Meet the Scientist Who Injected Himself With 3.5 Million-Year-Old Bacteria (vice.com)

Press2ToContinue writes with this profile of Anatoli Brouchkov, a scientist who isn't afraid to take an extremely hands-on approach to science. Vice reports: "Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing. If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria, just to see what would happen. According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever. In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."

Comments

So he's a crank?

[Eunuchswear]

According to Brouchkov, Bacillus F has a mechanism that has enabled it to survive for so long beneath the ice, and that the same mechanism could be used to extend human life, too—perhaps, one day, forever.

Nutter.

Re: So he's a crank?

[DThorne]

Yup. Plus, he's making the story about himself rather than the science - it's pretty obvious he's had one too many screenings of The Fly.

Re:So he's a crank?

[Culture20]

At first, I thought he meant the genetics of the bacteria, or some mechanism in the cell. But then he just injects it in himself hoping for what? A cross-species genetic swap or that the bacteria would replace his body's cells in placement and function?

Re:So he's a crank?

[Bengie]

Since something like 99.99% of bacteria is harmless to humans and this bacteria predates humans, he just wanted to see how quickly his immune system would destroy it.

Re:So he's a crank?

[Immerman]

Or mere exposure to the bacteria has potential beneficial effects, which would seem likely considering the results with mice and fruit flies.

Keep in mind that our bodies are roughly 97% bacteria by cell count, if only a few percent by mass, and we're only just beginning to understand the symbiotic benefits beyond digestion. Until quite recently we operated under the assumption that the bacteria that colonize us were primarily infectious parasites, and only recently have mainstream scientists begun to seriously investigate the potential beneficial effects. It's still an almost entirely unexplored realm of biology.

Re:So he's a crank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Bacteria exchange DNA with one another in the form of plasmids (free-floating loops of genetic material that are ejected from one cell, absorbed by another, and integrated). So, it is possible that cells in the human body might absorb some plasmids that improve longevity or have some other beneficial effect.

Re:So he's a crank?

[cyberchondriac]

He'd watched "The Thing" one too many times and thought it'd be cool if his head could separate from his body, sprout crab legs, and walk across the floor on its own.

Re:So he's a crank?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoramus.

There are living organisms, in the real world today, that live forever (so long as they never run out of food and don't get killed by an outside force). Humans aren't on that list, but that is due to failings of our biological design.

Why is it so hard to imagine that we will someday have enough scientific knowledge to be able to stop our bodies from aging? It's not like we are talking about casting magic spells here. It is totally within the realm of reasonableness, once we have the knowledge and tools.

Re: So he's a crank?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not only hard to imagine (there aren't very many large mammalian immortal creatures for a reason), but terrifying! Imagine what our population would do if the death rate screeched to a trickle???

Someone should tell him...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you can't live forever, unless you're frozen in ice.

Re:Someone should tell him...

[Immerman]

No, then your dead. More fully dead than most in fact, since all your cells have been ruptured by ice crystals rather than continuing their individual survival for a time.

Re:Someone should tell him...

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're", genius.

Re: Someone should tell him...

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Carbonite.

And what super power did he get?

[oldgunpraa]

Sounds like it's gonna make a good Marvel comics.

Re:And what super power did he get?

[TheDarkMaster]

Tentacles I guess...

Re:And what super power did he get?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

He plans on moving to Japan?

Re:And what super power did he get?

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that as "testicles"...and I thought it probably took some to inject himself in the first place....it must be Monday.

Re:And what super power did he get?

[Krishnoid]

I think I saw him as a stunt double in "The Force Awakens".

Russians

[Crowd Computing]

Russian roulette, vodka, communism, zombie bacteria, Vladimir Putin -- Russians really know how to take risks.

Re:Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

And the physicist who survived bombardment by an accelerator beam.

Never underestimate the power of a man named "Anatoli"...

Re:Russians

[vikingpower]

No generalized health insurance, the NRA, limitless capitalism, sugar in nearly all processed foods, Trump, the Bushes - Americans really know how to take risks.

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

We already elected the biggest fuck up in American history

You voted for W.Bush twice, I'd say that qualifies.

Re: Russians

[MrKaos]

America is doomed.

America can only be saved by the people who love it. People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy and who are prepared to defend it. Your political parties are two different arms of the same political parties. You are deluded if you think left and right politics even exists anymore.

Franklin predicted that the downfall of the American dream of democracy world come from the corruption of the people. This is not to say that the people are corrupt, even when many are. What it means is that the people have been corrupted (access to education, healthcare, employment, media) so they can be incrementally cheated out of the right to democracy, with their rights progressively converted to capital.

Your most dangerous enemies are your domestic enemies who control money and power. I hope you can sort it out, I miss the nice America.

Re:Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such as downer.

Re: Russians

[jareth-0205]

But as bad as Obuma is, Hilary is pure evil. Just look at her eyes.

Yeah I think I have read all I need to to write you off as a nutjob...

Re:Russians

[operagost]

limitless capitalism

Yes, and flying spaghetti monsters.

Re:Russians

[hey!]

It's hyperbole to lump George H. W. Bush and George W. in together. While there's no question that George H.W. had a leg up in life because of family connections, he is a combat veteran with a long and distinguished career in business and public service. I disagree with him politically, but if I ever met him I'd be honored to offer him my hand and thank him for his service to this country.

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

He's anonymous. So either a psycho, a troll or both.

Re: Russians

[ComputerGeek01]

Yeah I think I have read all I need to to write you off as a nutjob...

Dismissal and Ad-Hominum attacks instead of dialog, the sign of a true progressive. I don't like Trump and I think he'd be the worst president our country has ever seen. But at the same time, as a New Yorker, I can tell you that between HIllary Clinton and people committing welfare fraud, the later is a better use of US tax dollars. This woman literally accomplished nothing for her entire term in the New York Senate and the only time you'll see her name behind some committee or senate vote is after it has hit national headlines. And here you knuckle-heads are talking about voting her into presidential office? Why, so that America can be seen as progressive by electing a female president? We have bigger things to worry about than the worthless opinions of some stuck up isolationist countries who have next to zero influence on the world stage. Who's the real nut-job here?

Re:Russians

[krammit]

I can't be the only person devastated by the news he doesn't have some kind of super power as a result of this. I mean, I guess not dying kind of counts. But it would've been much cooler if he had x-ray vision or telekinetic powers or something. Epilepsy is a lousy consolation prize.

Re: Russians

[dasunt]

The nice thing about a claim that Obama (or Bush or Clintob, etc) was the worst president ever is that one can safely ignore the claim and the speaker. We've had 43 people who were presidents since 1789. As rankings go, there are far better candidates for "worst president" than the current living contenders. Buchanan tends to do poorly when assessed by most historians, so I'd suggest him as a starting point for the "worst" president.

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

" Ad-Hominum "

Why the capital letters, why the hyphen, and what's "hominum"? I think that was a novelty song in the 1960s, no?

Re:Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

Vodka is not a risk. It is a promise waiting to be fulfilled. ;)

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

The "greatest generation" birthed a bunch of entitled little shits, who in turn birthed a bunch of lazy, ignorant entitled little shits, and the problem seems to be perpetuating.

Re:Russians

[bobbied]

No generalized health insurance, the NRA, limitless capitalism, sugar in nearly all processed foods, Trump, the Bushes - Americans really know how to take risks.

Sheh.... You know it ALL started by a group of folks who took great risks, sailed across an ocean with their families and supplies, landed in some remote, inaccessible land they knew nothing about, hoping to make a better life for themselves and descendants. Ever since, it's been generally the same kind of folks who choose to come here. Risk takers, big thinkers, people who work hard to make things better for themselves and their children. So why are you surprised?

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

It amazes me how brainwashed people are. Over the last 20 years this is how it works:
- republicans come into office, increase the US deficit, start some wars, destroy health care, privatize and give money to their corporate friends
- democrats then are elected to clean-up the mess that the republican made. Clinton after Bush, Obama ... oh funny enough after another Bush. Clinton generated a + deficit for the US. Obama enabled us to recover from the biggest recession *ever* due to one of the worst presidencies ever. Then the *gall* of the republicans is to blame the current government for the mess the republicans have generated

Re: Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

My great grandfather said much the same thing.

