![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Notes From Underground
This livejournal is a pipebomb
So I don't feel much like writing anything right now, so here's a whole bunch of pictures from my August backpacking trip:
( Read more... )
A couple of months ago, I attended a symposium at the University of Michigan that offered a lot of food for thought about the global energy future. There are a lot of people that are working on the problem of supplying the world's energy needs for the next century, and beyond. But the energy supply is only a problem in as much as there is likely to be growing demand for many decades to come. In terms of energy supply, the problem is getting the energy to the people that want it, but there will be no shortage of energy sources for centuries to come, even if we have no further technological advances. We have enough resources to power the growth and development of human civilization for as long as it is likely to exist using existing technology. But we have to make choices about what we want our power supply to look like, and inherent in that choice is a decision about what we want our planet to be like. The decision that we have to make has everything to do with the emission of carbon gases. Now I know that I'm not going to convince any global warming skeptics about anything. The science of the greenhouse effect is there, and the empirical evidence of a precipitous rise in average global temperatures over the last half century that is altogether unheard of in, in terms of magnitude and speed, in at least the last million years is clear. I will say no more about this issue in this post, except to direct interested parties to the recently released United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
The IPCC report is very conservative as far as main stream climate science goes. So if you are not convinced by the UN estimates, you must either have a pretty strong counter argument, or you aren't going to be convinced by chunk of glacial ice hitting you in the head.
In terms of looking at the world's energy future, and the decisions that we have to make as a global society, I thought that Nate Lewis' presentation at the symposium presented a pretty good picture of the reality that we are facing. If we wish to create a world that is able to meet the global energy demand without emitting enough carbon gases to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm, and I hope that we are, we have to look at the entirety of the problem. We have to look at the total world demand for energy, and look for solutions, maybe a whole group of solutions, that can address the entire problem. I suggest that anyone that has any interest in the topic of the energy supply to check out Nate Lewis' presentations. The first link is to a video of his presentation last February at the University of Michigan. The second is a presentation that he gave at Cal Tech a couple of years ago. It's basically the same presentation, though the Cal Tech version is longer, and the Cal Tech version offers more information about Lewis's own research into photovoltaic energy production:
U of M symposium
Cal Tech Link
Let me point out that any of the possible solutions to creating a sustainable energy economy include a heavy emphasis on energy conservation. This is a problem that can be solved by technology, but technology alone is not enough without the will.
The IPCC report is very conservative as far as main stream climate science goes. So if you are not convinced by the UN estimates, you must either have a pretty strong counter argument, or you aren't going to be convinced by chunk of glacial ice hitting you in the head.
In terms of looking at the world's energy future, and the decisions that we have to make as a global society, I thought that Nate Lewis' presentation at the symposium presented a pretty good picture of the reality that we are facing. If we wish to create a world that is able to meet the global energy demand without emitting enough carbon gases to raise the atmospheric CO2 concentrations above 350 ppm, and I hope that we are, we have to look at the entirety of the problem. We have to look at the total world demand for energy, and look for solutions, maybe a whole group of solutions, that can address the entire problem. I suggest that anyone that has any interest in the topic of the energy supply to check out Nate Lewis' presentations. The first link is to a video of his presentation last February at the University of Michigan. The second is a presentation that he gave at Cal Tech a couple of years ago. It's basically the same presentation, though the Cal Tech version is longer, and the Cal Tech version offers more information about Lewis's own research into photovoltaic energy production:
U of M symposium
Cal Tech Link
Let me point out that any of the possible solutions to creating a sustainable energy economy include a heavy emphasis on energy conservation. This is a problem that can be solved by technology, but technology alone is not enough without the will.
I just attended a conference on corporate social responsibility (CSR) at the University of Michigan, and I was really frustrated by the people that they got to fill out the last panel of speakers. There was a guy from IBM that basically presented a list of the corporate green-washing programs that IBM is donating to, which are a bunch of non-profit charities that the company is donating a few million dollars to here and there. This is the exact opposite of what corporate social responsibility is supposed to be. CSR is all about corporations incorporating ideas of sustainability and social justice into the fabric of their day to day operations, and making them part of the very foundation and strategy of the business. All business decisions should be considered through the lens of CSR. What the IBM guy was talking about was just charitable giving, which is completely extraneous to the concept of CSR.
