from Earth, the worse they are going to be if they return.
As more and more colonies sprout up, it is going to create even more diverse environments that people will not be exposed to (especially with space since these are semi closed systems with the only mode of transport being humans, really)
I could imagine a time where 400+ years down the line, there will be bacteria in some colonies that will be completely lethal to some in other colonies.
One way to possibly get around this would be to culture bacterial strains in each environment and cart them off to all other colonies to mix the species to prevent too huge a diversification. This would create a stable ecosystem across all of them, with only a little extra work required. And they'd just be sent along with any regular periodic transports.
Of course, 400+ years down the line, they might not even need to culture, they could probably 3D print them. We can already grow artificial genomes and structures pretty decently now, simple ones, but still possibly. 400 years time, yeah we will totally master that. We'll be making designer bacteria out-the-metaphorical-ass by then. Shame we will be plant-food by then. Or getting peed on by dogs as we flow in the wind as grass. The circle of life.
Re:We are a colony organism by hirundo · 2014-02-21 11:27 · Score: 1

> That means that we're 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human.
That's very eukaryotecentric of you. Given the proportions, why assume that only the cells with nuclei are human rather than the other way around. Maybe we're 90 percent human and 10 percent new weird stuff. Dude, let the prejudice go and embrace your inner prokaryote.
Re:We are a colony organism by AsmCoder8088 · 2014-02-21 12:06 · Score: 1

Not only that, but the statement that we are 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human given that there are 10 times as many microbial cells as there are human cells is mathematically incorrect:
x=10y
1.0=x+y
1.0 = (10y)+y
1.0 = 11y
Therefore it is more accurate to say that we are 90.909% microbial and 9.0909% human.
Re:We are a colony organism by rmdingler · 2014-02-21 12:48 · Score: 2

Careful with that antibacterial slant to your comments...
it turns out bacteria are people, too.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:We are a colony organism by pgpalmer · 2014-02-21 13:15 · Score: 2

So Soylent Green is... bacteria?
Ew.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 14:00 · Score: 0

Ah, but the human population explosion equation becomes a nice elegant /bin/sh fork bomb script.
Re:We are a colony organism by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:04 · Score: 1

Well, cheese and yogurt basically are. Or at least bacterial waste. Flavored with mold in the case of cheese.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:We are a colony organism by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:29 · Score: 1

This is nothing new to space travel - look at what happened to the Americas when they were first exposed to European microbes in a big way - estimates are that between 40-90% of the indigenous population was wiped out by a combination of European diseases and some sort of blood-sweating disease that probably originated in South America at about the same time, long before a single colonist crossed the ocean. (Viking records suggest they had discovered the Americas long before, but left them alone because the densely populated continent sported warriors too numerous and vicious for raiding to be worthwhile)
Space travel is actually unlikely to be a major issue - you can divide space travel into two classes:
- intra-solar - where populations are unlikely to remain completely isolated for more than a few years or decades at a stretch, and thus not have to worry about serious new disease/immunity pairs cropping up.
- inter-stellar - where, barring new physics, travel times are likely to be in the centuries at least, and thus probably quite rare (and not near-term by most definitions) even for the closest stars. In this case the risks will be great, but the opportunity low and quarantine completely reasonable - send a few brave souls up to join the travelers for a few months and make sure they won't introduce anything lethal to the colony. Of course this could go very badly for the travelers so maybe they want to offer up a few canaries of their own in a smaller quarantine before letting the colony's canaries into the broader shipboard population.
Or perhaps by that point we'll have medical nanotech capable of performing seek-and-destroy on any dangerous/unrecognized pathogens and it won't be too much of an issue.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:We are a colony organism by rmdingler · 2014-02-21 14:49 · Score: 4, Funny

My gut tells me you're onto something here.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:We are a colony organism by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 18:01 · Score: 2

Maybe not genocide, but at least germicide.
Don't worry, you can backfill the little buggers.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re: We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 23:49 · Score: 0

Rodents kept in completely sterile "germ free" conditions live as long or longer than their conventionally raised and living controls. It seems reasonable to me, to assume that humans living in sterile conditions would most likely do just as well as rodents.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 00:31 · Score: 0

What makes us human is neither bacteria, nor most of our own tissues. We are our brains, and anything else is just a support structure. You could theoretically replace everything else, and still end up with the same human being.
Re:We are a colony organism by syockit · 2014-02-22 02:04 · Score: 0

Too bad for you, I've already upgraded to systemd!

--
Democracy is for the people; you only vote once per season and we'll do the rest of the work for you don't have to.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 07:08 · Score: 0

We are 90% bacteria. It is time we stopped viewing ourselves as a monlithic organism and started viewing ourselves as some sort of managed colony.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
"We think that there are 10 times more microbial cells on and in our bodies than there are human cells. That means that we're 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human. There's also an estimated 100 times more microbial genes than the genes in our human genome. So we're really a compendium [and] an amalgamation of human and microbial parts."
If we are 90% microbial and 10% human, it would imply that there are only 9 times more microbial cells than human cells.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 15:51 · Score: 0

"In terms of RNA" - then the H. sap. cells win by a mile thanks to all the mRNA activity and miRNA.
"in addtition to more obvious things like the number of cells" - sure, now how about counting up the mitos and ribos?
"Think also of how much more time they've cumulatively had to evolve" - the same ~ 3.5 Ga we have had, unless you reject a MRCA.
"swap genes" - lots of the various organisms that travel around in and on the human body (and in and on the bodies of the larger things like eyelash mites) don't "swap genes" at all. It is mainly H. sap. cells that guard against sexual reproduction producing new traits, and H. sap. cells that are forced to help the evolution of various parasitical quasispecies. H. sap cells arguably form a quasispecies too (thanks to things like somatic and class switch recombination), but are traceable to a common fertilized ovum; abusing evodevo a bit, that is the MRCA.
The unicellular organisms travelling along, in, and with us -- tolerated or in outright mutualist relationships with their H. sap. hosts -- are a huge and diverse set that can hardly trace themselves back to a single recent common ancestor, and are not especially likely to have been around since early in the life of the host. They're also more likely to be antagonistic than mutualistic with one another. Finally, most of their biomasses are likely to survive removal from the host for some time, moving on to some other host eventually. A lot of them have lifecycles that *require* separation from individual H. sap. hosts at some stage.
Finally, H. sap is pretty robust to the removal of practically all unrelated cells for a time. Along these lines, the popular M. mus. model can be bred in a fully sterile environment and used to study what minimal set of gut flora are needed for reasonable health. See doi:10.1038/nri1373 for example.
It's easy to be glib and flippant about such things, but on any sort of closer analysis, the idea that we are mostly something other than H. sap. cells does not hold coherence.
Re:We are a colony organism by Samantha+Wright · 2014-02-22 16:17 · Score: 1

You may have me on the RNA gene count. ENCODE ruins all the best glib flippancies!
By cumulative time I meant the following: while each strain of bacteria has had the standard 3.5 Gya to evolve, there are many strains. Since every genome experiences this passage of time separately, this gives them a significant advantage in developing symbiotic and commensal relationships. (And, of course, they can test new mutations much more quickly.)
The rest, is, of course, reality; obviously the host can survive without its bacteria, and provides almost all of the colony's total functions. (And as a matter of fact, I'm studying such a minimal mouse gut flora at the moment.) I really just wanted to emphasize how significant microbes are from an ecological diversity standpoint, which was the context.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:We are a colony organism by Theovon · 2014-02-23 01:29 · Score: 1

Actually, it’s also time to not forget that many of the microorganisms living in our body are yeast as well, not just bacteria.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 02:05 · Score: 0

As someone who does this stuff for a living, I'd argue the contrary—that the weight ratio is misleading, because it's an exception. In terms of RNA and protein-coding genes, isoforms, homologues, and selection rates, in addition to more obvious things like number of cells, they vastly outstrip the core of the body. Think also of how much more time they've cumulatively had to evolve and swap genes!
The best analogy for this, I think, is a *nix distro—the human genome is a monolithic kernel, and the bacteria are all the shell scripts and daemons that help manage it.
It's called symbiosis. We have a word to describe this relationship between two separate organisms.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:17 · Score: 0

upgraded
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:We are a colony organism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-03 05:31 · Score: 0

That is a perfectly reasonable follow-up. Thanks.

