CharonY

In short, no. Your argument is based on the faulty assumption that there are "good" genes and that helping folks to survive it will let in a creep of "bad" genes. In this line of (frankly, eugenic) way of thinking there is an optimization to be had, where a good gene pool is actually fairly shallow and full of "good" genes (I will continue to use genes here, though I am really talking about alleles or variants as most folks arguing this are using the term gene, although it is incorrect). The issue here is that nature is highly dynamic and one thing that we have seen empirically, but can also explain theoretically, is that a population with a broad gene pool is more likely survive than a shallow, but optimized one. The classic example in humans is sickle-cell which is very detrimental when homozygous, but in areas with malaria heterozygous carriers have a higher survival rate. This can be extended to all the "bad" genes as you won't know whether there are situations where they are beneficial or become beneficial in certain combinations with certain alleles and/or environmental conditions.

Again, that is a bit backwards. There are many reasons why gene pools change, including random events such as mutations but also just drift. There is on need for "struggle" of any sorts. However, if there are loci under positive selection, then those are likely to enrich more in the population over time (and might eventually become fixed). All this can be associated with observable changes of traits, but there can also genetic changes without morphological changes.

That is not really the way it works. The Nature abhors vacuum quote is really a bit an inverse of the process. When we look at ecosystems, it almost always seems that there are no unoccupied niches (which, btw. is not quite correct, in multidimensional niches theory predicts that certain types of niches which is corroborated by empirical studies (e.g.. Walker and Valentine, Am Nat 1984 https://doi.org/10.1086/284322). The theory is not that suddenly species develop the ability to fill those niches, but rather that due to competition, niches will eventually be filled. The key component here is direct competition, not the similarity in which they acquire their nutrients. Again, this is not how evolution work. A single entity or even a species does not make evolutionary changes. Evolutionary changes are factors resulting in a change of the gene pool (over time). That being said, the largest prey eaten by carnivorous plants includes birds and rats, though mostly opportunistically.

For that matter, I feel that the dismantling of government functions and goals is more associated with post-Reagan conservatives where the idea of small vs big government became the dominant lens to view the world. So much so that some otherwise reasonable folks try to argue about fascism, communism and Nazism in the sense of big vs small government axes.

I think all of that is due to how streamlined, seamless and convenient things have become. The younger generation does not need to think or know about how things work, it just does. It feels a bit like stereotyping but its also seems to me that folks are less curious about why or how things work. They essentially grew up with a magic square slab that keeps them entertained without pause and probably also distracted them from being curious about its inner workings (such as how it accesses the internet). This certainly also extends to other aspects related to the technology. For example, most don't seem to have a clue how data is stored on the phone and in university, a high number of younger students don't really know how to save or organize files. A common thing you hear is that on their phone the file is "just there".

Did you switch to glasses recently? It was the opposite in my case a bit. I used to wear them when I was young but had to switch to glasses because my eyes kept burning which the doctors couldn't really figure out. Somewhat recently the eye doctor suggested to me to try new contacts and to my surprise they worked. They suggested that in the past the contact might have rubbed at the region where the stem cells are which will lead to reaction that is fairly similar to an allergic response over time.

That is even more complicated and also useless.. Stem cells are non-differentiated cells and cannot really do anything. You would need to control their differentiation in such a way that they become islet cells to be able to implant them. That only is very tricky. But even worse, they still would have same mutation as already existing islet cell, so essentially you just did a very complicated thing that your body would do on its own without really gaining a benefit at the end of the day. What that guy needed is just a handful of functioning islet cells, basically a group of cells in the pancreas, that are able to produce hormones such as glucagon and especially in this context, insulin. And since the patient got type I diabetes, their existing cells are unable to fully do that for a range of possible genetic reasons. So if you take cells from the patients, they will have the same underlying issue. And as mentioned before, if you do not know the exact reason, and/or the reason has to be fairly localized (e.g. to specific locus), you cannot hope to reverse the issue with a targeted approach such as CRISPR/CAS.

Add to that the declining ability to pay attention and remember.... what was I talking about?

No, they used CRISPR-CAS12b. There are technical nuances between those two systems but I don't think they are relevant to your question. Using his own cells would be a bit pointless as they lost their function resulting in type I diabetes. If they wanted to use the patient cells, they would first need to harvest cells, which is hugely invasive (the donor in this case is deceased), figure out everything that is wrong (type I can be caused by many mutations and likely include issues that are not yet known) and in many cases it would be beyond CRISPR-CAS to make them functional again. In this case, using a donor with with functioning pancreas and just knock out antigenic regions that could result in rejection is way easier and more practical. The study only described the results after 12 weeks under observation. It is likely that funding term is over and they published their results they had at that point. It does not mean that they are not doing follow-ups and publish e.g. what happens after 1 year. Also the clinical trial registration ran out at this point and more paperwork might be needed to extend.