The other two speakers on the panel were promoting companies that are, in my opinion, conducting business that is exactly the opposite of CSR. The first speaker was shilling for a charter school company called KIPP. KIPP operates around fifty charter schools in cities in states around America that have favorable charter laws. KIPP only operates in places where it can get a lot of per pupil funding, and where it has broad legal latitude to educate students in any way that it sees fit. But that's all a lot of talk, and it's neither here nor there. The real issue here is that charter schools are designed to take students away from public school districts. When charter schools succeed in enticing students away from their local school districts the state gives the money that would have gone to the public school to the charter school. Yes, they use that money to educate students. Yes, their students tend to attend college at higher rates than the average students in the districts from where they are drawn. Yes, KIPP is a non-profit organization (though many charter schools are run for profit). But the point is, the main reason that charter schools out perform public schools is that they are freed from the legal constraints that public schools have to deal with, many of which are in place for very good reasons.
Public schools are required by law to educate every single student, including disabled, mentally challenged and developmentally impaired students. Charter schools can educate anyone they like. Charter schools can set arbitrary entry requirements or deny access to students that might be too difficult or costly to educate, especially disabled or learning impaired students, who are far more expensive to educate than other students, and who require far more time and resources from educators.
Public schools have large fixed costs. They have property and buildings that need to be maintained. They have contracts with unionized teachers that need to be honored. They have legacy costs associated with retired teachers on pensions and health insurance. They have school buses to operate. Charter schools are often free of any of these kinds of fixed costs. They often rent buildings. They don't necessarily have to provide busing. Their teachers are rarely unionized. They have no retiree pension or health care obligations to address, and they may selectively choose to only hire young workers to keep insurance costs down. They don't have to provide busing to students.
Public school districts are permanent institutions. If the state or local funding for a school district declines, it is still required by law to provide education to every single student. If a charter school finds itself unable to make enough money, it can simply close it's doors and leave the community, or it could lower it's enrollment.
Public schools are evaluated on the basis of the state and federal government mandated standardized tests, and one of the remedies that is prescribed by federal law for schools that have low average test scores is conversion into charter schools. But many charter schools aren't legally forced to administer the mandated standardized tests that public schools are judged by. Charter schools can really teach students important information, instead of acting as glorified test preparation institutions, as many public schools now do.
Given all of the advantages that charter schools have over the public schools that they compete with, it isn't surprising that they have, in many cases, greatly outperformed their public school counterparts, especially in extremely impoverished areas. But many charter schools have underperformed the public schools that they have competed against. Not all charter schools can meet their advertised expectations, despite the advantages that they typically have over traditional public schools.
As I have explained, public schools have large fixed costs and legal mandates to educate all students to a specific level, and these costs and mandates do not disappear when charter schools come in and siphon off the best students and the funding that they would have represented to the school districts from which they came. As more and more charter schools pop up around the country (KIPP operates around fifty, but it is planning on doubling that number in the next few years) they put more pressure on public schools to educate their students and maintain their facilities on a shrinking budget. The best charter schools provide outstanding education for a very small number of students, while the rest of the students suffer as their school districts fall further behind. This is not corporate social responsibility, it is a kick in the teeth to the taxpayers and their children.
The other two speakers on the panel were promoting companies that are, in my opinion, conducting business that is exactly the opposite of CSR. The first speaker was shilling for a charter school company called KIPP. KIPP operates around fifty charter schools in cities in states around America that have favorable charter laws. KIPP only operates in places where it can get a lot of per pupil funding, and where it has broad legal latitude to educate students in any way that it sees fit. But that's all a lot of talk, and it's neither here nor there. The real issue here is that charter schools are designed to take students away from public school districts. When charter schools succeed in enticing students away from their local school districts the state gives the money that would have gone to the public school to the charter school. Yes, they use that money to educate students. Yes, their students tend to attend college at higher rates than the average students in the districts from where they are drawn. Yes, KIPP is a non-profit organization (though many charter schools are run for profit). But the point is, the main reason that charter schools out perform public schools is that they are freed from the legal constraints that public schools have to deal with, many of which are in place for very good reasons.
Public schools are required by law to educate every single student, including disabled, mentally challenged and developmentally impaired students. Charter schools can educate anyone they like. Charter schools can set arbitrary entry requirements or deny access to students that might be too difficult or costly to educate, especially disabled or learning impaired students, who are far more expensive to educate than other students, and who require far more time and resources from educators.
Public schools have large fixed costs. They have property and buildings that need to be maintained. They have contracts with unionized teachers that need to be honored. They have legacy costs associated with retired teachers on pensions and health insurance. They have school buses to operate. Charter schools are often free of any of these kinds of fixed costs. They often rent buildings. They don't necessarily have to provide busing. Their teachers are rarely unionized. They have no retiree pension or health care obligations to address, and they may selectively choose to only hire young workers to keep insurance costs down. They don't have to provide busing to students.