Machines by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-21 09:58 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't think I mind being an extraordinary complex machine functioning to protect the interests of very simple organisms incapable of thinking for themselves. But that might just be my bacterial overlords talking.

Re:Machines by circletimessquare · 2014-02-21 10:14 · Score: 1

FILTHY HUMAN SHELL:
We order you to procure more monosaccharides and disaccharides of appropriate molecular conformation.
Or we shall consume you and find a superior performing shell.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Re:Machines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 10:14 · Score: 0

I don't think I mind being an extraordinary complex machine functioning to protect the interests of very simple organisms incapable of thinking for themselves. But that might just be my bacterial overlords talking.
Obligatory: I, for one, welcome our new bacterial overlords.
Re:Machines by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-21 10:50 · Score: 2

Maybe we accept politicians because we're so used to taking orders from primitive, self-interested organisms.
Re:Machines by phantomfive · 2014-02-21 10:52 · Score: 1

It seems possible that guy bacteria affects nutrient absorption, and that affects brain activity. The studies so far have not focused on mechanisms of action, just showing that the effect does exist.

For all we know, those poor mice had that constant, gnawing hunger that couldn't be satiated. And that's why they couldn't think clearly.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re: Machines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 12:36 · Score: 0

Wow this comment made my day. Great, absolutely great!
Re:Machines by TheRealQuestor · 2014-02-21 13:33 · Score: 1

It seems possible that guy bacteria affects nutrient absorption, and that affects brain activity. The studies so far have not focused on mechanisms of action, just showing that the effect does exist. For all we know, those poor mice had that constant, gnawing hunger that couldn't be satiated. And that's why they couldn't think clearly.
seems a little sexist to me. maybe more than 1/2 of all bacteria is female. :)
Re:Machines by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:37 · Score: 1

Actually, I've heard a rumor that 100% of bacteria are completely genderless. Bunch of freaks going around having sex just to tinker with their own DNA. At least they're not as bad as the slime molds with their five different genders, crawling around the forest floor in a giant colorful amoeba-like orgy for anyone to see. Shameful. ;-)

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Machines by easyTree · 2014-02-21 14:46 · Score: 1

On behalf of the bacteria, I would object most vehemently at your disparaging comparison.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re: Machines by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 14:48 · Score: 0

Gosh, we sure do love ourselves!
Re:Machines by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-21 17:08 · Score: 1

Point of fact, you'd be mistaken. Horizontal gene transfer does occur in the bacteria world, it's just not a necessary step for reproduction.
Re:Machines by cbowers · 2014-02-21 17:12 · Score: 1

So close and yet you didn't bring home.
I for one welcome our new bacterial overlords.
Just goes to show, in Soviet Russia Bacteria run you!
We can move along now.
Re:Machines by Immerman · 2014-02-21 17:28 · Score: 1

Where do you see an error? Yes horizontal gene transfer occurs, but it doesn't involve gender, and is humorously a
> Bunch of freaks going around having sex just to tinker with their own DNA.
I had initially used the term asexual, but I figured being "completely genderless" was more amusing and didn't run the risk of confusing the issue with the unrelated human sexual orientation of the same name. Especially when I go and say they have sex in the very next sentence.
In point of fact not only is asexual sex not a necessary step for reproduction, it actively delays it - it's time and energy spent doing something other than feeding and preparing for fission.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Machines by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 18:05 · Score: 1

FILTHY HUMAN SHELL:
You mean, "Ugly giant bags of mostly water."

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Machines by gzuckier · 2014-02-22 15:18 · Score: 1

Came to realize a while back, that we're all just teratomas on 30 foot long worms.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.

This is new news? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 09:58 · Score: 0

Really? This is well known already wtf

Re:This is new news? by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-21 10:00 · Score: 1

The distinction of this study is that it was a detailed objective study of hormone levels, letting scientists, not laypeople, begin to approach understanding the underlying processes involved and how to control them.
Re:This is new news? by TechyImmigrant · 2014-02-21 10:20 · Score: 1

Yes. FIAF. Having better numbers is nice, but this is not new.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

two words i never thought i'd see together by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 09:59 · Score: 0

smart enema

Morality questions by DoofusOfDeath · 2014-02-21 10:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know I'm not the first person to think of this, but...

The more external influences we see on brain function, the less sure I am of how appropriate it is to hold people responsible for their actions.

For example, if child molestation is something one is predisposed to after being molested as a child, what's a just punishment if/when that person him/herself goes on to molest? Or, in this case, if ones gut bacteria makes on prone to certain behaviors, for example stress --> violence (not sure that's right, but just for the sake of discussion), should we hold every to persons equally accountable for having a violent reaction?

Re:Morality questions by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-21 10:09 · Score: 1

Well, if I were molested as a child, and I grew up with the impression that molesting a child was a good thing for me to do, hmm. I guess I'd molest a child? Except, as it stands, there are a lot of very mean people with tasers and shit that will beat me to death if I do that. So, maybe it seems like a good idea, but there are consequences?
Holding someone accountable for their actions has more functions than "application of justice". Justice is something that's nice to think about, but it's really a dumb concept. It's mostly deciding what we do and don't want in our society that counts. If your wife sucks some guy's dick because he put a knife to your throat, and then doesn't tell you because she feels terrible about it, well... maybe we give her a pass. If she sucks some guy's dick and doesn't tell you because she's a lying, cheating slut... maybe she can go to hell. And how is that justice? It didn't hurt you none, and you weren't around anyway to get your dick sucked, so what do you care? Oh but you get a divorce because she's been sucking dicks.
Create the expectation.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Morality questions by danlip · 2014-02-21 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Independent of this, there is a moral question of "should we be punishing people?" The alternative is to focus on deterrence, rehabilitation, and protecting society. "Protecting society" could justify locking someone away for ever (if the justice system determines there is no chance of rehabilitation). "Rehabilitation" could include altering their microbiome if we figure out how, or it could just be psychological work. Punishment is government administered revenge - it may provide some deterrence, but it's not particularly good at it. But modern justice systems still focus almost entirely on punishment.
Re:Morality questions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 10:24 · Score: 0

I know I'm not the first person to think of this, but...
The more external influences we see on brain function, the less sure I am of how appropriate it is to hold people responsible for their actions.
I think, perhaps, you are confusing "holding people responsible" with "punishment". You also seem to have ignored the importance of protecting the rest of society from predators. To take your hypothetical child molester as an example, we have a duty to protect others from this monster. Even if the guy is a schizophrenic who is not entirely responsible for his actions, we still have to protect others from him for the good of all of us.
Re:Morality questions by almitydave · 2014-02-21 10:28 · Score: 1

Well, if someone suffers from a mental condition that makes them predisposed to molest children, then I would say they as a self-determining individual are less culpable. Note that this does NOT mean that they are any less of a danger to children (the kid's still fucked), so the question becomes what's the appropriate punishment/response. From the perspective of the victims, it doesn't make a difference what form of incarceration is imposed; but to the perpetrator it's a big difference.
I think many people have difficulty feeling any compassion for child molesters, but they're still human beings with rights, and possibly mental problems that aren't their fault. In our effort to "solve" child abuse, we need to consider the best interests of the abusers as well. Although I'm glad that this form of sexual disorder is still seen as such by general society, I'm worried that people lean to heavily on ostracism as the only solution.

