Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Viruses Altered Human Brains

giulioprisco writes: A new study from Lund University in Sweden (abstract) indicates inherited viruses that are millions of years old play an important role in building up the complex networks that characterize the human brain. The Lund study shows that retroviruses seem to play a central role in the basic functions of the brain — over the course of evolution, the viruses took an increasingly firm hold on the steering wheel in our cellular machinery. In particular, the retroviruses seem to play an important role in the regulation of which genes are to be expressed, and when."

110 comments

  1. Run! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we 're all zombies, then?

    1. Re:Run! by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Based on our collective voting patterns, YES.

  2. WSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    William Burroughs figured this out decades ago.

    1. Re:WSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ricky, don't lose that numb-er."

    2. Re:WSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. But it was originally discovered in India around the time we launched the planet's first interstellar satellite.

  3. I KNEW IT by hel1xx · · Score: 1

    Something new to blame my lack of endowment on! Thank you!

    --
    IT Professional.
  4. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    This poster is likely a specimen having a recently-infected brain that may be ideal for studying this phenomenon in its early stages.

  5. There is only one answer.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. It's always a little eerie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, given that the alternative is Varyesiam dualist nonsense, I'm ok with being a meat machine; but it still always seems to be rubbing it In a bit for a damn glorified macromolecule to be calling the shots. I'd rather it be intelligence than, say, the flu; but still rather insulting.

  7. Agent Smith was Right by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops an equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet; you are a plague and we are the cure."

    1. Re:Agent Smith was Right by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Put on your best Hugo Weaving voice and imagine Elrond saying "Hobbits ... are a disease; and we are the cure."

      --
      John
    2. Re: Agent Smith was Right by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      I for one welcome Hugo Weaving as our new Agent Overlord!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    3. Re:Agent Smith was Right by dasunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Agent Smith: "I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops an equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not.

      Cute sentimentality, but considering how obviously untrue it is, that monologue always bugged me.

      First off, what areas have humans consumed so many natural resources that they can no longer survive there? About the only arguable cases I can think of is areas of desertification - and even then, humans do manage to live there.

      Second, mammals have no instinct to come to an equilibrium with their environment. E.g. rabbits in Australia - introduced a century ago, and definitely did not come to an homeostasis with the environment they found - instead, growing so numerous that they are a serious ecological problem.

    4. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft, never let facts get in the way of a good monologue.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    5. Re:Agent Smith was Right by gnupun · · Score: 1

      Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet; you are a plague and we are the cure."

      That may be true of modern, technologically advanced humans. Those humans that have lived in primitive tribes for hundreds/thousands of years haven't harmed the environment much.

    6. Re:Agent Smith was Right by QilessQi · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I'm going to enjoy watching you die, Mister Baggins."

      "My name... is BILBO."

    7. Re: Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Better read Collapse by Jared Diamond before you get all cuddly with yourself. If that doesn't work for you, pick up a copy of The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update.

      If you don't like either of those, then look at the projections from the National Security Council regarding the future of global geopolitical stability once climate change has really kicked in. Why do you think humans are considered (by ourselves) to be the world's most 'successful' species, anyway? Ya think it has anything to do with the upcoming 6th major extinction event?

      Cultivate some more viri, will ya.

    8. Re:Agent Smith was Right by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      "The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?

      Plastic asshole.”

      -George Carlin

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    9. Re:Agent Smith was Right by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Matrix lines said in the voice he used in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Ruins it forever.

    10. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just going to leave this one here: The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

    11. Re: Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading at "climate change."

    12. Re: Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to ruin Priscilla so badly?

    13. Re:Agent Smith was Right by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Oh, so close.

      You should have used "Mr Underhill" and Frodo.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    14. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but remember the lifecycle of the programs and machines in the matrix. By comparision to a theoretical collection of hyperrational superintelligent individuals living in a utopic pseudo-hivemind humans are indeed not very good at resource allocation.