Re: Russians

[jareth-0205]

His first argument is that Hilary Clinton is evil because she has "evil eyes". You don't need to have dialogue with such a person, it is a waste of time.

You might be right on the rest, and unlike the AC you managed to make your point without resorting to superstition.

Re:Russians

[rubycodez]

Well he did it incorrectly. Gamma ray exposure would be acceptable; for other particles one would have to place a spider in the beam and then get bitten by it. This has been proven by many Hulk and Spiderman remakes, and thus the truth I write is incontrovertible

Re: Russians

[KGIII]

Wait until he hears what the kids say about him.

Re: Russians

[ChrisMaple]

People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy

That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.

Re: Russians

[ChrisMaple]

There is a significant difference between a merely incompetent president and one who is actively evil. Obama stands out as being almost purely evil in his role as President; his goal of destroying America is limited only by his laziness.

Re: Russians

[ChrisMaple]

The recession is due mostly to Democrat-passed bills that Bush Jr. was unable to get repealed. We have not recovered from the recession; the statistics used to make the claim of recovery (e.g. unemployment rate) are not relevant to the actual end of a recession.

Bush Jr. did do things that made a bad economy worse, e.g. the bailouts and near-zero interest rates. Obama continued those policies.

Re: Russians

[MrKaos]

People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy

That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.

Please explain? Why are freedom and democracy "two mutually incompatible ideas"?

Re: Russians

[MrKaos]

People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy

That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.

Since you deign not to come down from your mountain to explain your statement I can only conclude that your opinion is merely cynicism that is not grounded in any reasoning and therefore of little or no use.

Have you considered that because you are unwilling to explain your statement that you are a part of the problem you 'describe'.

Wow (not)

[rodrigoandrade]

Sure, injecting onself with bacteria sounds like a nice plot for a Marvel movie, and it makes great headlines.

But, while this is a brave act, it's incredibly stupid and statistically insignificant. What was he trying to achieve here?

This move wasn't much more than a PR stunt.

Re:Wow (not)

[ketomax]

What was he trying to achieve here?

Desperation of an old man.

Re:Wow (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

But making "backups" of the species by colonizing the galaxy is totally sane and rational.

Re:Wow (not)

[argumentsockpuppet]

"In tests, Brouchkov says the bacteria allowed female mice to reproduce at ages far older than typical mice. Fruit flies, he told the Siberian Times, also experienced a 'positive impact' from exposure to the bacteria."

Those are two very different species, both (apparently) receiving measurable positive impact with (presumably) no measurable negative impact. The hypothesis that the same might be true for other species, including humans, is plausible. Certainly I wouldn't want to be the first it gets tried on and honestly I'd rather see incremental testing on other mammals and primates in particular, but if the result is consistent, it could be quite interesting, a breakthrough even. If a man with formal training and experience in the area wants to fast forward the process dramatically, that's one way to do it. The guy who proved ulcers were bacterial, Barry Marshall, did something similar.

Nobody is saying this isn't whackadoodle science. But it does have the potential for valid scientific results.

Re:Wow (not)

[gtall]

I agree, this is not science. Science would be setting up controlled experiments and presenting the results in peer reviewed journals or conferences.

Re:Wow (not)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure thing, Mengele.

Re:Wow (not)

[ChrisMaple]

The control group is the other 5 billion people. "Peer reviewed journals or conferences" is not science.

There's more to science than just controlled experiments. Observing the survival (or death) of the bacteria in the blood or other parts of the body would have scientific value, as would before-and-after comparisons of cells that might be affected.

If You Want to Be, Inject

[Anonymous Coward]

Injecting extremophile bacteria makes one an extremophile? This reminds me of the book "How to increase your intelligence by eating gifted children".
Maybe it excretes telomerase into the bloodstream or something.

Re: If You Want to Be, Inject

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're being sarcastic, but if you look at the history of evolution of the bacteria, you will see that bacteria has swapped genes many times in history. They have even eaten other organisms and incorporate them into their DNA (mitochondria). Some of these super genes might make it into his cells and DNA, if the bacteria can survive in the human body. And being an extremophile, there's a good chance it can. It's not gonna turn him into a immortal, but it might slow his ageing. Let's let him try. For the science!

Too unique

[GbrDead]

> If you met him on the street, you'd never guess that he once injected himself with a 3.5 million-year-old strain of bacteria...

  Well, I wouldn't guess this for anybody.

Re:Too unique

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless he looks 300 year old.

Re:Too unique

[thegarbz]

I don't know, I'd guess pretty closely if I met someone lurching towards me moaning "Braaaaiiiiinnnnnss"

Re:Too unique

[Tablizer]

Oh, that's Donald Trump.

Soon, he'll be in a web of some sort and crying

[Anonymous Coward]

Help Me! Help Me! And Gina Davis is all like, uh, no way, dude!

greed fear ego uncurable conditions?

[Anonymous Coward]

causes spiritual bankruptcy?spirit of creation (incl. us, created by our moms) provides more than enough of everything we really need right now & forever (long time) with no personal gain motive? what a gig....

I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

He would inject me with his bacteria, too.

little miss dna cannot be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

MANic genocidal psychopaths on the other hand... talk about doctored results? do monkeys feel slighted because they (or any other species excepting us) are missing their hymens?

Re:little miss dna cannot be wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I've wondered who did that song for a while now. That's the paint all over the place video, right? Spoon Doctors. Glad I got that over with.

I haven't had flu in years either

[AC-x]

I call bullshit. How could an extremophile that's highly adapted for cold temperatures not only survive in the elevated temperature of a mammal body, not only evade the mammal adaptive immune system that is so effective diseases have to be highly specialised to defeat it, not only have any kind of physiological effect, but a positive one too?

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, this will have all the impact of a shaving cut, body detects infection, immune response, invading bacteria wiped out.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[MrKaos]

I call bullshit. How could an extremophile that's highly adapted for cold temperatures not only survive in the elevated temperature of a mammal body, not only evade the mammal adaptive immune system that is so effective diseases have to be highly specialised to defeat it, not only have any kind of physiological effect, but a positive one too?

I'd say that is what happened - but maybe he has qualifications that we don't. Maybe he will become a Russian super hero...

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[DigiShaman]

IANAB, but I do have a question: If these claims have merit (not saying they do), could it perhaps be something genetic or a compound being excreted by this bacteria that's ostensibly causing this? I know for a fact at least that bacteria are promiscuous and can pass on genetic material to other bacteria. In fact, it's that mechanism by which many forms of bacterial are becoming antibiotic resistance.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[GrumpySteen]

The bacteria in question is a strain of Bacillus Cerus. Some strains of Bacillus Cerus cause food poisoning, but others are used as a probiotic to reduce the incidence of salmonella in farm animals intestines. We already know that the intestinal biome of animals can have a serious affect on the animals' health, so the idea that this strain could be beneficial is completely plausible.

As far as this bacteria being an extremophile? Not so much. Baccilus Cerus undergoes sporulation when conditions are unfavorable. Spores are difficult to kill. Leaving behind spores when you die so that a new generation can arise when conditions are more favorable isn't the same as thriving in an extreme environment. If it was, humans would have to be classed as extremophiles too because we can freeze an embryo and implant it later.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[AC-x]

From what I've read there doesn't seem to be any strains of Bacillus Cerus that can survive in the bloodstream though, other than in immunocompromised patients. It may not be an extremophile, but an Arctic strain should have at least some cold adaptations.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all archaeans are necessarily going to be swept up by only the neutrophils. Additionally there is cross-talk between neutrophils and the cross-switch recombination system of the adaptive immune system (and substantial contact and cytokine and other effector molecule influence from neutrophils to other leukocytes that shapes the response of the latter cells).