Public school districts are permanent institutions. If the state or local funding for a school district declines, it is still required by law to provide education to every single student. If a charter school finds itself unable to make enough money, it can simply close it's doors and leave the community, or it could lower it's enrollment.
Public schools are evaluated on the basis of the state and federal government mandated standardized tests, and one of the remedies that is prescribed by federal law for schools that have low average test scores is conversion into charter schools. But many charter schools aren't legally forced to administer the mandated standardized tests that public schools are judged by. Charter schools can really teach students important information, instead of acting as glorified test preparation institutions, as many public schools now do.
Given all of the advantages that charter schools have over the public schools that they compete with, it isn't surprising that they have, in many cases, greatly outperformed their public school counterparts, especially in extremely impoverished areas. But many charter schools have underperformed the public schools that they have competed against. Not all charter schools can meet their advertised expectations, despite the advantages that they typically have over traditional public schools.
As I have explained, public schools have large fixed costs and legal mandates to educate all students to a specific level, and these costs and mandates do not disappear when charter schools come in and siphon off the best students and the funding that they would have represented to the school districts from which they came. As more and more charter schools pop up around the country (KIPP operates around fifty, but it is planning on doubling that number in the next few years) they put more pressure on public schools to educate their students and maintain their facilities on a shrinking budget. The best charter schools provide outstanding education for a very small number of students, while the rest of the students suffer as their school districts fall further behind. This is not corporate social responsibility, it is a kick in the teeth to the taxpayers and their children.
The Boston Police Department is obviously populated by a group of idiots, considering their overreaction to a bunch of Light Bright units that were placed around the city. To actually get the bomb squad out to detonate a children's toy is just going a bit too far. And then the news media was even worse. Fox, CNN and the other cable outlets were going into hysterics talking about the explosive devices that had been found around the city even after it had been determined that they were in no way bombs, or even fake bombs. The city of Boston and the media basically created this story out of nothing and then they got upset when the people that were arrested for the alleged crime of planting fake bombs (which these devices clearly weren't) refused to talk about their case. I, for one, think these guys gave the reporters exactly what they deserved.
Michael Pollan on the modern diet, current theories about nutrition, and other good stuff.
Posted on 2007.01.29 at 23:07
New year's eve was not so good this time around. The night started off nice enough. It had been raining pretty steadily all day, so I donned my rain gear when I left my apartment. Jen and I met early in the evening at the state theater to see "Copying Beethoven," a movie that I'd been hoping to see for several months. The movie wasn't bad, but it didn't quite live up to expectations. After the movie, we headed to the Arbor Brewing Company for a light meal and a few beers. By the time we left ABC, at a little after nine, the rain had completely subsided. We headed to the new "Metro Cafe," where my sister was to be performing on the piano. My intention had been to only stay for a little while, and to head to a party several miles out of town at around ten. But an hour and a half, and a couple of big glasses of scotch later, and I was still sitting at the bar with Jen, Katey, Anthony and others. Jen remarked on how drunk I looked, but I didn't feel too intoxicated. I jumped on my bike a little after eleven, expecting my cell phone to ring at any moment with Dom or Mike wondering where I was. I stopped at the Main St. party store to pick up some beer, before riding out on Liberty St. towards the country. I didn't put my rain gear on, as the weather appeared to be clearing up. The moon was shining brightly through breaks in the clouds, though a few flashes of lightning could be seen in the distance. I rode a couple of miles down Liberty, past Maple and Wagner. I was nearing the Thompson's house, out next to Zeeb, when a big storm came crashing in out of nowhere. The rain came down steadily and the wind really kicked up. The visibility dropped so much that I passed right by the Thompson's house without seeing it, and had to turn around. I arrived at the party soaked. I joined the smokers that were standing around in the garage to avoid the rain and pulled out a beer. I heard someone shout inside the house: Dan's here, and he's drunk. But I still didn't feel very drunk.
( Read more... )
Let the world rejoice that another scum bag mass murdering tyrant has left the face of this planet, I only regret that the legal system was unable to bring him to justice in his lifetime.