    15. Re:Agent Smith was Right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      First off, what areas have humans consumed so many natural resources that they can no longer survive there? About the only arguable cases I can think of is areas of desertification - and even then, humans do manage to live there.

      We've succeeded in turning most of the places that humans can survive without clothing into places that no longer fit that description, and we're working on the rest.

      Second, mammals have no instinct to come to an equilibrium with their environment. E.g. rabbits in Australia - introduced a century ago, and definitely did not come to an homeostasis with the environment they found - instead, growing so numerous that they are a serious ecological problem.

      Yes, the difference is that we don't have any meaningful predators. The top predator isn't kept in check by anything other than lack of food. However, our means of food production is in decline. We can survive by going hydroponic, but we're destroying the last good topsoil on the planet. Interestingly, Ukraine is the home of some of the world's best soil, in order to get into the EU they had to let in Monsanto and thus assloads of chemicals will be dumped on that soil and it will be ruined. Monsanto doesn't know how to make topsoil at high speed any more than anyone else, they specialize in murder and destruction and not in making things better.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think human consciousness, is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self; an accretion of sensory, experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. Maybe the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.

      Russt Cohle from "True Detective"

    17. Re: Agent Smith was Right by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying humans are awesome, and I'm not dismissing our environmental impacts. I'm just pointing out the flaws in that speech.

      Take "Collapse" by Jared Diamond, since you mentioned it. The regions he talked about still have a human population. It's not similar to a virus, but instead a boom/bust population cycle common to some mammals (e.g. the infamous snowshoe hare)

      We may cause the end of our civilization in many ways. But humanity is likely to still be around even after the end.

    18. Re: Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the problem with people like you who filter out what they don't like. If you stop reading, you will stay dumb.

    19. Re:Agent Smith was Right by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      I doff my cap to you sir: that is indeed superior. :-)

    20. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rabbits in Australia would have indeed come to an equilibrium if you apply time. Your sample is too small.
      Also, don't you watch the Simpsons? for shame

    21. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet; you are a plague and we are the cure."

      That may be true of modern, technologically advanced humans. Those humans that have lived in primitive tribes for hundreds/thousands of years haven't harmed the environment much.

      Which is why there are still ancient megaherbivores on aboriginal lands in Australia, right? Or by "modern, technologically advanced humans" do you mean any people who can built boats?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    22. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the Matrix takes place in the far future, having simulated humans living out potentially centuries in the old matrices(?) Smith (and the writers) may be commenting on their perception of human nature. In the past we hadn't the capability of fully scouring the planet. We're getting better at it though.

      That said, I prefer to think of Smith's statement as an insight into the machines' thought process. They are an application of machine learning algorithms and this is the idea they came up with. It sets the mood for all further discussion with the agents and other AI characters. That they aren't going to be reasoned with.

    23. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chookers, Mr. Anderson!

    24. Re:Agent Smith was Right by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You do know that The Matrix isn't a documentary or scientific paper, right?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re: Agent Smith was Right by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I stopped reading at "climate change."

      They are your "and here's a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed" words?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Deer will also eat themselves out of house and home, even in areas where they are native.

      And looking at the history of the Sahara (which during major warm periods has not been a desert), and the difference between grazed (vibrant) and not-grazed (desertified) -- it appears that climate changes and disuse are the culprits, far more than anything humans do.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    27. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you overlook the matter of transportation -man has developed the ability and infrastructure to move massive amounts of food,water, and energy to area of plenty to areas where all the consuming humans are based.

      what happens in nature when a population uses up the local resources the population moves to a new area with resources or they die-look at any herd animal they migrate with the seasons as the grazing is available due to weather patterns and/or to area where they have advantages for birthing nutrition and/or the actual process of birth.

      Jack rabbits on a varying cycle over breed and die off through starvation in the Southwest. Deer in areas of abundance do the same until they cant survive when the resource stocks plummet-Central Texas

      Australia is a false example because you are using a non native animal. Look at the eco damage the imported cane toad has had there. Many species were released through the Pacific islands with the same results when they have few or no alpha predators to check populations. Pythons in Florida is a perfect example.