Infection by archaeans generally thus can prime the active immune system.

From there it's a question of understanding the effect of the primed AIS; there are many many many possible pathways between the AIS and conditions that might lengthen lifetime.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[RockDoctor]

I know for a fact at least that bacteria are promiscuous [sciencemag.org] and can pass on genetic material to other bacteria

... and that's where it falls down. This might change the lifestyles of his bacterial commensal flora. But it's not going to change him because his eukaryotic cells won't take a DNA transfer from the prokaryotic cells of the bacteria.

Did you ever put diesel into your petrol car? Didn't work too well. Now try putting diesel into your AutoGas car (propane/ butane mix) and you're getting to a better comparison. I'll just stand on the other side of this solid building while you try it.

Re:I haven't had flu in years either

[ChrisMaple]

Possibilities:

• Immune response inadequate, body dies
• Immune response excessive, body dies from response
• Immune response successful, body now has an antibody specific to that one bacteria variety
• Immune response successful, body now has an antibody effective against a wide range of bacteria
• Immune response successful, body now has an antibody that coincidentally greatly enhances health
• Immune response successful, body now has an antibody that coincidentally slowly poisons the body
• There's no immune response, the bacteria cause no problem

and others, including gradations between those possibilities.

Not much risk.

[Anonymous Coward]

Extremely small risk. Unlikely that our body has not already inherited and evolved defenses against it. The most likely thing is that it would self die, since most bacteria on the planet do not thrive in humans. Even so, they need specific situations to be contagious.

And here we go

[Anonymous Coward]

Some billionaire makes a joke about retiring on Mars, you guys are selling your houses and packing your bags for Mars.

Some guy talks about living longer and it's "nutter" this and "bullshit" that and suddenly you're all experts on biology and how fragile life is.

But mention how low gravity is bad for us and that there's no magnetosphere on Mars and it's back to "this is simple!"

Re:And here we go

[bobbied]

I'm with you, both are stupid stunts with little scientific value. However, a manned mission to Mars would spur on development of technology which is likely to be of some value here on earth and have very little potential for worldwide risk. Injecting oneself with some old strain of bacteria, risking your life and the lives of others should it prove to be contagious and fatal was very STUPID.

Next he will eat Nobel prize winners brains...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next he will eat Nobel prize winners brains to gain their intelligence.

Re: Next he will eat Nobel prize winners brains...

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama will be safe then...nothing to offer!

Re: Next he will eat Nobel prize winners brains...

[bobbied]

He already got his Nobel prize... Hadn't done a blessed thing beyond being elected and still got the Peace Prize...

Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

We should focus on colonising Antarctica first. Global warming will make it habitable. Then try the ocean, first with floating cities and maybe eventually underwater. And finally, once we've master these, only then should we look to space.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[umghhh]

I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[MrKaos]

I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.

Fuck dude, stay away from razorblades and balconies on tall buildings.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[GrumpySteen]

Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further

That is what all life does. Why should we be any different?

And why do you think it needs to have a purpose? It simply is.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Your misapplication of induction is noted. We have comparatively advanced brains. We can reflect on our actions. We do lots of things that other living things don't do. Why shouldn't we be any different in this respect too?

We can choose to live comfortably at a lower population level rather than uncomfortably scrambling for resources. Low population growth is the hallmark of a developed nation, in fact.

The purpose in a developed country is that it pleases the parent to have children. It's the supremely selfish act - a celebration of one's own life. As long as that's acknowledged, we're all operating honestly.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Your misapplication of induction is noted. We have comparatively advanced brains. We can reflect on our actions. We do lots of things that other living things don't do. Why shouldn't we be any different in this respect too?

We can choose to live comfortably at a lower population level rather than uncomfortably scrambling for resources. Low population growth is the hallmark of a developed nation, in fact.

The purpose in a developed country is that it pleases the parent to have children. It's the supremely selfish act - a celebration of one's own life. As long as that's acknowledged, we're all operating honestly.

Low population growth is not the hallmark of a developed country, low population growth is the hallmark of color TV and child-bearing women having a negative view of the future.

captcha : stagnant

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Bengie]

Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Imrik]

Long term survival of the species.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.

More like population density without resource constraints.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

...there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.

We must be in trouble because the last time I viewed a video on human reproduction, the males were trying to reproduce in all the holes of the female.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is still happening. There is no "long term" for the species. Yet you people call someone who wants to live forever a "nutter", yet *THAT* is the *ONLY* way to insure survival of this species!!!

And *he's* the nutter?

Re: Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

You looked in the mirror? Surprised it didn't break...

Re:Enough with the space shit

[GLMDesigns]

you could help solve the problem. Don't breed. And if you're really ambitious you know very well how to help the situation: stop eating and drinking.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[swillden]

Low population growth typically indicates an educated populace, low infant mortality, and a high cost to rear children because of a high cost of living caused by a luxury economy.

More like population density without resource constraints.

In mice, and other animals who don't have either the means nor the motive to rationally plan their families.

Humans have rather different dynamics, and the GP's statement is correct. It's very easy to show that as infant mortality declines and wealth rises, parents choose to have fewer children and invest much more in them. This is why the first world is already at negative population growth. In some parts of northern Europe the population decline is becoming a problem, to the degree that, for example, the Danish government has been running an advertising campaign to encourage people to have children.

The population of the US would be shrinking, but immigration is keeping it growing by about 2M people per year. There are only about 1M immigrants per year, but first-generation immigrants tend to have larger families which props up the birth rate. However, the net growth rate is declining and assuming current trends remain unchanged the US will hit zero growth in about 30 years and then population will begin to decrease. The assumption that current trends continue is a pretty big one though, given the massive changes we have coming in that time frame, as automation increases dramatically. Climate change may have some effect as well.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[TheDarkMaster]

Never, NEVER forget the impact that the instincts have on the general behavior of the population. Everyone thinks that human beings are rational but in reality people are an entity 50% rationality 50% instinct, with variations in this proportion from one individual to another.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[someone1234]

As long as I mostly remember my past and still capable of what I was in the past, i totally don't care about my genetic make-up.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[swillden]

Never, NEVER forget the impact that the instincts have on the general behavior of the population. Everyone thinks that human beings are rational but in reality people are an entity 50% rationality 50% instinct, with variations in this proportion from one individual to another.

And yet, what is actually happening in real human populations follows the patterns I described, not the ones that develop in lab mice.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Fire_Wraith]

Mod Parent up.

Consider China - they panicked about population growth, instituted draconian controls (the one child policy), and look where it's gotten them - into the same boat with Japan and South Korea, the latter of whose birth rate is so low that if it continued at that rate, the entire population of some 50 million people would dwindle to nothing by 2700. Granted, it's unlikely to go quite that far, but it's worth noting that the effects on the population are significant even in the short term, as the number of aged (ie non-working) people increase as a percentage of the population.

What's more, even less advanced nations are seeing this effect. Mexico had a birth rate of something like 6-7 children per female in 1970, but today that's only 2.2. Even India is down to 2.5 and falling.

Re: Enough with the space shit

[cyberchondriac]

And you're gonna die someday (long before the Universe ends), so what's the point of living? Yet, here you are. Let's just try to have a good time while we can, though some personal sacrifice is necessary for the benefit of a society in totality, so don't get too hedonistic.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[TheDarkMaster]

I presume that you are yet another north-american who does not read before answering. As I said in part that you went over, the average is 50/50 between rationality and instinct, not 100% instinct as your binary interpreter understood. What I meant - and your interpreter also ignored or failed to process - is that you can not assume that humans would be 100% rationality. And I can put up too the disturbing detail of how the behavior of rats of the experience are similar to the behavior of actual human social groups when you look at the whole, or you already forgotten what others have learned in the decline of the Japanese population?

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like women consider you to be a disease, and as such endeavor to keep themselves as far away from you as possible at all times, and as a result the only 'vaginas' you've ever seen are in internet porn. Please exterminate yourself as soon as possible, you'll improve the overall quality of humanity by an order of magnitude when you do just by your not posting anymore.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you are suffering from Existential Crisis.