Okay, this is some serious bullshit right here:
The story goes, a 23 year old man was using a computer in a UCLA computer lab. The staff did a regular check of all of the people in the lab to make sure that they all had student identification cards. This man did not have an ID. The cops were called ot remove him from the lab. He refused for a long time, but eventually consented to leave. As he was walking out, one of the cops put his hand on the man's arm. The man then refused to leave and became angry, yelling, don't touch me!... etc. The cops pulled out a tazer and shocked him, which caused him to fall on the ground. When he didn't stand up they shocked him again, and again, and again, and again. The fucking cops can't get away with this bullshit. They had no justification to use the tazer in the first place, as they guy wasn't physically threatening the cops. But to shock the guy over and over again? These cops should be fired and prosecuted.
Some kid in the lab recorded this on his camera phone
Here's an article about it
Fucking Pigs
The story goes, a 23 year old man was using a computer in a UCLA computer lab. The staff did a regular check of all of the people in the lab to make sure that they all had student identification cards. This man did not have an ID. The cops were called ot remove him from the lab. He refused for a long time, but eventually consented to leave. As he was walking out, one of the cops put his hand on the man's arm. The man then refused to leave and became angry, yelling, don't touch me!... etc. The cops pulled out a tazer and shocked him, which caused him to fall on the ground. When he didn't stand up they shocked him again, and again, and again, and again. The fucking cops can't get away with this bullshit. They had no justification to use the tazer in the first place, as they guy wasn't physically threatening the cops. But to shock the guy over and over again? These cops should be fired and prosecuted.
Some kid in the lab recorded this on his camera phone
Here's an article about it
Fucking Pigs
As I prepare to go to sleep early on this post election morning, it would appear that the Democrats are about to capture both houses and a majority of the governorships. In some ways, that's pretty awesome. We shouldn't expect to see any more tax cuts for the rich, or any further erosions of our civil liberties. If another supreme court justice steps down in the next couple of years, the Dems should be able to block any new neocon candidates that Bush might nominate, though they could have blocked his previous nominees if they had been willing to stand together as a party, which doesn't bode well for their actions as a party in future judicial appointment decisions..
But I expect to see two more years of government getting next to nothing done, other than support for the status quo in our foreign military adventures, bloated spending bills with tons of pork tacked on, and a whole lot of general governmental corruption. In two year's time, the Democratic party will have little to show for their new found position of moderate power. This plain vanilla party is going to have a hard time making a case to the American public that they deserve to be the party of the next president, seeing as they don't have a very coherent platform right now. They won because the country is dissatisfied with the way that the Republicans are running the country, not because Americans actually want the Democrats to be running things.
If the Democrats insist on continuing to define themselves as the party that isn't the Republican party, they aren't going to gain many new voters in the next election. In fact they'll probably lose a lot of swing voters that they picked up this time when people realize that the modern Democratic party doesn't have a plan to move this country foreward, any more than the Republicans do. When Americans see that the Democrats are just going about business as usual they will develop the same anger towards the Democrats that they demonstrated for the Republicans in this election, and Democrats will lose any tactical electoral advantage that they briefly gained.
I would much prefer to have seen the Democrats lose both houses of congress by a slim margin, so they could continue to blame all of the country's woes on the Republicans. If that had been the case, there probably would have been a huge backlash in the next election cycle, with Republicans losing the presidency, and both houses of congress by significant margins. Now I see the Democrats' chances of controlling the legislative and executive branches in 2009 as no better than even.
So hooray for nothing. Once again, we get the government that we deserve.
But I expect to see two more years of government getting next to nothing done, other than support for the status quo in our foreign military adventures, bloated spending bills with tons of pork tacked on, and a whole lot of general governmental corruption. In two year's time, the Democratic party will have little to show for their new found position of moderate power. This plain vanilla party is going to have a hard time making a case to the American public that they deserve to be the party of the next president, seeing as they don't have a very coherent platform right now. They won because the country is dissatisfied with the way that the Republicans are running the country, not because Americans actually want the Democrats to be running things.
If the Democrats insist on continuing to define themselves as the party that isn't the Republican party, they aren't going to gain many new voters in the next election. In fact they'll probably lose a lot of swing voters that they picked up this time when people realize that the modern Democratic party doesn't have a plan to move this country foreward, any more than the Republicans do. When Americans see that the Democrats are just going about business as usual they will develop the same anger towards the Democrats that they demonstrated for the Republicans in this election, and Democrats will lose any tactical electoral advantage that they briefly gained.
I would much prefer to have seen the Democrats lose both houses of congress by a slim margin, so they could continue to blame all of the country's woes on the Republicans. If that had been the case, there probably would have been a huge backlash in the next election cycle, with Republicans losing the presidency, and both houses of congress by significant margins. Now I see the Democrats' chances of controlling the legislative and executive branches in 2009 as no better than even.