Oh, not anymore left the country a while ago but still have friends and collaborators. Though federal partners all but vanished. The issue, I think, is that we old folks still think online and real life as separate things. In the younger generation, things are increasingly mixed.

Define "better". What has been discussed was infant mortality. So better in this context, I presume, would be lower.

I have no idea. To me, the crux is how society and its norm is developing and for a combination of reasons I don't think that I have a good sense how folks behave, much less Americans (I lived and worked for a decade there, but even some of the folks I know seem to have changed markedly over time). Sadly, only my most cynical predictions became true, not those I thought most likely, suggesting a deep disconnect to how I view the world and the way many others are. I think it could be a mistake to view things too much through a lens of political norms or maneuvering but it has become more about capturing the emotions and feelings of folks in the moment. Going viral has more impact on the population than well thought-out policies. A freak outrage situation has the power to change political norms and so on. Society has moved from potentially building on sand to full-on bouncing castle and I am not sure what predictions are worth anymore. So with that as basis my prediction is the following: whatever the most stupid outcome we can think of at this very moment, the reality will outdo it. It won't even matter if Trump goes or not- the ultimate check in democracies is the population and even outside of the US, I am not sure how long societal norms will hold and what a replacement would look like. And I worry that it will likely be memes.

Why not?

Maybe best to assume both.

The first line of scientific discussion, whether cold or friendly is to distinguish facts from opinion. The former have evidence. Take the STD argument, for example, it seems that you kind of suggest that STDs are a major driver of mortality but make no effort to substantiate that and/or discuss it in relation to other diseases for example. Same with pathogen diversity. There you just claim that geographic isolation also has to mean less diversity, which is just not true. Less travel means diseases do not spread as widely and if diseases are localized, there is a change of diversification. Geographic isolation can lead to speciation (we call it allopatric speciation). Things are a bit complicated, of course, but there is no reason to believe that there were fewer pathogenic species or strains around. Exotic is just weird as it assumes that there are places that are non-exotic. Folks are exposed to diseases where they are and attain immunity (or death) from what they are exposed to. I assume you mean to say that travelling individuals might be exposed to a broader diversity of pathogens but it is ultimately unclear what the relation to life expectancy might be. This is an entirely different argument- and while one can argue yes more resources for poor folks would increase their ability to survive, when it comes to infant mortality (remember, the topic of this thread), it is not clear whether that would impact it by much without modern medicine. I don't have the numbers here, but even the highest ranks of nobility has high infant mortality and if their mortality is only half of the average infant mortality, it would still be higher than folks in today's poorest countries (and definitely higher than the poor in high income countries). That again, is due to medical advances as discussed throughout the thread. Even a fictionally egalitarian country in the middle ages would not be able to achieve that. And given the fact that infant mortality is still lower in war-torn countries if there are at least remnants of medical support just shows how impactful modern medicine is (which would include emergency nourishment) There is no better (or worse) in evolution, so that doesn't make sense.

I think these are at least two questions. One is about whether the structures are de facto authoritarian and the second is at which point these structures cannot be remedied. To some degree, it will come down to definitions and semantics. I think one thing that is different from past forceful authoritarian regimes is that many patterns we see arises from societal factors that are successfully leveraged by the government, rather than necessarily due to government action as such. For example, evading accountability really only works because there is a cult-like belief among followers who are unlikely to switch votes. And that in turn is connected to the lack of political pluralism in the US, extreme partisanship and related factors. And these are also exacerbated by modern media consumption patterns. IOW, I think we have to think of modern authoritarianism in practice and action as a bit of a different beast than authoritarianism of the past. However if we don't focus on the mechanisms but at the outcome I think we can see at minimum the following: The power is concentrated in an unprecedented way (see also the unitary executive theory) and the separation of power as well as checks and balances are diminished or dissolved. There is virtually no accountability Non-governmental checks (e.g. media) are cowed and incentivized into collaboration and pre-obedience Dissent is increasingly met with forceful actions by governmental agencies (LA being an example using ICE and the military, other branches such as DOJ and FBI are similarly weaponized). Attempts to control economy, including tariffs and targeted support of allies and again, threats against enemies There are also other patterns that align with authoritarian governments and I think we also see a continued attempt to dissolve remaining barriers for full control. So if we don't see authoritarianism as a fixed threshold but rather a gradient, I would say that the US is pretty deep in it already and it looks beyond preparation at this point with actual actions underway. I think the reversibility is a huge questions and the midterms will give us the first hints on it, I think. That aligns with the maliciousness vs incompetence argument, I think.