Our existence is meaningless because *all* existence is meaningless. So, humanity is no more a disease than wolves or weeds or any other biological organism. You state the fact that we breed (and, presumably, consume resources to the detriment of other animals or the environment) as if that makes us evil. But, if you have already seen the meaningless of it all, then we are no more evil than any other species.

The only problem here is that you believe our existence *should* have meaning, and that there is something bad about a meaningless existence. When people learn this, they try to think and think and figure out a way out of the dilemma. But this is not a logical problem. It is an emotional problem. It can only be addressed by emotional means.

I suggest you read up on the link I sent, and ask for medical help...SSRIs can keep you alive long enough to get a handle on things and figure out how to face our existence objectively and still be happy.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[swillden]

What you ignored was that I never claimed 100% rationality. I just described what humans in large groups actually do, based on easily-observed, thoroughly-measured and extensively-documented real-world statistics.

Re: Enough with the space shit

[guruevi]

Even though you're right, a declining population is actually a 'good thing' overall except where you have a population expecting handouts from their government. The problem in European countries is that they don't have enough tax paying people to support the tax-based retirement establishment. Immigrants don't help much because the first few generations also rely on the taxes for their support and pay very little taxes in return and then they go on to mimic the natives in population growth when they do get richer.

One of the reasons I came to the US was because there was very little tax to support others, you make it your own way, invest in your own retirement etc. however that's being quickly undone by a growing generation of people expecting handouts.

Re:Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid.

Well at least he had a point. You opted for the highly mature "You're a poopy-head!" response though.

Re: Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it be better then to just let the poor people die off?

Re:Enough with the space shit

[ChrisMaple]

We have comparatively advanced brains. We can reflect on our actions.

You have failed the Agent K test.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it

Re: Enough with the space shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Antarctica will *be* an ocean, so we might as well just colonize the ocean. However, I'm afraid fukushima has already made that an impossibility.

Meet the Slashdotter

[Anonymous Coward]

who ate food made with 14 billion year old atoms.

Who cares?

[rebelwarlock]

Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing.

Why are we focusing on inconsequential shit?

Re:Who cares?

[ray-auch]

To disguise the fact that the rest of it is inconsequential shit...

Similar to Sirius Cybernetics Corp products - their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.

Re:Who cares?

[MadCow-ard]

Anatoli Brouchkov is a soft-spoken guy with silver hair, and when he lets out a reserved chuckle, his eyes light up like he was belly laughing.

Why are we focusing on inconsequential shit?

because its like the cannibal who lives next door that no one suspected.... You don't expect a mild-mannered reporter to be Superman and you don't expect a soft spoken well educated affable scientist to be that nuts... Its inconsequential but relevant to our own wonder at why the hell would he take that step/risk.

Re:Who cares?

[messymerry]

It's really nothing. I do experiments like this all the time just eating the crap in my refrigerator.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Goddamn Santa injected himself with ancient bacteria in order to infect us all by his chimney antics!

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

...like your comment?

America

[Anonymous Coward]

No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be

the NRA - Like it or not, there are too many guns in the USA to get rid of them. Of you try, the police and criminals will be the only ones with guns, and that's certainly not a good thing. Also, the NRA's existence means we have great freedom of speech laws, unlike Europe, which is going the PC censorship route

limitless capitalism - It's certainly not even close. The government has its hands in business affairs all the time, through subsidies, red tape, inspections, antitrust laws, and so on. Some for the better and some for the worse, but calling it limitless capitalism is far from the truth.

sugar in nearly all processed foods - Yes, but who's forcing you to buy processed foods? Vote with your wallet and don't buy processed foods. Simple.

Trump - He's by no means perfect, but he's right that immigration is a huge issue that other candidates are afraid to even mention out of fear of being labeled racist. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over any of the establishment candidates (Clinton, Bush, Cruz)

the Bushes - Again, not great presidents, but none of the recent liberals have been any better (Clinton was about the same, Obama worse). We haven't had a great president in a long while.

Re:America

[vikingpower]

No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be

Why you should ? For two reasons: 1) You, too, may become the victim of a gruesome disease or a bad accident 2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.

the NRA - Like it or not, there are too many guns in the USA to get rid of them. Of you try, the police and criminals will be the only ones with guns, and that's certainly not a good thing. Also, the NRA's existence means we have great freedom of speech laws, unlike Europe, which is going the PC censorship route

This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing". Moreover, here in Europe, with strict gun regulation, indeed only "police and criminals" have guns, and we have no school shootings. As for the NRA's existence guaranteeing "great freedom of speech", I won't even bend over the edge of such bottomless stupidity in order to try and see a rational argument there.

Re:America

[Minupla]

No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't? Although I agree that congenital disorders should be

Because you're a moral person?
Or you believe in a religion that says you should care for those less fortunate then you?
Or you are completely self-interest driven and are so full of yourself to be sure sure bad things can't happen to you but would prefer not to be mugged for money by someone who happens to be less lucky then you and is willing to risk his life to get enough cash to pay for his treatment?

Or because you believe in living longer. Here's a link to look at: http://theincidentaleconomist.... - spoiler alert: The US spends the most in health care and gets a life expectancy equivalent to Czechoslovakia.

One of those reasons?

Min

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing". Moreover, here in Europe, with strict gun regulation, indeed only "police and criminals" have guns, and we have no school shootings. As for the NRA's existence guaranteeing "great freedom of speech", I won't even bend over the edge of such bottomless stupidity in order to try and see a rational argument there.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Ignorance is bliss, ain't it.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

Care to come forward as a non-anonymus non-coward ? In which case I'll be glad to continue the discussion.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

sugar in nearly all processed foods - Yes, but who's forcing you to buy processed foods? Vote with your wallet and don't buy processed foods. Simple.

I really hate this argument. Like the only option is to 'not buy processed foods' right. How about speaking up about the unhealthy stranglehold the American Sugar Industry has?

You know, the same Sugar Industry that lobbied against introducing a 10% hard limit to added sugar, which is a standard worldwide. Or more recently, lobbied hard against placing a limit on the size of drinks. Hell, they're big enough and powerful enough to keep keep foreign competitors at bay, when other industries are opening the doors to foreign competition.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

School shooting in the USA is three times as high as in Europe. And Europe has 70% more inhabitants.

Sounds like a change would be needed.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I've forgotten my ID a long time ago. I only comment here because I don't need to worry about yet another account. I will do my best to reply to your arguments if you choose to respond. The choice is yours.

Re: America

[thegarbz]

and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours, like smoking

Which generates more tax revenue than it costs in healthcare

obesity related diseases

Which in some cases are out of people's control because :

injuries from sports

So you're against lack of fitness because its a burden on the system, but you're against fitness because it's a burden on the system? You just won the stupidest comment on the internet of the day award.

pregnancy or sex related disorders

*blank stare*

and so on

Oh no no no. Please go on. This through process you're following is truly amazing. Though the level of logic you're applying may be suggestive of some kind of brain defect. It's a shame you don't have socialised healthcare, otherwise you could get it checked out for free.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

If you buy in to universal health care, it is not up to the individual to decide what the health insurance shall cover. That is a political process (at least here in Europe), and hence such discussions are made by elected representatives, with support by experts. Your argument is does not take into account the collective good, only your ( (mis-)perceived ) personal benefit.

As to guns, you make another classic stance against improvement, be it tiny: "Won't work, can't work". Really ? Did you try it, in your district / county / state ? Look at the Australians - it DID work there. Look at us in Europe. And worry about it ? I would, if the children of my fellow citizens were regularly killed by such a totally preventable stupidity. Even if I have (chosen to have) no children. You are a part of the larger whole you live in, after all.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever a bomb goes off the media insists that not all Islamists are like that, but whenever a shooter occurs all gun owners are the devil no matter how responsible they are with their guns.