      Off the top of my head I cant think of a mammal species without an alpha predator which keeps its pop in check unless that preditor species has been eliminated by an outside force.

    28. Re:Agent Smith was Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you can go back a little bit to William Burroughs ---
      http://www.brainsturbator.com/...
      "My basis theory is that the written word was literally a virus that made spoken word possible. The word has not been recognized as a virus because it has achieved a state of stable symbiosis with the host...(This symbiotic relationship is now breaking down for reasons I will suggest later.)

      Is the virus then simply a time bomb left on this planet to be activated by remote control? An extermination program in fact? In its path from full virulence to its ultimate goal of symbiosis will any human creature survive? Is the white race, which would seem to be more under virus control than the black yellow and brown races, giving any indication of workable symbiosis?"

  8. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't removatize Bushificationisms from my head brain. Should I visitify a therapisterizer?

    A thrud xposyer will helpificate this problemification....

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  9. Or possibly not. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if "life" figured out how to use viruses to better itself over time?
    What if it was life itself that created viruses to better itself over time?
    This isn't a commonly accepted theory on the origins of viruses. The closest one being that cells were the origin through accidental escapees of chunks of genes that eventually over time resulted in just the right group of them to escape in a way that could infect others, and over time this just got out of hand.
    But it still doesn't explain many of the complex mechanisms involved with viruses. There is a huge missing hole there. Could be they just evolved over time without killing hosts and they then went bad over time from there. So-called carriers.
    I still prefer to think viruses were originated through evolution itself trying to create a better way of evolving on a large-scale in the body, possibly even cross-lifeform, and it got horribly out of control when some things mutated in the wrong way and led to all the horrific viruses we have now.
    We'll still not know until we research more viral genes. It is the new frontier of genetics. So much we don't know about them.

    But it would be neat. Good viruses. *
    Queue Red Dwarf clips.

    * technically possible and is even used in medicine. And it will be used significantly more in the coming years, keyword years, not even decades, it is a growing industry. Fun/scary times ahead. Get in to biology if you want a career change.

  10. It's quite interesting. by hel1xx · · Score: 0

    I would think this will do wonders for gene therapies.This could possibly open up a bunch of treatments for various diseases if we understand the way the brain works better. Good news!

    --
    IT Professional.
  11. Sex, radiation and now viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few years ago New Scientist had an interesting article that made me look at viruses in a different light.
    It basically said that viruses allow different species to exchange genetic material beyond what would be possible with
    sex alone. They had some example like the development of the placenta :
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/02/14/mammals-made-by-viruses/

    1. Re:Sex, radiation and now viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just one of many forms of epigenetics.

  12. Now the anti-vax crowd by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    will latch onto the "your kid will never be anything more than a mere monkey" argument.

    1. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by hel1xx · · Score: 1

      ______ gives you autism.

      vaccines give you autism. researching the brain will give you autism (damn fancy brain scanning equipment altering kids brains!)

      These people need to be shot.

      --
      IT Professional.
    2. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1, Redundant

      These people need to be shot.

      That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for why the pro-vax side should be respected.

      "Believe what I believe or I'll kill you."

      Yeah. People who think that way are exactly the sort who should not be listened to, and for directly related reasons cannot seem to understand why anybody would question their values and assurances.

      Authoritarian followers believe what they are told, and the authorities of this world are either psychopaths or more authoritarian followers conned by the former.

    3. Re: Now the anti-vax crowd by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good luck with that. The raw milk they drink gives them super strength and their excellent homepathy will repair any damage.

    4. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will latch onto the "your kid will never be anything more than a mere monkey" argument.

      My child is an orangutan you insensitive clod.

    5. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shows what you know, Vax VMS was obsolete years ago.

    6. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we are much better off sticking with strictly untrained monkeys typing on a Beowulf cluster of PDP-11's. The VAX instruction set would be too easy for them to accidentally write Shakespeare.