--
my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
Re:Morality questions by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-02-21 10:37 · Score: 1

So, in this case, if they are unable to control their actions, then either we need to reprogram them or terminate them, correct? Why feel bad killing off a bad program?
Re:Morality questions by ceoyoyo · 2014-02-21 11:08 · Score: 1

The problem with the phrase "hold people responsible for their actions" is that many people seem to think it means "get revenge on people who we think wronged us." Modern criminal systems focus on rehabilitating criminals, not "punishing" them. Whether or not you're responsible for your actions only has bearing on whether or not you deserve retributive punishment. What you did and the chances of you doing it again are relevant to whether or not you can be allowed to run around unsupervised. Your gut made you kill and eat those people? Fine, we can try to look for treatments to help rehabilitate you, but as long as we don't have those you're still danger to society and need to be locked up.
Re:Morality questions by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-21 11:22 · Score: 1

Punishment is easy to administer and audit - it pairs well with the concept of "Justice." Rehabilitation is a squishy concept, hard to measure, easy to accuse of uneven administration, favoritism, corruption.
Even though "Justice" has little to do with making the future a better time / world a better place, those are the systems we have in place, and they seem to endure more because they are easy to explain and understand than because they are effective.
Re:Morality questions by JesseMcDonald · 2014-02-21 11:57 · Score: 1

The more external influences we see on brain function, the less sure I am of how appropriate it is to hold people responsible for their actions.
If you want to consider yourself a free individual, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions. In that sense it doesn't matter whether you are really acting out of free will or not. It's all about how you choose to see yourself. Personally, I don't see the attraction of thinking of myself as an automaton, but if I did then I certainly couldn't object if others (automaton or not) took steps to protect themselves from me, since I'm claiming to have no control over my effects on them.
If you harm someone and refuse to make amends, then in a legal sense it doesn't really matter whether you're being punished (proportionally) for your actions or merely experiencing reciprocation. There is no need to assign blame; the response is the same whether you're a free agent intent on doing someone harm or merely a dangerous machine.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Morality questions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 12:36 · Score: 0

I know! Like alcoholics, homosexuals, and the mentally retarded, right???
Re:Morality questions by Urza9814 · 2014-02-21 14:20 · Score: 1

Punishment is easy to administer and audit - it pairs well with the concept of "Justice." Rehabilitation is a squishy concept, hard to measure, easy to accuse of uneven administration, favoritism, corruption.
Exactly. But if we can quantitatively measure the cause -- imbalance of gut bacteria or neural pathways or chemicals or whatever it happens to be -- then we can also determine if it has been resolved. We're a LONG way from having that capability, but perhaps someday....
Re:Morality questions by Urza9814 · 2014-02-21 14:27 · Score: 1

So, in this case, if they are unable to control their actions, then either we need to reprogram them or terminate them, correct? Why feel bad killing off a bad program?
But it's not a bad program, that's the point. It's merely been given bad input. "Terminating the program" in this case would be like deleting Photoshop because it can't improve any of your photos -- when you've been leaving the lens cap on the whole time.
Re:Morality questions by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:44 · Score: 1

Or we could simply remove them from society, allowing them to continue to live in a controlled enviroment where they can't hurt anyone else. I'm thinking something like a zoo, except individuals are caged to prevent them from continuing to hurt others, rather than to help preserve their species.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Morality questions by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:49 · Score: 1

What country are you in? The US "justice" system certainly doesn't operate on any such principles. If it did we wouldn't sentence perpetrators of minor and victimless crimes to protracted immersion in a a population of hardened criminals, forcing them to become far more dangerous in the interest of self-preservation, and giving them the opportunity to learn many new criminal skills from experts in the field.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Morality questions by easyTree · 2014-02-21 14:53 · Score: 1

I guess it's more difficult to profit long-term from rehabilitation.
What kind of business model would it be for those organizations running prisons if they start creating less demand for their services? No, what they need to do it increase demand or at least arrange circumstances such that there's an increasingly slippery slope leading towards uptake of their services.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Morality questions by Immerman · 2014-02-21 14:54 · Score: 1

It goes even further than that - if you claim to be an automaton then the logical extension is that everyone else is as well, and they are thus not responsible for putting you though a meat-grinder for wearing mismatched socks, leaving you no grounds to object. Of course you will probably do so anyway, but that's okay, as an automaton you didn't have a choice and are thus not responsible for your hypocrisy.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Morality questions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 16:31 · Score: 0

there are many widely held misconceptions that are causing you to have questions. morality, justice, etc. do not exist. they have never motivated human behavior or molded human society. civilization wasn't erected to uphold morality and justice. things are the way they are for the benefit of the common good. civilization and law exist to create order, predictability (security) in life in order to ensure survival of the majority. decisions are made out of practicality. morality and justice are just 'spin' words made up by poets long ago to make people feel good about their actions. basically, civilization is built on practicality and lies.
the truth is, we don't 'punish' people for bad behavior because it's right, wrong, just, good karma, bad karma, etc. we do it to protect others. we've been so brain-washed by the spin-artists to see crime and punishment that we can no longer see the truth. if a dog has incurable rabies and is killing and infecting people, we kill it. nobody blames the dog. it's just something that has to be done to protect the welfare of others. we humans like to pretend we don't live by the same rules of other animals, but we do in a basic sense. our rules have just evolved into spagetti-code complexity. punishing a violent offender isn't about laying blame or holding the responsible party accountable. it's about practicality and protecting the welfare of others. we really shouldn't be judging the person. just judge the situation.
Re:Morality questions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 00:13 · Score: 0

It's an accepted practice to put animals to death without trial, when they show a propensity to kill humans. If criminals have just as little control over their actions, if they are driven by instinct just like sharks or bears, why shouldn't we put them down as well, with as much due process as the animals are given?
In the Middle Ages, sometimes killer animals were put on trial and sentenced for their deeds. Nowadays this seems absurd. Perhaps in the future all our criminal trials will seem just as absurd.
Re:Morality questions by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-22 02:18 · Score: 1

My children (2 boys, 10 and 12) are "exceptional" - which used to have less nice sounding labels when I was in school.
I struggled for a while with the concept when they were first diagnosed, but, in the end, I want to help them cope with the world the best they can as they are. If there was a magic pill I could give them that would forever "cure" them and make them "normal," I'd really hate to use it. That whole "as they are" concept is pretty squishy and ill defined, but I don't want to live in a "monoculture" world, and I really don't want my children to be "forced to the middle of the road" by some kind of drastic intervention.
Re:Morality questions by cellocgw · 2014-02-22 03:47 · Score: 2

Yeah, well, misusing the word "exceptional" doesn't change the facts of your children's medical condition(s).
And you should take a step back and consider just how incredibly selfish you sound when you claim you wouldn't give them a cure for their physical/mental defects. Did you ever stop to think how much fuller their lives would be if they could function somewhere in the normal range? Or to think what *they* would say if offered the chance?
Maybe you should read "The Reason I Jump" for some preliminary insight into just how difficult life actually is for the impaired.