Re:America

[vikingpower]

That is diversion of attention from the main topic of discussion (gun control). You don't even address the point made. As rhetorically effective as a filibuster.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

By total or per capita? I want someone to do a study on shooting deaths per capita in the U.S. and Europe. As well as bombing deaths and stabbing deaths.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely right. Let's shift the narrative to all bomb-owners are the devil.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

Here you are. As an intelligent person, you'll certainly not fail to notice that, after most Central- and South American countries, the USA tops the list - by far.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

Per capita. Sources:

World population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe (started counting from 1980)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1980s (idem)

Re: America

[jareth-0205]

There's a difference between universal health care for congenital disorders (which I said I supported, although I left out a word) and paying for people's risky or chosen behaviours,

This is where your whole segregation falls down, as your own list is pretty bad at idetifying bad behaviour.

like smoking or obesity related diseases,

This is where you're on safest ground, but where do you draw the line, and how are you determining that a disease was caused by smoking or obesity. Lung cancer is also caused by air pollution. Diabetes can be hereditary.

injuries from sports,

Sport that people play to stay healthy. Yes there is risk of injury but most agree that the risk is outweighed by the general health benefits.

pregnancy

You better hope that other people have children or your whole society will fall down, the aged population is supported by the working adults. Their children will be supporting your pension so to decide that you have no responsibility to them now when you can is pretty short sighted.

or sex related disorders, and so on.

Sex is a luxury?

The cause of illness is notoriously hard to determine.

Re:America

[operagost]

I don't know what religions you're familiar with, but Christianity teaches that charity means giving of oneself, not using government to be Robin Hood.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).

As for guns and Australia, Australia is an island, making it much harder to smuggle guns into. America is right on the Mexican border, and there are a ton of guns there due to drug smuggling. (I agree with ending the drug war btw, but I guess that's off topic). And also, Australia started with much fewer guns than there are in America currently. Lastly, there are millions of responsible gun owners for every insane wacko who shoots up a school. It's almost like banning cars because of the possibilty of vehicular homicide.

Re: America

[GLMDesigns]

It won't work because too many people think that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea; that when we formed a government we did not give up the right to self-defense. Outlawing guns won't work for the simple reason that such laws will not pass.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

I've thought that more than once - "the Americans are in a dead-end street with their 2nd amendment, and it would take amazing political courage and willpower to change that..."

Re: America

[vikingpower]

There should be two tiers of healthcare. One is what the government funds, which should be things that a person couldn't reasonably prevent, congenital/genetic disorders mostly, or diseases with unknown causes. For other things, people should be allowed to choose whether they want coverage or to take the risk, and insurance companies certainly should be able to choose to deny people with risky lifestyles (smokers, people who partake in extreme sports, etc.) That's a lifestyle choice, and it should not be supported by those who choose to take care of themselves by avoiding these things (as well as exercise frequently and eat well).

That is what we have in Europe **grin** sou you are implicitly conceding a point you were opposed to earlier in this discussion. You do make, however, an important conceptual error. "The government" does not fund healthcare - it is the citizens themselves who fund healthcare, with their own contributions. The state, at the utmost, fills up the deficit, should one arise. But then again, you seem not to realize that "the state" is not an entity outside of yourself. You yourself are a part of the state.

As to to guns and Australia, Australia is not an island. It is a continent which happens to be one and only one country, relying heavily upon foreign trade. And your "Mexican border" argument does not hold, as it contradicts your earlier argument that "there are simply so many guns inside of the USA. You can't blame on "the Mexicans" or "the drug smugglers" what you, in your own country, fail to control, it being already there: guns.

Re:America

[TheDarkMaster]

No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't?

You will remember this one when you have an accident and have to go through a complex and really expensive surgery... My country is a general third-world shithole, but here anyone that have an accident like the one I have described will not be left to die on the hospital door because he could not pay.

Re:America

[Fire_Wraith]

Ouch - that's pretty bad then, since Czechoslovakia no longer exists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: America

[Fwipp]

Not to mention that obese people generally cost the healthcare system less, as they're (relatively) more likely to die at 60 from a heart attack than 90 from a long protracted battle with cancer.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between "taking away all of the guns" and "passing reasonable gun legislation".

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice false dichotomy you built yourself there, Billy-bob.

Re:America

[khallow]

Morality is fine as long as it helps make the world a better place. When it doesn't as in this case, then it needs to be fixed.

Re:America

[pla]

Why you should ? For two reasons: 1) You, too, may become the victim of a gruesome disease or a bad accident

When my time comes, my time comes. Simple as that - And the sooner modern society comes to accept that as a healthy attitude, the better we'll all do.


2)Because it is a moral thing, for the stronger, to help the weaker.

In order to make the strong care about the weak, you need to structure programs like universal healthcare to really offer universal healthcare. Oh, so tens of millions more Americans have insurance thanks to government subsidies now - Yet my non-subsidized health insurance rates still go up 10+% per year? Fuck the weak! I support universal healthcare. Universal. Not "The middle class pays for everyone (except the 1% who don't care either way)".

Re: America

[jareth-0205]

OK, your reply was funnier than mine...

Re: America

[GLMDesigns]

What makes you think we don't have sensible gun legislation? What legislation would you have in place that we don't have now? How will legislation stop criminals and terrorists getting weapons? Does legislation prevent people from buying dr*gs?

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am glad we have the 2nd amendment to protect our rights against cowards like you.

You seek to punish many responsible people for the crimes of an irresponsible few. That is injustice, and protecting people from such injustice is an important job of government.

Re: America

[KGIII]

How about we expand that limited time period to encompass, say, just the past 100 years and count all deaths as a result of firearms, shall we?

But, more to the point... Freedom has a cost. It means bad things might happen and probably will happen. I am not a coward and thus prefer freedom. You're free to criticize, you're free to opine, and you're free to do with your country as you want. Isn't freedom great? If you want less freedom then, by all means, join with your peers and enact such legislation.

As Americans, we have collectively accepted these risks. You may not like it and that's okay. What you don't have is a say in the matter. Your cowardice is duly noted and your opinion summarily discarded. I'm not afraid of a mass shooting because I know how exceedingly rare such is and how rare it is to be a victim of such. The thought doesn't even really cross my mind unless someone brings it up in conversation. I am not scared and prefer to have the liberty to arm myself if I so choose.

Mostly, I kill innocent bits of paper. I slaughter the ever living hell out of them. I mean mass murder them. Sometimes, the other bits of paper are forced to sit idle while I slaughter one of their group. Sometimes I hunt and eat the food that I harvest. Sometimes the animal gets away. They're a bit more sneaky than the bits of paper.

Just because you opt to bomb your civilization into rubble every couple of generations doesn't mean that the rest of us are going to have to give up our firearms due to your fear. I have quite a collection of firearms - I've even posted some neat pics over the years. I've yet to see a single one of them take off on its own and start harming anything - not even bits of paper and they absolutely *hate* paper.

Cowardice is not a good reason to enact legislation that restricts liberties. You're free to opine. You're free to do as you wish with your country. You're free to speak and feel any way you want. I'm free to mock you for being a coward and wanting to impose idiotic restrictions based on your inability to understand statistics, acceptable risks, and understand what liberty means and why it is important.

Just because you can't be trusted with a firearm does not mean that I can not be trusted with one. Just because you're afraid does not mean that I am. Life is full of risks, some more acceptable than others, and the illusion of safety is not important enough to give up our liberties. Basing legislation on fear is not an option. It's how you end up with stupid shit like the Patriot Act, TSA, DHS, forced information sharing, data collection, and wanting a master key to all encryption.

Re:America

[KGIII]

Wait, what? You want the government to tell you what you can and can not buy for food? How about we skip that silliness and just, you know, teach people to eat healthy along with a bunch of other things we fail to teach? Why run around trying to limit liberties, masking the problem, instead of working on the root cause which is that people aren't terribly bright and some need to be taught things that seem otherwise simple to the rest of us?

Re:America

[KGIII]

That doesn't happen in the US. Any hospital that accepts any funding from the government (pretty much all of them except for some private hospitals that you can't afford to go to) can not refuse critical/emergency care treatment. You'll still be billed, go bankrupt, and be otherwise ruined but they don't just let you die.