    7. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a problem with the anti-vax crowd. They can keep their PDP-11s for all I care.

    8. Re: Now the anti-vax crowd by jbengt · · Score: 4, Funny

      You would think that homeopaths would heartily endorse vaccines, as they seem to be one of the few treatments that successfully use small dose solutions of material that causes similar symptoms to treat (prevent) the actual disease.

    9. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not trying to imply that an orangutang is a monkey. That's wrong, and it's completely racist.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      Ook.

    11. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Opyros · · Score: 1

      And very dangerous to say in front of the Librarian of Unseen University...

    12. Re: Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you're assuming there's some semblance of logic in their way of thinking.
      If there's no popular anecdote to support it, it's just a "theory".

    13. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "orangutang" is both incorrect and fruitest. It is deleterious to tangerines. On behalf of the Tangerine Benevolent Society, I implore you to stop!

    14. Re:Now the anti-vax crowd by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Tangerines is itself a racist term as it is often applied indiscriminately to clementines and mandarins. Please rename your society, and your fruit.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  13. Neuronal Tumors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article lies. It says, "[t]he reason the viruses are activated specifically in the brain is probably due to the fact that tumours cannot form in nerve cells, unlike in other tissues."

    Leaving aside the awkward phrasing ("form _in_ nerve cells" [emphasis added]), it turns out that 1% of brain tumors are neuronal tumors. "Tumors of the central nervous system that contain abnormal neuronal elements, termed neuronal tumors, make up approximately 1% of all brain tumors." (http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/radiographics.22.5.g02se051177)

    That said, I think I understand the gist of the argument. But I didn't know that neuronal tumors were so rare (or supposedly impossible, according to TFA) and felt compelled to fact check that assertion.

    1. Re:Neuronal Tumors by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article lies. It says, "[t]he reason the viruses are activated specifically in the brain is probably due to the fact that tumours cannot form in nerve cells, unlike in other tissues."

      Leaving aside the awkward phrasing ("form _in_ nerve cells" [emphasis added]), it turns out that 1% of brain tumors are neuronal tumors. "Tumors of the central nervous system that contain abnormal neuronal elements, termed neuronal tumors, make up approximately 1% of all brain tumors." (http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/radiographics.22.5.g02se051177)

      That said, I think I understand the gist of the argument. But I didn't know that neuronal tumors were so rare (or supposedly impossible, according to TFA) and felt compelled to fact check that assertion.

      I think it may refer to the fact that neural derived tumors typically form from the neural support cells (glial cells, astrocytes) rather than the axons and dentrite of a 'nerve cell'. Lousy phrasing and really a stretch as far as significance.

      Which segues into nicely hyperbolic title in TFA. What the research shows is that retroviral-derived sequences have some interesting control factors that are different from other cells. To intimate that this has anything to do with intelligence or even brain function is rather a stretch. It's a shame because the findings (a novel control pathway in the brain) is interesting all by itself.

      Sigh.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Neuronal Tumors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, the best I could take from the paper is that mammalian organisms seem to have taken retro viruses with a "when life gives you lemons..." mentality (yes, I'm personifying evolution, shove off) and used the viruses' transcription and their own defence mechanisms against them to regulate actual useful genetic elements. Really cool though, especially with how they've shown differences between cells and whole mice with knockout or knockdown genes. It'll be really interesting when they start bridging the gap between transcription and behaviour to show what the proteins and regulatory RNAs do in the cell and how changes in their expression change cellular and tissue level neuroanatomy.

    3. Re:Neuronal Tumors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tumors forming from glial cells are distinct from pure neuronal tumors, and constitute 60%+ of tumors. (http://umm.edu/health/medical/reports/articles/brain-tumors-primary)

      Tumors deriving directly from neuronal cells are possible (again, ~1% per citation I gave) but rare and apparently extremely easy to treat because they don't grow very fast. Actually, it's not immediately obvious if the 1% is pure neuronal or mixed neuronal-glial. So pure neuronal might be even more rare than 1%.