Unfortunately, I do not see a lot scientific knowledge represented here. This sounds more like a moral argument. The main topic was about infant death but all you are saying here is that yes, modern medicine is preventing deaths and without those life expectancy is likely lower. That would be pretty much universally true. If you had better medicine in the middle ages, more folks would survive. That is not a thing. Less travel means less spread not less diversity. In fact if there are more isolated pockets there is also a chance that there is overall more diversity as there is less genetic flow and/or competition between pathogens in different populations. Makes no sense. What is an exotic pathogen? Also you only acquire resistance to those you are exposed to (i.e. local pathogens). I am not sure why you are so fascinated with STDs specifically. They have a long history with us, but so do many other infectious diseases. It is difficult to compare scope throughout history, but HIV is (was and is likely to be again) a killer of infants (to go back to OP) but it is a more modern pathogen. Not sure why low vitamin is snuck in here. Also you have been talking about infections the whole time, so I am not sure what the relevance to repeat it here again, but OK. While better social structures are likely always helpful, the issue is that in the middle ages modern medicine was not available. No level of redistribution of wealth would have solved that issue.

Hold on, what do you mean with prepping the field? It looks pretty much bulldozed and concreted. That looks more like flourishing touches. Granted, not all proposed actions have been taken yet, but I am not sure whether there are a lot of substantial barriers left.

It would be a bit of a relief if it was only Trump. The issue is that the whole system is in cognitive decline.

If y'all are willing to give up your liberties and democratic powers and go to a meaningless war for the sole reason that the gender orientation of a tiny fraction of the population confuses you, you probably didn't deserve those powers in the first place.

Because we are in the midst of a dumb and dumber version of 1984?

Maybe, but I am not entirely sure. The issue here is that whether there are populations that have sufficiently different famine rates so that we can spot potential selection. And obviously finding mechanistic evidence is going to be tricky as metabolic or other adaptations to famine are going to be more diffuse. One of the elements that folks have focused on is our propensity for obesity (i.e. storing fat). There is the hypothesis that most humanity is hunger-adapted in the first place. Now, there are populations who appear to struggle more for obesity and that potentially populations with very high rates of obesity might have genomic signatures of extreme adaptations to famines. However, these were arguments made when there was a rush for the human genome and a desire to look at things through an overly genetic lens with the expectation that high-throughput GWAS would yield terrific insights (the "thrifty genotype" was such an example) . I have not followed up on that, but I am aware that a couple areas of inquiry were pretty much just so stories with little supporting evidence. And I think folks have begun to be a bit more skeptical in the way genetic information have to be contextualized.

It depends a bit on the specific question. For example, do we see evidence of genomic adaptation to certain conditions? If so, then I would say yes. The issue is of course that we cannot say for certain, as we cannot really replay the past. Sethoflagos mentioned malaria, and the evidence we have is that a) alleles for sickle cell are more common in areas where malaria is found and b) there is a plausible mechanism for resistance against this pathogen where it was found that folks that are heterozygote are less likely to die from malaria (but homozygous folks, who are therefore symptomatic for sickle cell anemia) are at increased risk. Now, sickle-cell is a very popular example to teach human genetics for a number of reasons and perspectives, but there are a lot of other variants, associated with malaria including other variants of the HBB that do not associated with sickle-cell disease or other mutations that can cause other blood disorders (e.g. alpha thalassemia, which is caused by dysregulation of HBA, IIIRC, but also mutations in a chemokine receptor resulting in the absence of the Duffy antigen, which is used to enter cells by Plasmodium vivax (one of the parasites causing malaria). I am sure there are more that I cannot remember anymore. For other diseases it is a bit trickier, as few have this long, persistent and very strong selective pressure on human population. For example, there is the CCR5-Delta32 deletion mutation which confers resistance HIV. It arose very recently and has reached very high frequencies in Europe, suggesting that it is under positive selection. However, despite the nice narrative regarding HIV-resistance, HIV is actually not around for long enough to put enough pressure on the population to reach the measured frequencies. I.e. it can be tricky to figure out the true origin of genomic signatures. But there is also a more direct story. We carry quite a few viral sequences in our genome and while there can be many different reasons for their presence, one hypothesis is that some might have protective properties for example by competition with viral copies, inhibit synthesis of the "correct" product or somehow otherwise mess with viral functions.

Moderator NoteNonsense like this does not belong in a Science Forums. And this in fact gets it locked (and trashed).

It is one of the examples I love to show in class. Also in quite a few soil samples you will occasionally come across Y. pestis (probably also one of the reasons why you find them in ground squirrels and prairie dogs and other ground dwellers).