And, in case you're daft, I'm not saying that the American health-care system is ideal. I'm a strong proponent for single-payer health-care. I am saying that the situation that you describe is technically possible but rather unlikely - to the point where it's just not something to be concerned about. If you're in an accident and it is an emergency they'll fix you up...

Then they bill the hell out of you, your family, and sue your dog but you'll get treated. You won't get a heart transplant or something like that but they'll patch you up if you're in an accident. You'll just be paying for it until you die from some other cause. (My daughter is a pediatrician that works in an emergency trauma unit. They don't even ask for an insurance card before they start treating emergency cases.)

Re: America

[vikingpower]

You seem to associate the private possession (and use) of firearms with freedom. How... odd.

Re:America

[Jack Griffin]

I don't know what religions you're familiar with, but Christianity teaches that charity means giving of oneself, not using government to be Robin Hood.

Whether it's the church or government, once the scale of giving gets large enough you need a middle man to manage it. History has shown us that the govt works better than a church at this function.

Re: America

[KGIII]

You're right. I do. I consider owning property an essential liberty. I am free because I can own property. In fact, ownership of property is one of the cornerstones to freedom.

You may not like it or understand it but that's saying more about you than about me. I also own a house (three technically), some rental property, shares in a bunch of business, clothing, a bunch of books and computers, and a lot of cars. Oh, and I own property in two countries (soon to be three).

Some of the many things I own are firearms. Just because you're scared of them doesn't mean that I can't be trusted with them. The only things that have to worry about me and a firearm are bits of paper and an animal that I think is going to be tasty.

However, I mostly posted 'cause I saw you debating with the other guy and, frankly, they were not putting up a nearly valid defense. You can't just win a debate with that guy and say, "I won! I'm right!" No... LOL No! That's like beating up a toddler and then saying you're the boxing champion of the world.

Now, are you going to posit that ownership of property is not a cornerstone of freedom? You can say that you're scared of firearms and want them to be outlawed, that's okay to hold that belief. You can say that you want to be less free (having fewer liberties) if you want and that's a fine position to hold. However, when you enact legislation based on fear you end up with really bad laws.

Let's clarify some terms: Liberty, freedom, and rights. You are free to kill me. You do not have the liberty to do so. If you do, then they will take away your freedom and remove your right to bear arms.

If you want to be less fewer liberties then you can do so and that's a fine position for you to hold in your country. You can even hold that position in my country but nobody is going to listen to you. I do not want to be less free. I want as many liberties as I can reasonably have. I like math, do you like math?

In the United States, in 2013, your odds of being murdered with a firearm were ~35:1,000,000. The number of homicides (and other crimes and even gun violence) has been trending down for quite some time.

So, no... Basing legislation on fear is how you end up with governments trying to put a back door in encryption, the TSA, Homeland Security, excessively long prison sentences, watch lists, no-fly lists, and many other things. You can be less free while enjoying the illusion of security but you don't get to use your cowardice as a means to take away my liberties.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

I was going to be polite, and answer you on your private email. However, after this reply, I'll do it in public. You merit it.

First as to my alleged cowardice. Although the insult doesn't hurt at all, I'm going to rectify this. I served for five years in the French Foreign Legion, in its toughest regiment: 2 REP ( 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment ), as légionnaire nr 173531.
I took part in operations in the desert in Chad, the Centrafrican Republic and on the Comores (where we kicked mercenary king Bob Denard from the islands).
Do we agree this settles the cowardice argument, and that I am very well to be trusted with a firearm ?
( After the Legion, I studied mathematics, and then got a second degree in software engineering, which is how I ended up on
Slashdot. )

Second as to freedom. You seem to define freedom as "the possibility to do whatever I wish". That is philosophically hardly defensible.
The best definition of freedom, IMHO, and one accepted by many philosophers and political thinkers, is:
"Freedom is the acceptance of necessity". As to liberties - these are guaranteed by laws, both by a country's constitution and
the laws based upon it. There is hardly any link between freedom and liberties, as legislation may grant you any liberty
( or take any liberty away from you ) without altering your freedom. Hegel said it more beautifully than I can:
"An individual may be free in spite of being in the bonds of iniquity". So - no, no and no: ownership of property is NOT a cornerstone of freedom.
The cornerstones of freedom are: a sane mind, education and at least a foundation of morals.

Third as to fear. I fail to see how European-style arms legislation is based upon fear. An average citizen of a European country is
not more afraid of firearms than an average US citizen is. There are shooting clubs, and if you absolutely want to possess a firearmd,
you can do so through a shooting club - iff you fulfil the legal requirements: you must be an adult without a criminal record and without
a history of psychological disorders. Want to hunt ? Idem ditto. And no, you will NOT be allowed ( at least not here in Austria ) to have
both your weapon AND ammunition at home. Why not ? Because of the possible consequences. We regularly read about children, even toddlers, in the US,
killing themselves or someone else because mommy or daddy committed the stupidity of having firearms AND ammunition in the house. Moreover,
we don't want you to kill e.g. a burglar. We want the burglar before a court. So no, firearms are not "outlawed" here: they are heavily
regulated. And a majority of Europeans see a country like the USA as a sort of hell, of which firearms are certainly a part.

Fourth, as to "bombing your entire civilization". That is a non-argument. Moreover, it is a diversion from the main topic of discussion, and hence irrelevant. Spoiler: I was born in 1967, and never took part in any world war. I AM, however, a staunch defender of the European Union, IMHO the greatest and largest-scale peace project ever launched ( and, up to today, a successful one, too ).

Fifth, and almost last, as to "everything has a cost". If you say that firearms are the cost of whatever, well you then undermine your own argument
by portraying them as something negative, whereas until now you glorified both firearms and your possession of them.

Sixth, and concluding, as to the attitude of many Americans towards firearms: it looks suspiciously like an addiction. Addicted persons
will say - and do !! - anything to both justify and maintain their use of the addictive substance. Addiction lowers a person's morals,
and I do, indeed, think that you are a person of addiction-induced questionable morality, albeit a rather intelligent one.

QED.

Re:America

[Anonymous Coward]

No generalized health insurance - Good. Why should I, someone who takes good care of his body, fund the risky behaviours of others who don't?

Because you still pay for it anyway in more expensive ways!

Have you seen how the poor get healthcare?
0) They don't and thus are less productive and contribute less to the economy
1) They queue up at ER and eventually get treated for "free" - which is a stupidly expensive way of delivering healthcare to the poor. Guess who pays ultimately?
1b) Many of those ERs shutdown due to those costs - this makes you less likely to get ER treatment if you're not one of the 0.1% with their own medical team.
2a) They commit crimes to get $$$$ to get healthcare, some get caught, end up in prison and still get healthcare there.
2b) They commit crimes to get into prison to get healthcare there - like rob a bank for a dollar. It happens - go google it.

It's because of really stupid and selfish people like you the USA ended up with the abomination some call Obamacare instead of Universal Healthcare. There should be no need to register on some crappy website that cost too much to be built and keep most of the parasitic middlemen still sucking blood out of the system.

The US healthcare costs are higher than most other countries and produces poorer results. It works well for the very rich, but if you're not one of the very rich or one of those parasitic leeches, you're stupid if you support the system.

Just compare the costs vs other countries, those supposed poor sick "parasites" won't suck as much $$$ from you as your "HMOs" or similar.

Re: America

[KGIII]

That didn't seem impolite at all. I thought it quite polite and I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said. I'll address them in turn.

1. No, that establishes nothing though it does indicate a high probability of competency - the Foreign Legion is a rather respectable outfit but your participation means naught except, perhaps, competency.

2. I not only didn't say such, nor did I imply such. I specifically stated the ownership of property. Not the use of said property to do "whatever I wish." Let's try for honesty.

3. Yeah, that's called fear. You're scared that someone will access your firearms and use them in an inappropriate manner. It's a justifiable fear and you can act on that how you wish with your country.