  14. Genetic engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As commented before, this seems to be a good method for genetic engineering Now when does someone note that this may have been how the aliens produced humans from lower primates? Oh, heck, I just did.

    1. Re:Genetic engineering by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Actually, these aren't viruses at all, but fragments of exploded Thetan souls....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  15. Error in TFA by Prune · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article: "tumours cannot form in nerve cells". This, of course, is BS that was discredited a couple of years ago: http://m.medicalxpress.com/new... Perhaps we should have a Slashdot discussion on lazy scientists failing to keep up with developments in their own field. If you write without bothering to read, you end up with... well, something like Slashdot...

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  16. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by hermitdev · · Score: 1

    Recently infected? Feels more like a primordial specimen that couldn't step out of the initial pool.

  17. lost hair by kcelery · · Score: 1, Troll

    I would consider human brain development is due to some odd genetic mutation when
    human had lost their hair. When climate changed, those who could figure out how to
    survive the cold winter lives on.

    For the hairless homo sapien to keep warm in cold climate is quite complicated as the
    fur from other animal is not quite ready to cover the body part. The cold weather forms
    some kind of selective breeding. To survive hairless, human were forced to use the brain.

    1. Re:lost hair by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately for your randomly invented theory, homo sapiens developed their brains in warm parts of Africa.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:lost hair by ledow · · Score: 1

      Chances are, the hairless homo sapien came about BECAUSE it could be hairless. Not the other way around (becoming hairless and then finding a way to cope with that).

      That means either warm climates where they mainly were, or already having the knowledge on how to keep warm, or both.

      And, to be honest, plenty of hairless animals survive without having to wrap themselves in lion-skins. And if you do wrap yourself in lion skin, the shape barely matters as you can always do enough to cope with very mild climates with the barest scrap of clothing (Newcastle, UK, on a Saturday night).

    3. Re:lost hair by mrbester · · Score: 1

      Thought that was leopard skin...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  18. Thought provoking questions arise like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are women so dumb? Did they get the dumb virus?

    1. Re:Thought provoking questions arise like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are women so dumb? Did they get the dumb virus?

      Well they can't be that dumb... they know better than to sleep with you, for one thing.

  19. Mulder was right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... We are created by aliens. Cigarette-smoking man is the key. We must find him. Lone gunmen to the rescue?

  20. From the Enderverse by werepants · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the virus that was found in the sequels to Ender's Game - there was an alien species that was completely dependent on the virus for survival, to the point that they believed it might have been directly responsible for their intelligence. Also, it brings to mind something like a biological version of the virus in Snow Crash, the concept that you could upload information to human minds that would instantly change the social structure as a whole.

    Once again, life imitates art.

    1. Re:From the Enderverse by righteousness · · Score: 1

      How do we know it's not actually art imitating life? Maybe Orson Scott Card already had a theory of viruses being responsible for human intelligence, or he heard it from someone else. But OSC or his scientist friend didn't want to publicise the theory for fear of being called a quack, so OSC decided to put the theory in a book?

      --
      Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    2. Re:From the Enderverse by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Another one, the religion virus in Snow Crash?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  21. Easter island by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    what areas have humans consumed so many natural resources that they can no longer survive there

    There isn't that many, but i think easter island would qualify.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Easter island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are a number of similar theories about ancient cities that were abandoned, especially in the deserts of North America. The land stops supporting the population at a certain point, and the city disbands. The Anasazi are usually held to be an example of this, but there are still questions about that, and there are other examples in the New World that might prove more reliable. In the Old World, one should remember that Babylonia was once a verdant place.

  22. Re:subject nobody reads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion you say? Could just be an echo in the ripples of time created during the chrono-wars that span space as it does time. A rather interesting result. Was it caused by man, or was God expressing his existence as the Alpha and Omega not to be forgotten. Chicken, egg, or frying pan?

  23. Thank you by s.petry · · Score: 2

    People actually believe this crap though, and it's pretty frightening. Not saying humans don't have sociopaths and psychopaths, but if we could rid ourselves somehow of our current political classes of people the problems would not be bad.