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Morality questions by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-22 04:16 · Score: 2

For a couple of decades, the majority of my peers called me alternately "Moron," "Idiot," "WTF is wrong with you," etc. I didn't like them doing that, but I really wouldn't have liked being made into a carbon copy of them. I was fortunate enough to be "in sync" with the academic testing regime of the day, so while most of my classmates called me "Moron," I was consistently turning in test scores that said otherwise, in spades.
My kids aren't getting the test scores that I did, but they are having a less traumatic time in school - no bones broken by childish pranks, nobody twice their weight sitting on them to pin them down in a fire ant pile, and as parents, I think we are much more aware of what's going on with our kids in school than my parents ever were. Their school experience could be better than it is, if we had unlimited resources, given what we've got, they're doing o.k.
Be careful when you think about "normal" and "fuller life" - my high school graduating class had about 250 people (at the beginning of senior year, closer to 200 by graduation), "normal" would be the middle of that group of 250, the ones that knocked around town attending Junior College after high school, getting crap jobs because they got their girlfriend pregnant, joining the military, spending a disproportionate amount of their time smoking grass, etc. The top 10-15% who took the advanced classes and went on to mostly get university degrees and good jobs, they're not normal, they are also exceptional.
Also be careful about wishing for a world where everyone suddenly becomes like the "top 5%" model students of today, learning all the course material presented to them, working diligently, etc. That would be a very different world from the one we live in, surely better in some ways, but shockingly worse in others.
Re:Morality questions by cellocgw · 2014-02-22 04:37 · Score: 1

I didn't say "normal behavior." I said normal cognitive / physical ability. There's rather a world of difference (you insensitive clod).

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:Morality questions by Urza9814 · 2014-02-22 06:31 · Score: 1

Well, I agree with you there, but the discussion was about application to the criminal justice system. So these kinds of treatments would be much like existing psychological therapy techniques -- unless your children *kill someone* or something along those lines, nobody should force them to become "normal". Though I'd say they certainly shouldn't be prevented from doing so voluntarily either if they someday wanted to.
Re:Morality questions by jzatopa · 2014-02-22 08:28 · Score: 1

You cannot mitigate an individuals responsibility just because we know the factors that can affect someones actions. Here is a great podcast that discusses the topic - http://www.radiolab.org/story/...
Re:Morality questions by JesseMcDonald · 2014-02-22 09:17 · Score: 1

if you claim to be an automaton then the logical extension is that everyone else is as well
I'm not sure I can buy that argument in general. It's true if you're claiming to be an automaton because we're in a deterministic clockwork universe, but you could also be arguing that you're different from other people, either permanently or temporarily—perhaps there's something wrong with the way your mind works, or you're in a special circumstance which overrules your free will. In that case you may be functioning as an automaton while others are not.
Even those solidly on the side of free will generally allow for the existence of things one is in some way responsible for, yet are beyond one's control. For example, you may set some process in motion without knowing the end result. If someone is harmed in the process you would be responsible even though you didn't intend to cause that particular effect. In general we handle this by giving you the opportunity to make up for the accidental harm. The really hard questions relate to the cases where that isn't possible.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Morality questions by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 10:03 · Score: 0

If, ultimately, evil behavior is caused by bacteria in our gut, then sending the person to jail is a very efficient way of sending the responsible bacteria to jail.
Re:Morality questions by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-22 10:07 · Score: 2

Well, the way my kids "behave," you'd think they could do better on those tests, "if they just applied themselves." "They're obviously really smart, they just don't talk like other kids their age do.." etc. There's a reason it's called a dis-ability, but, from a parent's ever optimistic perspective, they're "differently-abled" and I hope I can help them find a way to be themselves and also not get clobbered by the competitive world out there.
Re:Morality questions by Immerman · 2014-02-22 10:09 · Score: 1

Can you suggest any way short of some hypotheical mind-control in which a person could be deprived of free will? Without having some evidence that such a thing has truly happened you're simply granting someone a free pass on their actions. You could be damaged in such a way that certain options are no longer available, or I could hold a gun to your daughters head and say you must do X, Y and Z, but it is still your choice to value your daughter's life over the consequences of your actions. In the extreme case, so long as you are free to act death is always an option. And if you are not free to act then your will or lack thereof is irrelevant.
I do not argue against the idea that it is possible to set in motion a course of events which you can neither predict nor stop, but I don't see how that is relevant to the idea of free will. To the limits of personal responsibility perhaps, but not to free will. If I dislodge a large boulder so that it rolls down a mountain I may not be able to predict or alter its course, but it's still my will that set it in motion, and my will that determines what *I* do next.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Morality questions by JoeMerchant · 2014-02-22 10:18 · Score: 2

Well, depending on who is administering justice, my kids may well end up incarcerated some day. They're not violent, or harmful to others, or mean, or prone to unusual destruction of property or theft, but they don't follow verbal directions well, at all. Judging from all the Cops episodes ever produced, failing to follow the officer's direction, immediately, invariably leads to arrest... We've also been through a whole host of elementary schools, with principals that ranged from apathetic, to incompetent, to outright vicious and retaliatory, to compassionate and very helpful. The vicious one, among other things, sent the county officials to our home to "inspect" the home living conditions, in direct retaliation for us standing our ground about not being locked up in the rubber room all day long. The county official became our good friend to the point that she was no longer called in to any consultation meetings because the county people didn't want us having her on our side in the meetings...
If such a "magic pill" existed, and the kids expressed a desire for it, I would give it to them if I thought they understood what it would do. We already have used pro-biotics and similar treatments, not in hopes of "curing" or "changing" them, but in hopes of helping them to feel and function better. Success has been limited, but not non-existent.
Re:Morality questions by JesseMcDonald · 2014-02-22 11:19 · Score: 1

Can you suggest any way short of some hypotheical mind-control in which a person could be deprived of free will?
I'm not sure there is any objective way to determine whether a person has free will in the first place, which would imply that there is no objective way to determine whether they've lost it. Manipulation of the information you receive would be one way to create a barrier between your apparent ability to make choices and their actual consequences, though you could still argue that you made the choices freely within the context of the information you had. Your ability to exercise your free will within the real world would be eliminated, however.
The original problem was much simpler; I was merely objecting to the idea that if one person is an automaton, everyone else must also be automatons. Looking at this from the opposite perspective, the fact that some people have free will would not imply that everything they interact with must also have free will. They may interact with machines, for example, which emulate human appearance and behavior to an arbitrary degree and yet are controlled by deterministic programs. The program may recognize that it has no free will, while granting that presumption to the humans around it. Also, humans under a certain age are not generally considered to have developed the capacity for making deliberate choices, and instinctive responses can interfere with a person's ability to choose how they behave, to varying degrees.
I suppose the short version is that the scope for free will can vary between no impact on the real world and complete control over all your interactions. It's not a binary question of "do you have free will", but rather a continuum—and the result can vary depending on the individual and their circumstances. I wouldn't think of that as giving anyone a "free pass" however; the consequence of admitting that you can't or won't take responsibility (regardless of whether you were acting out of free will or not) is the forfeiture of your rights as a free human being. You would indeed be rendered free of any blame, but it's not a "get out of jail free" card; quite the opposite, in fact.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:Morality questions by gzuckier · 2014-02-22 15:21 · Score: 1