4. That's well and good that you didn't personally bomb yourself into rubble but your country did and that's why you end up being afraid of things that go boom. It can be summed up as a cultural difference - up to and including the propensity for warring with your neighbors.

5. It's not undermining my argument. It's accepting that there are risks associated with freedoms. The fewer the restrictions you have, the greater the risks. Again, I'm not scared so I accept those risks. I don't deny them. I accept them, knowingly and well aware of the potential consequences.

6. Addiction? Hmm... Would you say you're addicted to your hobbies? I don't fawn or or obsess over firearms. To me they are either a tool or a source of entertainment. I don't think the United States needs more firearm regulation. I think the United States needs to enforce the regulations that they already have. I don't *think* I'm addicted to firearms.

It's not even the greatest enumerated right, in my opinion. If I'm addicted to anything it is liberty - a concept you should understand seeing as you were in the Foreign Legion. I'd be just as pissed if someone were trying to take away freedom of the press, to be secure in one's papers, or even religion - and I'm not even a religious person.

Now, the caricature that you seem to think I am does, unfortunately, exist in my country but they're not the majority. Even us firearm aficionados call them "gun nuts" and they do more harm then good, but they've a right to be who they are. The vast majority of us are safe, secure, knowledgeable, law-abiding, and are extremely unlikely to go shoot up a school, murder someone, or even handle our firearms in an unsafe manner. Knee-jerk responses based on fear are never the solution. Enforce the laws we've got and accept that bad things happen to otherwise good people. That's the price you pay for liberties.

Oh, and allowed to own a firearm and keep it in your home but you can't keep ammunition? Dude... Just buy a big stick at that point. Enacting laws to protect stupid people from themselves just means that knowledgeable people are further restricted for no cause of their own.

I do appreciate that you didn't trot out the tired line of "your murder rate is 3x our rate!" True but three times a small number is still a very small number.

I don't expect we'll ever agree on the matter. I have used both logic and reason to come to my conclusions. I'm not sure how many people would have to die before I changed my views on the subject, to be honest. Ownership of property and the ability to defend oneself are essential freedoms in my opinion. They're not the only ones (though I'd say property ownership is the cornerstone) and, as I said, I'd be just as irked if someone were trying to erode the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or any other enumerated right.

And, ah, the irony... I spent eight years in the Marines and hold a Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics. I actually wrote lots of software until I was able to afford to hire professionals to do it for me. My business was traffic modeling (vehicular and pedestrian) and I sold and retired some eight years ago. I'm a bit older than you, born in 1957. I am a horrible programmer. That's how I ended up on Slashdot.

Re: America

[vikingpower]

I do agree we're not going to agree. Probably not before the Earth's magnetic field changes polarity. And even then. I do appreciate the conversation, however. It gives me (some) insight into how otherwise perfectly normal people can defend a stance considered inacceptable in my culture / place / state. Conversations of this caliber (pun intended) are rare on Slashdot. And yes - the similarity in backgrounds is a nice example of the kind of irony one will only find in real life, not in a novel.

Re: America

[KGIII]

Thanks and I enjoyed it as well. I think I understand your perspective but I simply can't agree with it - I've a different set of priorities. It would not be remiss for me to say, "Freedom at *almost* any cost." The person you were originally approaching is, well, probably not qualified to give a sound rebuttal based on logic and reason. In short, you were tearing them up and I just couldn't let that happen. Mostly, I couldn't let that happen because I figured you deserved a real, rational, and viable response.

Anyhow, much kudos for the Foreign Legion. You guys are rather tough. I seem to recall that your basic training is a full year and that becoming fluent in French is mandatory as well as all-weather training. I don't know much about your particular outfit (maybe Cambodia???) but I've read up on the Legion's history. I'm just not fluent in it as it was not a scholarly pursuit but an exercise in entertainment. My father, also a Marine, was stationed in Morocco on an old French base. I'm forgetting the details but I seem to recall the Legion had some action there and in the French Algiers. Possibly against the Boors but my memory is rather fuzzy.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, why don't you go ahead and practice your European firearms laws in your European country.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

Because sugar is a powerful drug and should be controlled. A hundred years ago, cocaine and heroin were sold at the pharmacy.

Re: America

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah... You're one of those. ;-) I... I don't think those should be illegal either. I do think they shouldn't be sold to children but I think they should be sold in a safe manner with regular quality controls. I think they should be taxed, heavily. I think the penalty for providing anyone under the age of majority (18 or 21) should be very harsh for the first infraction and possibly life after that. On the other hand, I think we should educate people about healthy eating and let the parents decide what to feed their children. The money we make from taxing the drugs and the money we save by no longer prosecuting victimless crimes will more than pay for the education.

Then the farmers can get their fair share. The cartels go out of business. The gangs no longer have to fight over territory or deals gone wrong. And violence in general goes down as does property crime because the stigma will no longer be attached and they can be gainfully employed and functional users. It's not like people are just going to go out and start doing drugs because they're suddenly legal. They're already doing the drugs so we might as well make the best of it.

And the same thing applies with sugar. If you want to harm yourself then go for it. So long as you're not harming another then it's all good. Parents are allowed some leeway, so unless they're doing demonstrable harm there's no call for prosecution there. The government isn't there to protect you from you, it's there to help you back up when you fall.

Re:America

[ChrisMaple]

This is a classic argument against change: "Proposed change is not perfect, so let's rather do nothing"

Wrong. His argument is that the change makes things worse.

The argument that I should buy insurance because something might go wrong can be based on a number of falsehoods: misuse of statistics, failure to understand how insurance companies make money, ignorance of morality, and others. The morality issue is particularly galling: you assume that I am too cowardly to accept the risk for my own actions; you assume that an industry pandering to cowardice (the insurance industry) can be moral.

.

Re:America

[ChrisMaple]

Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.

Re:America

[operagost]

Charitable giving does not require centralization.

Re:America

[Jack Griffin]

Payment through the government of other people's medical expenses does not involve giving, it involves legalized theft.

Oh boohoo, if you don't like it, try living in Somalia or Afghanistan and see how much better no govt works out for you...

Re:America

[Jack Griffin]

Once you get to country sized populations it does. You could easily disprove this with one or two examples where millions of people have performed co-ordinated charitable acts without a central administration, but since there are none, let's just agree to disagree.

A--Choo!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I got a lot of people who need that bacteria.
Can I get it over the internet?

words that rhyme with hymen?

[Anonymous Coward]

climbin? mormon? more musical interlusion... rock on /. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Z-kjrSomw&list=PLG55-U1jq0ED0iYxb6TPw0p735DhGQ5nD

Highlander: Origins

[dywolf]

There can be only one.

Million-year-old bacteria is one thing

[hackertourist]

but how did he manage to inject exactly 3.5 of them?

Re:Million-year-old bacteria is one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Slicing one in half. Half of it gets injected. Half doesn't.

Re:Million-year-old bacteria is one thing

[NotInHere]

He injected 3.5 million bacteria, each of them year-old. You are reading it wrongly.

Re:Million-year-old bacteria is one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh...

I assume, crazily, it was a guy.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Can't he just rub his penis just to see what would happen, like everybody else?

Papa Smurf in 3.. 2.. 1..

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the guy who got rid of his arthritis by getting an exotic Mexican intestinal parasite? This is along the same vein. (no pun intended.)

Infect the rest of us?

[vpness]

I'm not slightly medically knowledgeable, but I'm wondering if this guy thought through that he could have infected the rest of us from stuff our bodies had no defenses? Like smallpox and the indigenous tribes in the Americas. I'm fine with him killing himself in the name of science (think Curie), but this strikes me as a little too cowboy.

Re:Infect the rest of us?

[bobbied]

Exactly. This crazy idiot could have stared a pandemic of Biblical proportions with this stunt. I may not have been likely, but there was a risk he could have introduced an old bacteria for which modern humans didn't have adequate immune system defenses into the population of the world and killed a bunch of folks.