    For example, people in Africa that have lived for countless generations on the same land are having it stolen by "tycoons" and politicians. They have to move now because they can't survive without any land to live on, and their land is converted to exploit it's resources for a select few to profit at the expense of the masses. Happens all over sadly.

    I think we should convert to a very successful time in Athens, where politicians were selected by lottery... Out with the political class and the people that can buy them.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Thank you by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think we should convert to a very successful time in Athens, where politicians were selected by lottery... Out with the political class and the people that can buy them.

      Only a portion of the politicians were selected by lottery, and only racially privileged male landowners were eligible to serve or had a vote. Once elected, they could still be bought. Their society was based on slavery. Still want to convert back to Athenian government? Guess what? It was an oligarchic republic just like what we have now.

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

      Obligatory HHGTTG:

      "The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
      To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

    3. Re:Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but lets not forget that Athenian government got worse the more democratic it got. Empire building, interventions in foreign wars, bankruptcy, political assassinations, show trials. In a single generation the Athenians went from the most cultured people in the Mediterranean basin to a bunch of degenerate welfare cases that couldn't even stand up to the illiterate Macedonians.

  24. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

    Doing so would require the ability to breed, so that's a no go on slashdot.

  25. Re:subject nobody reads by lisaparratt · · Score: 1, Troll

    Or was it just someone terminally stupid misinterpreting their ergot-derived delusions and cursing humanity with the result?

  26. I thought evolutionists had it all figured out? by righteousness · · Score: 0, Troll

    The evolutionists used to say that human intelligence could be explained by evolutionary process of natural selection, and they made no reference to viruses. Meaning previously they never said that viruses were required for human intelligence to appear. Now these people are saying that viruses were important to make us intelligent. Meaning that if it was not because of viruses then we not have evolved. So why did they say they had everything figured out? Were the evolutionists wrong previously? Were they lying? Are they lying now?

    It is also interesting to note that nowadays retroviruses is one of the main vectors for performing genetic manipulation of cells. So if it is indeed proven that viruses were involved in creating human intelligence, can we discount any longer that humanity was created through genetic engineering?

    --
    Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
    1. Re:I thought evolutionists had it all figured out? by Chronosphear · · Score: 1

      Scientists, as a rule, don't claim their theories are iron-clad facts - that's what the mass media does.

    2. Re:I thought evolutionists had it all figured out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "they had everything figured out" Where did you get this impression of science?

      I am a professional scientist. I'm a published author, and most of my colleagues are respected scientists. None of us, and no one in my field that I've ever met, thinks that they have everything figured out. And none of us have ever publicly stated so.

      In fact, science is based on the idea that we are always adding to our total body of knowledge, and that new discoveries fill in the gaps of previous theories. Over time, we approach a larger view of the total picture of how all information and knowledge relates to each other. The fact that there is always something new to learn, and new discoveries and contributions can be made by people just like you...that's what makes science so powerful and beautiful.

      Perhaps you would enjoy learning about the history of this useful thing called science that benefits you every day of your life....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    3. Re:I thought evolutionists had it all figured out? by Muros · · Score: 1

      The evolutionists used to say that human intelligence could be explained by evolutionary process of natural selection, and they made no reference to viruses

      The article has nothing to do with natural selection. There are two main components to evolution, mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is the description given to processes that determine what mutations remain in the gene pool, and what ones die out due to giving a poorer chance of survival and/or reproduction. The article here is about the mutation side of evolution.

    4. Re:I thought evolutionists had it all figured out? by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      The mathematicians used to say that one plus one equaled two, and they made no reference to fractions. Meaning previously, they never said fractions were required for two to appear. Now these people are saying that one-half plus one-half plus one-half plus one-half equals two. Meaning that if there were no halves, there would be no two. So why did they say they had everything figured out? Were the mathematicians wrong previously? Were they lying? Are they lying now?