Like the legal arguments which ensue on the occasional arrest of a mass shooter who does not die on the spot, as to whether he is insane or not. Oh, no, he shot up a dozen strangers and made no attempt to escape capture or death for good logical reasons.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Morality questions by gzuckier · 2014-02-22 15:28 · Score: 2

Interesting to ask people whether, if we could guarantee a person would never commit a crime again, they would still need to be punished. Lots of people say yes, but have trouble explaining why. They're too embarrassed to say they like the idea of revenge.
On another note, C. S. Lewis points out in "That Hideous Strength", that when we set up punishment for crimes, the length of the sentence is specified; but if you repudiate this as primitive and barbaric and bring about new modern methods of rehabilitation, then you can keep the guy forever if he doesn't demonstrate proper rehabilitation.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Morality questions by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:19 · Score: 1

Society doesn't really embrace the notion of reform and cannot...reform is a personal choice. Punishment serves only as deterrent meant to sway the personal economic choice of certain crimes toward a decision more appropriate for everyone.
"I could smash this dude and take his money which is a positive benefit for me, but if I get caught I know I will be prosecuted and punished which is not worth a couple hundred dollars...never mind"
One could argue that the person who didn't reason and come to this conclusion was mentally ill and that most of the people in prison are indeed mentally ill.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Morality questions by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:25 · Score: 1

Ostracism only serves to amplify and encourage bad behavior.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Morality questions by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:28 · Score: 1

....and we could bring our kids to see them...and the visitors could feed them...and cheer when they do tricks. I think you are on to something.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Pro-biotic yoghurt is the new Red Bull by bazmail · 2014-02-21 10:01 · Score: 0

The more I read about gut bacteria the more it looks like we are merely a life support vessel for these creatures. Who is to say that as a colony they don't influence decision making of the host? There are examples of this sort of thing all over nature.

Re:Pro-biotic yoghurt is the new Red Bull by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 10:48 · Score: 0

Yogurt and Red Bull? Just never drink milk with Red Bull unless you want to hurl your guts out!

Meat Tubes by resistant · 2014-02-21 10:02 · Score: 2

I'm not surprised by this discovery. Evolutionarily, we're all really complex support systems for long meat tubes that ingest energy and building materials and excrete whatever is not useful. Even the mighty brain only exists to increase the odds of the tube surviving. Bacterial strains that also increase the chances of a meat tube surviving will be favored by simple Darwinian logic. Naturally, they will influence every body system, including the brain.

Admittedly, one doesn't like to feel like a puppet. I wonder what this means for the free will that humans supposedly possess.

--
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!

Re:Meat Tubes by jeffmflanagan · 2014-02-21 10:50 · Score: 2

> I wonder what this means for the free will that humans supposedly possess.

Nothing, because free will isn't really a meaningful concept. It all falls apart when you try to define it. You either wind up with a meaningless definition, or no free will. It appears that we respond to stimulus in the only way we can based on our biology and past experiences. Free will became extremely unlikely when we realized that souls are imaginary.
Re:Meat Tubes by easyTree · 2014-02-21 15:03 · Score: 2

Nothing, because free will isn't really a meaningful concept. It all falls apart when you try to define it.
When definition proves difficult, often a series of examples allows the definition to be communicated indirectly.
I'll start the ball rolling by responding only with the word 'cheese' as a full explanation of your incorrectness.

--
Requiem for the American Dream
Re:Meat Tubes by Immerman · 2014-02-21 15:06 · Score: 2

> Free will became extremely unlikely when we realized that souls are imaginary.
Really, when did they prove this?
Free will first became completely impossible when we discovered that everything in the universe operated according to deterministic physical laws.
Then it became probably illusory when we discovered that quantum mechanics was non-deterministic and had an influence on brain function.
I'm not overly inclined to believe in an personal immortal soul (which is an extremely narrow subset), but I can't think of any way you could prove that some meta-physical influence doesn't "stack the dice" of the quantum phenomena that influence brain function. Even if you could prove that there were no statistical anomalies present all that does is set limits on the kinds of influences possible - after all rolling 2,3,5 is statistically equivalent to rolling 5,2,3, but can make a huge difference on the outcome of the game.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Meat Tubes by William+Baric · 2014-02-21 18:09 · Score: 1

We've never seen or measured anything which might be qualified as a "soul", so the idea that it exists is just that, an idea. It is a concept we invented out of nothing to try to explain some of our perceptions. The idea of a "soul" is something we imagined. So yes, souls are clearly imaginary. It doesn't mean they don't exist, after all I could imagine horses with wings without any kind of evidence and then realize after that they really do exist, but it doesn't change that until I have some kind of physical proof horses with wings exist, they are only imaginary.
As for quantum mechanics, when did they prove it was intrinsically non-deterministic? It has the appearance of being non-deterministic, but this is if our basics assumptions, like locality, are correct. And that's a very big if. Also, quantum mechanics is not only in our brain, it's everywhere. Does that mean that a grain of sand has a soul?
Trying to use quantum mechanics to give some validity to the idea of "souls" has absolutely no logical basis whatsoever. It's basically : here's something you don't fully understand, so let me use it as a vessel for my own imaginary ideas, that way you won't be able to disprove them.
Re:Meat Tubes by Immerman · 2014-02-21 20:00 · Score: 1

All right, fair enough on the imaginary != not real part. As for non-determinism, well the evidence currently strongly suggest it, I would say that any attempt to impose determinism on it is itself imaginary at this point :)
As for sand souls - well, the Taoist perspective could be interpreted as a yes, though perhaps not in a form a Christian would recognize. And personally I find Taoism to be one of the most rational perspectives on the matter, with the core tenets being trivially true on at least the metaphorical level, and substantially free of inconsistencies internally or with the observable world when taken literally, which puts it head-and-shoulders above most other philosophies that address the nature of life.
As for QM, it simply provides a potential resolution to one of the paradoxes of our existence:
(Proposition 1) We appear to possess free will
(Proposition 2) Our current understanding of the universe provides for no possible way for free will to exist.
The logical conclusion is that either:
(A) free will is an illusion, which is a hypothesis of no possible benefit to anyone if true, and which denigrates the human condition if false, or
(B) free will originates somewhere outside the universe as we currently understand it, but must necessarily manifest within the rules of the game
(A) is not worth choosing to even consider - since if we actually have any choice in the matter then it is false.
Therefore (B) is the only rational thing to choose to believe, and "stacking the deck" of QM is simply one of the speculative mechanisms by which free will could manifest without assuming a fundamental flaw in our current understanding of the universe.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Meat Tubes by William+Baric · 2014-02-22 04:34 · Score: 1

No, there is no evidence which strongly suggest a non-deterministic universe. There are different interpretations of data, some imply quantum mechanics is non-deterministic, some imply it is deterministic and some doesn't imply anything. None seems better than the other. Up to now, we have no way to know if quantum mechanics is deterministic or not. Popular belief is that it is non-deterministic, but popular beliefs are not "science".
About free will, it seems obvious to me I don't have free will. When I think about something, I don't know why I decide to think about it. I just do. I may of course choose to think about something, but in the end I don't know why I made this choice. I just did. Some of my actions can be the result of a long reflection, but I have no control over why I began that reflection and why I chose some conclusions over others. I just did. I may try to understand myself, but it's just turtles all the way down. After the last turtles, I must admit have no control over what I do. I just do. Where is free will in that?
Re:Meat Tubes by Immerman · 2014-02-22 08:34 · Score: 1