This kind of stupid stunt needs to draw the ire of EVERY researcher in related areas and the scorn of reporters world wide. What he did was unethical, unsafe to him and others, and pointless because it has no scientific value.

Not a Real Scientist

[Roger W Moore]

Plus injecting yourself with 3.5 billion year old bacteria "just to see what happens" is not how you do real science since the only thing you will learn is whether this species of bacteria is dangerous to humans. He seems to have mistaken a Marvel comic for a science textbook.

Re:Not a Real Scientist

[michelcolman]

Well, if the summary is correct, he already tested it on mice and it seemed to work. If I were in his position, I'd probably try it too. Unlikely to bring any harm anyway, doesn't cost anything to give it a try, and if it does turn out to work, he gets the last laugh.

Re:Not a Real Scientist

[rubycodez]

Indeed, you need control and test groups to inject and monitor. Sample size of one is sure sign of a non-scientist, as is making the scientist a simultaneous test subject.

Re:Not a Real Scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

A n=1 trial on self is unable to produce good statistics, but it's also unlikely to produce a reprimand for human medical ethics experimentation violations.

Destroying lead ions is a lot less laden with the legacy of historical abuses by most -- possibly all -- of the 22 member states' predecessor governments than biomedical research is...

Re:Not a Real Scientist

[cwsumner]

Indeed, you need control and test groups to inject and monitor. Sample size of one is sure sign of a non-scientist, as is making the scientist a simultaneous test subject.

True, to generalize the results to the whole population you need many more samples of that population.

However. to report on the results for Him, he has 100% sample size. It all depends on what you intend to do with the results.

And, for many scientific reports the sample size is way too small, for the use that people try to put it to.

P.S. Also not well known: The reports can not be -applied- to any group smaller than the reported sample size. So when confronted with an individual, the statistics tell you exactly nothing. (Unless that individual was one of the samples.) 8-)

Get the science right!

[Roger W Moore]

Actually I very much doubt that since almost all the elements above helium and up to iron were formed in the hearts of stars and so are a lot younger than the Big Bang. For the trace elements above iron in your food we actually have evidence that they were created in a supernova about 6 billion years ago. So other than the hydrogen, which makes up only a tiny proportion of your food by weight, most of the atoms are likely to be considerably younger than 14 billion years and formed in the hearts of stars not in the Big Bang.

Re:Get the science right!

[Anonymous Coward]

But the protons are. And how can you tell the age of a single atom? Is there a difference in a carbon-12 atom made in that supernova 6 billion years ago and a carbon-12 atom created, say, by a nuclear explosion during the Cold War?

Atoms are ageless and all act the same.

Re:Get the science right!

[Roger W Moore]

But the protons are.

That depends on where you find the proton. Protons in the lighter nuclei (below iron) probably do date back to the Big Bang since they come from ordinary stars and fusion generates proton-rich nuclei which decay by positron emission. However Supernovae, which create the elements beyond iron, are thought to create these elements by neutron absorption which creates neutron rich nuclei. The neutrons in these nuclei will then decay to protons via beta decay so some of these protons will have the same age as the nucleus itself.

And how can you tell the age of a single atom?

You can't but, for unstable nuclei if you know the relative abundance at creation e.g. in a Supernova, the relative abundance now and the lifetimes of the different nuclei you can determine when the event which created them took place. This technique, applied to two different Uranium isotopes, is how the age of the Supernova which gave Earth her heavy elements, was determined.

In other news, a new disease has been discovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists have tentatively named it "Brouchkov's Syndrome", after the first discovered case.

ffs He's not only endangering himself....

[zwarte piet]

what if that thing turns out to be contagious? (oh wait, if we also make a vaccin, then $$$)

Re:mopey goth teen

[Dareth]

"Found the mopey goth teen who can't get laid"

Someone needs to introduce the Goths to the "I want to die" emo kids. Would be fulfilling for both.

How about texting instead

[Tablizer]

Meet the Scientist Who Injected Himself With 3.5 Million-Year-Old Bacteria

No thanks. I'll pass.

If it gives him massive diarrhea...

[Dareth]

If it gives him massive diarrhea...that would not be an inconsequential shit.

Re:In other news, a new disease has been discovere

[Tablizer]

Scientists have tentatively named it "Brouchkov's Syndrome", after the first discovered case.

Is "it" the infection caused by the bacteria, or the condition of being stupid enough to inject oneself?

Agent Smith, is that you?

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.

Agent Smith, is that you?

A little voice in my head

[paiute]

"That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works."

Hes a terrorist!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have been lethal and uncurable and cuased a plague that wiped out millions of Americans, He is a TERRORIST and we should Bomb Italy.

Re:mopey goth teen

[DanJ_UK]

There HAS to be something relevant on Emotion Eric, surely?

Re: Next he will eat Nobel prize winners brains..

[Anonymous Coward]

Black lives matter......

Superhero?

[valnar]

A new Marvel Superhero in the make. Now we just need a name.

Re:Superhero?

[s1d3track3D]

Yeah, scientist, self experimentation, what could possibly go wrong ...

(what's wrong with) America

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't sure I wanted to make this comment, but I hope this drives it home for you.

I'm that jerk who can eat like complete crap and not gain a single pound. I eat McDonald's for breakfast practically every other day and Taco Bell for dinner. I don't even exercise. I smoke. I drink way too much. Yet I'll probably live until I'm 90. The clown in TFA will probably croak at a younger age than me.

I deserve to be obese. I deserve to have respiratory problems. I deserve to have liver disease. I deserve to have pulmonary problems. But I don't. Why? Well, guess what, we don't live in a Just World.

One of my friends is struggling with their weight right now, to the point they're too embarrassed to be out in public. In fact, they gained all that weight by eating home-cooked meals made with organic and other high-quality ingredients.

They're doing everything correctly. They count calories. They only drink on Friday or Saturday and not to excess like I do. They eat a balanced diet. They exercise every day, I think 4 miles per day is what she does. Sometimes they'll do the walk outside, other times on a treadmill I bought when I was into the barefoot running craze before I completely let myself go. The weight is coming off slowly, but it's been so hard on them. They also suffer asthma due to growing up around smokers.

Yet I'm the one with the healthy body weight. Well, maybe a few more pounds now that I'm getting older and flat out don't care about my own health. But it doesn't seem I really need to.

I wish I could given them my health. They deserve it, and I don't. I'm sure we'd be in opposite situations in the Just World. This isn't the Just World.

Learn some compassion for others. Listen to the great teachers like Jesus and Buddha. I'm glad my friend was finally able to get medicaid so they can finally get medical help, and I'll gladly fund it with my taxes. I might accidentally pay for medical care for somebody who truly deserves their bad health, but I'm betting there are 10 people like my friend to every 1 person who actually deserves poor health and disease.

Some people may be beyond help, but maybe the addiction care that an alcoholic might be able to access because I pay my taxes because I like having civilization might turn their problem around and that might be one less liver transplant in the long run in exchange for maybe $500 worth of talk therapy. I don't see the reality of a very small minority of people who deserve poor health being a rational reason to reject all the data that shows single payer systems cost less and have better outcomes.

Oh, and trust me. Despite having insurance, I have had to pay for pretty much all of my care to this point--going on a decade and a half since I started treatment--out of my own pocket with the sweat of my own brow, mostly because the only condition I have has been deemed "cosmetic" by people like you (and truth be told, the only fatal symptom it can develop is suicide) who think they live in the Just World.

I'm not looking for a handout for myself. I'm looking to pay to live in a civilized country where we don't just chuck people overboard the minute they have a slight problem that somebody else has a "moral" or "religious" objection to. And yes, if it were feasible to just "go move to Europe if it's so great there" I would. Hmm... maybe I should get on a raft and sail over to Lesbos and pretend to be a refugee.

maybe not.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you supply or infuse them with the right sugars. Think tardigrade.

Extend your life

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, extend your life in a dormant state by putting you to deep deep sleep...which they can already do with modern technology and medicine