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
  27. How the Aliens altered us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know how the aliens altered our species, the way in which they have altered our brains and bodies en mass to make us collectively stupider, weaker, and more short lived than we otherwise would have been.

    If we can properly identify which viruses are doing these things perhaps we can eventually become unbound.

  28. Well if you think about it... by Viol8 · · Score: 0

    ... its not too surprising. If something works evolution will generally use it no matter how convoluted it is. Its also highly unlikely that junk DNA would have remained in the genome if it had no purpose since a cell that dumped non working DNA would require less energy to reproduce.

    Once thing the article isn't clear about when it talks about viruses - do they mean actual viruses are loose in the brain or are they simply refering to the viral DNA?

    1. Re:Well if you think about it... by pcb · · Score: 1

      Its also highly unlikely that junk DNA would have remained in the genome if it had no purpose

      This is a common error; the reverse is actually true. Cells (and by extension, us) serve DNA. Cells (again, by extension, us) are merely vehicles for DNA to replicate - they're the unit of evolution. As a consequence, the DNA does not care whether it contains 'junk' bits. It only cares if it's faithfully copied. Btw, this is an astonishing consequence of evolution that personally blows my mind. If anybody's interested, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.

      Note: I'm aware that DNA is a mindless macro-molecule. It just easier to anthropomorphism it for the purpose of discussion.

      PCB

      --
      'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
    2. Re:Well if you think about it... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. If 1 cell takes more energy to replicate than another due to excess DNA that add nothing to its fitness in a survival situation then guess which genes will eventually win. DNA doesn't "care" at all, its simply a biological instruction list, nothing more. If its fit it'll survive, if it isn't it won't.

  29. Damn, Laurie Anderson was right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Language IS a virus!

  30. Can I get some more? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    That's a flu I can use!

  31. well that expains one mystery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God was hacked with a virus because even her wasn't dumb enough to design Americans.

  32. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    Indeed. I suspect this specimen is immune to these virsuses.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  33. WSB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Language is a virus", William S Burroughs

  34. Humans and green slime will be future of earth by summguy · · Score: 1

    Until or unless the earth is hit by a meteorite or volcanic action causes an ice age - The future of life on planet earth will consist of humans and ponds (lakes) of green slime used as a food source. That's it. We will grow our population to the point where all "biologically-available" carbon atoms will reside in two species of life: Humans, and our food source. All other life, and the land and energy and ecosystems that they require, will be eliminated to support the expansion of the human population. We are doing it today on a scale that is on the virge of wiping out many of the higher order species. Over time all of the rest of them will follow. The earth will resemble a mechanical structure that looks more like the death star from star wars as we cover the planet with habitation cubicals, and lakes of green slime where we recycle our dead bodies and consume the calories and nutrients of the slime. Since we are unable to biologically synthesize our own food, only the most space and energy-efficient species that will be our food source will share the planet with us. That will most likely be a photosynthetic green slime. We will reach that point because we will continue on our current path of harvesting just one more animal species for food, cut down just one more forest for space and to build homes with. Just one more - it can't hurt right? The earth will tolerate it - right? We have no ability or desire or control to reduce our population growth, and we will ultimately use all available space and energy to cover the last square foot of available space, the last calorie or kg of supportable biomass will be contained in either the body of a human or our companion food species.

  35. Re:subject nobody reads by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

    It isn't stupid to believe what you see. If you're tripping and you don't know you're tripping, it seems extreeeeeeeemely real. Heck, when I was about 10 or 12, I had a dream where my Action Man was alive. It was so real that the next day I was convinced it was true, even though I was really old enough to know better...

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  36. Darwin's Radio by weiserfireman · · Score: 1

    By Greg Bear, explored this idea of retrovirus's controlling evolution about 15 years ago. It was a very good read.

  37. Debugger by rktechhead · · Score: 1

    I am generally fascinated though also terrified by this sort of thing based on the following thought pattern: https://xkcd.com/1163/

  38. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont get it

  39. Re:[bleep] have the CURE for the VIRUS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JEB Joke?