All right then, so both determinism and non-determinsim are imaginary at this point. So then, which is more profitable to believe in?
Our conscious mind is but a small fraction of our awareness - does the fact that many of your choices occur in places your mind cannot see mean that they are not your choices? You are not your mind, however much that particular metaphysical organ may trumpet it's own self-importance. How about the instinctual "mind" bequeathed us by billions of years of evolution? Is that not just as much "us", even if it happens on levels where our consciousness cannot clearly see? Even if you choose to see it as some beast that carries your mind around, it is a beast that your mind can train as surely as Pavlov trained his dogs.
It is certainly possible we have no free will - but believing in it is the only option that makes sense. If we have no free will your belief means nothing, but if we do, then by your disbelief you have effectively surrendered it. It's simple game theory - if there's only one possible scenario where you can win, then it's foolish to assume you're in any other scenario. Maybe it doesn't work so well as a reason to believe in God and limit your life accordingly, but to believe in free will and expand your options?
It just seems to me very sad to adopt a perspective that assumes nothing you do matters. Walk out your door and cure cancer, or kill millions, none of it reflects on you in any way, because "you" do not exist except as a mirage within an automaton. It's a perspective that, if false, facilitates the walking of paths of empty hedonism or monstrosity, with no commensurate benefits unless you are hiding from the responsibility for bad choices in your past. And even then it keeps you hiding in a prison of your own making, rather than allowing you to stride forward and make new and better choices. The bonds between who we were yesterday and who we are today are only as strong as we allow them to be.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Meat Tubes by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:47 · Score: 1

Because there is an aspect of your mind that can compare/contrast/question/fork your random thoughts based on an explicit will for something different. You mean to argue that you have never done that? Sometimes it is called: thinking outside the box. We have evolved to the point where we *can* do this...most people do not but the capability is there.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

antibiotics experience by Khashishi · 2014-02-21 10:04 · Score: 1

I was on antibiotics for a staph infection a while back, and I felt a general weakness and lack of drive. I know the antibiotics were working because I stopped farting, and my poops were relatively unprocessed and didn't stink.

Would this count as an epigenome? by Deus.1.01 · 2014-02-21 10:10 · Score: 1

By replacing the entire bacterial culture could this be passed along maternally...

Or a forced nurture of an epigen carrier and genes it might affect?

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Re:Would this count as an epigenome? by Immerman · 2014-02-21 15:19 · Score: 1

I believe epigenetics typically refers more to changes to the cell hosting the DNA. Maybe meta-genetics for our internal symbiotic ecosystem? Symbi-genetics?
Actually a lot of bacteria don't enter the bloodstream and thus can't be passed to the developing fetus. But as far as a "meta-genome" is concerned consider this: Roughly half of the sugars in human milk are completely indigestible to humans. But they do happen to be the ideal growth medium for the gut bacteria necessary to digest the typical human diet. Bacteria that must find their way from one human gut to another via some other, environmental, route.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:Stating the obvious by bluefoxlucid · 2014-02-21 10:10 · Score: 1

Even this WSJ http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

I should have listened to my mother by Ukab+the+Great · 2014-02-21 10:10 · Score: 2

When she told me that donuts would make me stupid.

Re:I should have listened to my mother by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 15:05 · Score: 0

At least you stopped eating them before they drove you to join the police force; right?

Healthy bacterias by gmuslera · 2014-02-21 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Be careful with what makes you what you are. This shows the importance of not abusing generic/strong antibiotics, breast feeding childs for years (probiotics are probably an incomplete fix) and not removing your appendix without need. If you don't care enough about that, may be a fecal transplant in your future.

Re:Healthy bacterias by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 10:23 · Score: 1

It is often advisable (consult your doctor) to eat a probiotic food such as yogurt with live cultures when on, and after, an antibiotic treatment. I've become a fan of Kefir .

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Healthy bacterias by HairyNevus · 2014-02-21 10:31 · Score: 3, Informative

"Another method of adjusting the bacterial profile of your gut is to undergo a transplant that involves taking faecal material from a donor’s intestine – often a close relative – and implanting into a recipient via enema infusion. This unorthodox treatment has been shown to successfully treat infections caused by pathogenic bacteria colonising the gut."
Shit transplants....we've gone too far.

--
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
Re:Healthy bacterias by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-02-21 10:31 · Score: 1

Probiotics have been shown to have a negligible impact on healthy gut bacteria. The only way, currently, to reliably restore gut bacteria colonies is to get a fecal transplant.
Re:Healthy bacterias by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 10:40 · Score: 1

... a negligible impact on healthy gut bacteria.
If you are on an antibiotics regimen that is what you may not have. The idea is to replace them when the antibiotics have killed them. I've had doctors recommend it to me (eating yogurt when on antibiotics). I would now use Kefir.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Healthy bacterias by ceoyoyo · 2014-02-21 11:17 · Score: 1

The vast majority of doctors aren't scientists, and many believe all sorts of odd things. I'm not saying you're wrong. It is a reasonable hypothesis, but I'm not sure anyone has tested it appropriately.
Some potential problems I see are that yoghurt and other "probiotic" cultures tend to be monocultures, or close to it, and have to pass through concentrated stomach acid. There are some good studies that show people exposed to a wider variety of microorganisms have healthier immune systems. Dirt would seem to be a better probiotic supplement than the manufactured stuff. This Kefir stuff seems to only have ten or so bacterial strains in it.
Re:Healthy bacterias by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 11:31 · Score: 1

The results of various antibiotics on gut bacteria are fairly well known - it kills them. The results on the digestive system can be "unpleasant." That is why you want to eat the yogurt, to aid in repopulating the gut with the bacteria needed for the digestive system to work properly.
It's because of the monoculture problem that I've come to favor Kefir. Yogurts commonly only have 1 or 2 strains, I think I might have seen varieties that have 4, or maybe even 6. But Kefir, depending on the variety, will have from 10-12 different strains. I think Kefir is going to be preferable to eating dirt since they all live nicely in the human gut. The stuff in dirt ...??

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Healthy bacterias by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-02-21 12:19 · Score: 1

Yes, that's what antibiotics can do - kill the bacteria. My concern is that you think yogurt gets them back. It doesn't work - that's what the scientific studies show.
Re:Healthy bacterias by ceoyoyo · 2014-02-21 12:27 · Score: 1

I'm not disputing that antibiotics kill gut bacteria. But I don't know that there's any evidence that probiotic supermarket products help replenish it in any meaningful way. Remember that a normal course of antibiotics aren't going to kill everything anyway - the survivors will proliferate of their own accord once the antibiotic is discontinued.
It's possible these products do help. If so, it still seems that dirt would be an even better alternative since the available evidence suggests that variety is very important.
My point is that there's at least as much evidence that dirt (or nothing) works as well as anything you can buy in the supermarket. Note that real Kefir is a dairy product produced by fairly open air fermentation, traditionally in an animal hide bag. It contains a complex mixture of yeast and bacteria, not much like the pasteurized supermarket product with a few selected bacterial strains reintroduced.
Re:Healthy bacterias by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 12:36 · Score: 1

Do they? The ones I remember seeing (IIRC) were trying to alter balance of existing gut flora, not replenish after a loss due to treatment with antibiotics. In that case, yes, that is what I recall - at least for a particular methodology for doing so.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Healthy bacterias by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-02-21 12:36 · Score: 1

I think Kefir is going to be preferable to eating dirt since they all live nicely in the human gut. The stuff in dirt ...??
The people who have Crohn's disease and going for the autoimmune treatment have been to Africa to stomp in some piles of shit to contract hookworm. Supposedly that works. I've heard it's possible to mail-order a porcine whipworm from Thailand which is more controlled and less likely to get out of control.
It's all banned here in the US, so they just do lots of bowel resections. That probably pays more too.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Healthy bacterias by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 13:07 · Score: 1

I think there has generally been a reluctance in Western medicine up until fairly recently to make use of therapies of that sort, probably for a lot of reasons. Drugs and surgery tend to be well known treatments, and have the halo of modern science and a certain specificity to them. Using leaches*, maggots, and hookworms would seem medieval, and to be something of a Pandora's box, even if it works. Still, at least some treatments of that sort are making a comeback.
Medicinal Leeches: Nature’s Finest Surgical Tool From the Swamps

Although long dismissed as quackery, the medicinal leech has recently made a modern medical comeback and is now being used by doctors to treat everything from reattaching severed fingers and salvaging necrotic tissue to treating potentially fatal circulation disorders.
Maggot Therapy Takes Us Back to the Future of Wound Care: New and Improved Maggot Therapy for the 21st Century

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Healthy bacterias by Immerman · 2014-02-21 16:12 · Score: 1

Western medicine does seem to have an unhealthy fascination with the utterly-controlled and technological. For example we've known for 50+ years that dogs can reliably smell lung cancer long before it will show up in any tests, yet have you even once seen a cancer-sniffing dog used to perform fast, non-invasive screening anywhere in the country?
Perhaps it's a culture reaction to its rather incompetent and superstition-laden past. I just hope they get over themselves soon.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Healthy bacterias by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 03:23 · Score: 0

So you are on a desert island for 10 years. You get rescued (doctors with a mission) and head to the nearest pub when your rescue ship lands. Beer please! ...it is a good start, but you think that beer is going to make up for 10 years on that desert island? Every day of those 10 years shaped who you are, and now you think a beer will get you back to normal. It is a good start, but where are the start-ups holding your gut bacteria in the freezer to repopulate after you take antibiotics?
1st rule - truth suffers from too much scrutiny.
(desert island = isolation (per se see rule 1) from antibiotics)
(beer= yogurt or similar)
If you are dying take antibiotics, if not for god's sake suffer a little and let your immune system do its job.
Re:Healthy bacterias by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-02-22 07:44 · Score: 1

Yes, if somebody were to build nanobots to selectively excise necrotic material that would be worthy of a Nobel prize, but maggots - barbaric!

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Healthy bacterias by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:50 · Score: 1

Dude, you need more than one yogurt. In this case you would need a lot of yogurt, probably more than you are willing to eat.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

TFA not available in UK by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 10:14 · Score: 1

Seriously, WTF BBC?

We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.

How fucking moronic. Its the fucking BBC that I pay for and I can't see a fucking article?

Re:TFA not available in UK by easyTree · 2014-02-21 15:32 · Score: 2

Duh! You need to be one of the overseas viewers who don't pay anything at all for the service. Greedy Brit :P

--
Requiem for the American Dream

transplanting by StripedCow · 2014-02-21 10:15 · Score: 1

I wonder when we can buy the first DIY gut-flora-transplant-kits from kickstarter.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:transplanting by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 10:21 · Score: 0

> DIY gut-flora-transplant-kits
Maybe something a bit more hygienic than 2 girls 1 cup.
Re:transplanting by Immerman · 2014-02-21 16:28 · Score: 1

A fecal-smoothie enema doesn't exactly require anything you can't pick up cheap at your local pharmacy, why would you go to Kickstarter?

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:transplanting by cold+fjord · 2014-02-21 18:12 · Score: 1

A fecal-smoothie enema .... why would you go to Kickstarter?
My guess would be to afford "marketing," .... maybe a snappy new name to put a fig leaf over it.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:transplanting by Immerman · 2014-02-21 20:04 · Score: 1

... I was about to make a snarky comment about how pointless it is to spend money marketing something that can already be done trivially with cheap off-the-shelf components, and then I thought of about 90% of the garbage I've seen for sale.
Well played.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Not really new by eulernet · 2014-02-21 10:24 · Score: 1

I knew that since a few years.

For example, multiple sclerosis seems to be related to some bacteria, that are inoffensive in the gut, but lethal in the brain (I'm pretty sure Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases are similar).
The transfer from gut to brain is facilitated when your body loses his protections.
For example, one of my friends triggered multiple sclerosis when his mother developed a cancer, he was very shocked.

By the way, bifidobacterium is used to fatten pigs, so I would not recommend to fill yourself with yogurt.

Re:Not really new by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-02-21 10:35 · Score: 1

There is no way to identify when MS was "triggered" - so if your friend was told his mother developing cancer "triggered" his MS, I'd suggest he consult another doctor. MS is hard enough to diagnose as it is - MRI's, multiple symptoms, and often a spinal tap are used to diagnosis it, and most experts would say that there is no certainty even at that point.
Re:Not really new by ceoyoyo · 2014-02-21 11:22 · Score: 1

There is some preliminary mechanistic evidence, and quite a bit of epidemiological evidence, that the gut microbiome is involved in autoimmune diseases, including MS. There is no evidence that gut bacteria migrating to the brain has anything to do with it, and considerable evidence that this is not the case. The specific causes of MS and other autoimmune diseases are unknown and probably very diverse. It's highly unlikely that a single event such as the stress of a loved one getting sick "trigger" them.
Pigs are fattened with food of all kinds. Should people stop eating food?
Re:Not really new by eulernet · 2014-02-21 11:44 · Score: 1

He developed MS more than 15 years ago, we lost sight 10 years ago (he had difficulties walking), life expectance was not very long.
Re:Not really new by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-02-21 12:15 · Score: 1

Regarding MS specifically, there's a physician in Italy who is claiming ~85% remission of MS after brain veinous intervention. He has some theory about excess iron in the nervous system, but even if that's not right, if the vein blockage is causative there's still something causing that (which could be autoimmune mediated).

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Not really new by __aagmrb7289 · 2014-02-21 15:59 · Score: 1

I am truly sorry to hear that.

Re:Stating the obvious by Kongming · 2014-02-21 10:24 · Score: 0

Dr. Stephen T. Colbert has been telling us to think with out gut for even longer.

--
(no sig)

Autism and digestive issues by MillerHighLife21 · 2014-02-21 10:31 · Score: 1

Considering that children with autism almost always have major digestive issues and will usually see dramatic behavioral improvement by moving to a strict gluten free, casein free diet that does not surprise me in the slightest. I will be very interested to hear what comes of this.

--
"Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson

Re:Autism and digestive issues by ebno-10db · 2014-02-21 14:22 · Score: 1

Considering that children with autism almost always have major digestive issues and will usually see dramatic behavioral improvement by moving to a strict gluten free, casein free diet
You're exaggerating a bit. Digestive issues (and food allergies) are common in autistic people, but not "almost always". Often they're not severe problems either. As for the restricted diet, it does work for some, and it's certainly something worth trying for an autistic person, but it doesn't have any effect on most of them.
Re: Autism and digestive issues by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 03:12 · Score: 0

It's a wide spectrum, but my wife is a therapist and has seen fairly consistent results. Almost all children on the severe spectrum have guy issues though. That's based on about 6 years of patients.

HUSH! by Deus.1.01 · 2014-02-21 10:35 · Score: 1

If EU hears this they will put potatoball up as an controlled substance.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Obviously by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-02-21 10:58 · Score: 1

> "His team is now embarking on human trials, to see if healthy volunteers can have their
> cognitive abilities enhanced or modulated by tweaking the gut microbiome"

Fuck that shit, my IQ is already 150. I volunteer as tribute to see if it reduces stress, with associated intra-abdominal belly fat deposition and associated metabolic syndrome issues!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 15:42 · Score: 0

Only 150? I'd be afraid to admit it :P

Maybe they were just feeling sick? by Marrow · 2014-02-21 11:05 · Score: 2

When my gut is in an uproar, I don't have patience for mazes and puzzles either. Maybe they were just feeling sick. Add stress, and the feeling magnifies.

Re:Maybe they were just feeling sick? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-23 05:26 · Score: 0

Maybe you should pay attention to what it means to be feeling sick, or perhaps you take it for granted that you're not sick all the time. I'd argue that if you're constantly sick and therefore constantly stressed and on and on..cyclically suppressed, that has a mental toll. Spiritual, mental, and physical health all seem to be interconnected. We are interconnected to our world through bacteria. The only thing not interconnected seems to be your circular logic. Get some bacteria!

Children with Autism by Moheeheeko · 2014-02-21 11:42 · Score: 1

" It seems the flora in your intestines can influence brain development as well as aspects of health and nutrition" Would this mean that its possible to develop a diet that helps treat those with mental disabilities?

Re:Children with Autism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-21 13:51 · Score: 0

You mean like this? http://gaps.me/
Re:Children with Autism by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 07:32 · Score: 0

My son has autism. Over the course of his treatment, we've met a number of other parents with similarly affected children. Quite frankly, there are an extremely wide number of possible causes. Without testing and science, any treatment is pretty much hit or miss. Mostly miss.
For example, my son's blood tests show an extremely high allergic response to gluten, suggesting that his GI may not be fully digesting his food and may be permitting partially digested proteins to enter his bloodstream and possibly bind to known neurological receptor sites creating many of his problems. Yes, it's possible that his gut bacteria are not functioning properly. But more than likely this is an underlying genetic condition. It's well worth addressing his gut bacteria with probiotics. But that's one relatively minor aspect of the overall treatment plan. Removing gluten from his diet is more important, and even that doesn't hold a candle to behavioral conditioning, social training, or medication. There's a lot we can do to help him, and to let him have a normal life.
In contrast, other parents have the blood tests done and see no allergic response to gluten. There are other causes. Many many other causes. Genetics, toxins in the environment, the list goes on and on...
Don't get me wrong. Probiotics are really helpful! They do a lot of good things for us. Cured my chronic diarrhea right up. But this isn't a magic cure-all. Mental disabilities have a long set of causes, many of which are not yet understood. It's a dynamic system. When the mind doesn't grow in the right direction, it can grow in the wrong direction, such as obsessive-compulsive behavior or personality disorders, making correction very difficult.

Re:Stating the obvious by TapeCutter · 2014-02-21 12:39 · Score: 2

Thing is your gut has its own nervous system, the connections to the brain can be cut and the gut will still function normally.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:We are a colony organism & by rmdingler · 2014-02-21 15:01 · Score: 2

Just noticed your sig.

I have to believe we will rectify the Beta to leave the legendary /. give and take commentary alive.

But my friend, I have lurked on the alternatives to the green line site, and it is the antithesis of pretty. Assuming your curious nature is spawned from the intellectual, root hard for a better Beta.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Beta by Immerman · 2014-02-21 15:51 · Score: 1

I'm praying for it, so to speak, I've yet to find anywhere else even half as good for rousing, wide-ranging discussions. I'd really hate to have lost both Groklaw and Slashdot in such a short time.

On the other hand I'd probably end up spending a lot more time out in the real world, which would be a much less intellectually stimulating, but do good things for my dating life.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Colon colonization by Immerman · 2014-02-21 16:24 · Score: 1

Hey, lots of species actually eat the stuff, especially scavengers whose gut is more prone to picking up invaders. Be glad our doctors have found a more palatable way to recolonize your colon.

I wonder what the rational behind using a close relative is though? I mean I could see a spouse - they're unlikely to be carrying any serious infections you don't already share, but a sibling or parent? I suppose it's slightly less disgusting than getting a transfusion from some stranger, but come on, we're talking about the difference between 9 and 9.5 on the 10-point disgust-o-meter scale. I suppose it would make requesting the donation a bit less awkward at least.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.

Re:Colon colonization by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 11:07 · Score: 1

Yeah...I can a see a chat window popping up at work and instead of the usual begging for a quick code review it is a colleague asking for a shit sample. Probably wouldn't go over too well.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Kind of gives a new meaning to... by bkmoore · 2014-02-21 20:55 · Score: 1

...listening to your gut.

Hitting the hornets nest here.. by SuperCharlie · 2014-02-21 21:23 · Score: 1

Google up GMO gut flora study for some fun and valuable prizes.

So in conclusion by aliquis · 2014-02-22 02:03 · Score: 1

So my thoughts really are shit?

All about fecal transplants by wealthychef · 2014-02-22 02:50 · Score: 1

I think that fecal transplants are the main method of making gut bacterial changes, right?

--
Currently hooked on AMP

If they determine this to be true.... by ilsaloving · 2014-02-22 05:29 · Score: 1

If they determine that cognitive capability can be improved by bacteria, then it would make sense to add this to everyone's water supply.

Based on the news I read, we desperately need it. Especially Toronto.

How to kill gut bacteria by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 05:56 · Score: 0

Yes those beneficial bacteria crucial for brain function as well as your immune system and sulphur metabolism (take out the trash). So you don't want to kill those beneficial bacteria.

So the food supply is now soaked in RoundUp (glyphosate) and guess what it does? It kills the gut bacteria and it kills the good ones 1000:1 over the bad ones. You would have to be crazy to eat glyphosate or the more toxic name brands like RoundUp. Yet people do that every day and they even PAY for the privilege! Yes step right up folks, buy and eat that GMO RoundUp Ready corn, soy, canola and cottonseed oils. What could possibly go wrong?

But some large corporations have said that it is perfectly safe and they own the USDA so it must be safe.

Dig your own grave and pay for the misery. What a scam.

Imagine the Uproar... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 06:39 · Score: 0

Imagine the uproar over scientists discovering a "gay" bacteria and developing an antiobiotic for it!

Re:Imagine the Uproar... by ToddInSF · 2014-02-22 06:42 · Score: 2

Imagine if there were a hetrosexual bacteria, and scientists developed and antibiotic for it !
Re:Imagine the Uproar... by datavirtue · 2014-02-23 10:12 · Score: 1

Actually this has been discovered....it is an in utero hormone issue...so it may be bacteria related and there most likely could be a cure if it was OK to talk about the reality of the situation and work on a treatment. Instead we have an emotional charge built up around the subject and call it a "lifestyle choice." It is no more a choice than heterosexuality. It would be nice to have a preventative cure....but we are stuck, for the time being, with our barbaric proclivities.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock

Gut Bacteria Affect the Brain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 07:14 · Score: 0

This explains why politicians tend to have their heads up her anus when problem solving.

How to fix it? by Windwraith · 2014-02-22 09:49 · Score: 1

I can't eat stuff like yogurt or kefir or similar things because of lactose intolerance. If it's true that I need to have it all sorted out, what could I eat to replenish my gut bacteria without having to resort to painful milk derivatives?

Re:How to fix it? by Novogrudok · 2014-02-24 00:14 · Score: 1

Google: probiotic tablets

For 50$/oz. improve your ratings at exams, your re by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-22 20:57 · Score: 0

Are we going to start selling it ? Under which regulations...

Slashdot Mirror

Gut Bacteria Affect the Brain

162 comments