So hooray for nothing. Once again, we get the government that we deserve.
So the Republicans in the state of Michigan have rounded up the most evil looking man I have ever seen run for public office. You can't see it in his photographs, but when you actually see him talk in his campaign ads you can see the evil in his face. He was the CEO of Amway, that venerable institution that makes it's money by getting normal Americans to harass their friends, neighbors and coworkers into paying service fees to order discount mail order products as part of a pyramid scam. Amway doesn't make it's money selling the goods in it's catalog, most of the profit comes from the service charges. Amway has also globalized, introducing it's scam to dozens of other countries. I heard a news report several years ago about how Amway had become so pervasive in one African country that the national economy had collapsed because no one was actually doing any jobs anymore, they were just selling foreign goods to one another through Amway. And while Amway used to sell goods that were mostly produced in the United States, they have sent a lot of their jobs and production offshore in recent years. DeVos defends the offshoring of Amway jobs as a way to save the jobs of the handful of Americans that his company still employs. Okay, I'll buy it I guess, but he is selling himself as the savior of the Michigan economy and blaming the current governor for not attracting more jobs to the state. That's a tough claim to make, that the governor is personally responsible for the economic conditions that lead to Michigan companies moving their jobs overseas, especially coming from a man that actually is directly responsible for sending several thousand Michigan jobs abroad.
Okay, so here's the kicker. Yesterday this devil, I refer to DeVos as the devil, came out in favor of teaching intelligent design in Michigan science classes. Here's a quote from a Detroit Free Press article:
"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design -- that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory -- that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less."
By using the term "many scientists", I can only assume that the devil meant "a few whack jobs on the fringe of scientific circles". And I can only assume that he takes the term "viable alternative theory" to mean "unsupported pseudoscience that has been largely discredited". If he were to use any other definitions for these terms one would have to assume that he just isn't informed enough about these issues, and that politicians shouldn't be making the curriculum decisions that school boards have been created to make.
As evil as DeVos is, I don't think he is a stupid man, nor does he strike me as someone who let's religion determine his world view. I have to think that his support of intelligent design is a ploy to appeal to the ignorance of Michiganders, and I fear that he can only succeed using such a strategy.
Well folks, if you live in the state of Michigan now would be a good time to draw up some kind of escape plan. Paddling across Lake Huron toward Ontario would appear to be the most viable option at present, as Ohio is little better than Michigan, and we all know what Indiana is like.
Okay, so here's the kicker. Yesterday this devil, I refer to DeVos as the devil, came out in favor of teaching intelligent design in Michigan science classes. Here's a quote from a Detroit Free Press article:
"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design -- that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory -- that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less."
By using the term "many scientists", I can only assume that the devil meant "a few whack jobs on the fringe of scientific circles". And I can only assume that he takes the term "viable alternative theory" to mean "unsupported pseudoscience that has been largely discredited". If he were to use any other definitions for these terms one would have to assume that he just isn't informed enough about these issues, and that politicians shouldn't be making the curriculum decisions that school boards have been created to make.
As evil as DeVos is, I don't think he is a stupid man, nor does he strike me as someone who let's religion determine his world view. I have to think that his support of intelligent design is a ploy to appeal to the ignorance of Michiganders, and I fear that he can only succeed using such a strategy.
Well folks, if you live in the state of Michigan now would be a good time to draw up some kind of escape plan. Paddling across Lake Huron toward Ontario would appear to be the most viable option at present, as Ohio is little better than Michigan, and we all know what Indiana is like.
It looks like our old friend Al Gore is really starting to say the right things when it comes to environmental policy. He's addressing the environmental concerns that he ran away from in his 2000 presidential campaign with abandon. And with his recent speech http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/washi
And I love this quote:
“Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach,” Mr. Gore said. “In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done, when in fact it is not.”
Right on Al! Tell it like it is!
And I love this quote:
“Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach,” Mr. Gore said. “In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done, when in fact it is not.”
Right on Al! Tell it like it is!
leaving early saturday morning. Should be in Canada by saturday night. Not coming home until I round Lake Huron and Lake Michigan. Be back in a couple of weeks.
I'm tired of giving you the benefit of the doubt. I feel cheated, but you're the one that was doping. Who would have thought, a junkie menonite?
These are pictures of Israeli children signing artillary shells that are destined to fall on the neighborhoods of Lebanese civilians. What kind of sick parent would allow or encourage this kind of behavior? Hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed in Israeli attacks in the last week. How many more must die to quench the Israeli thirst for blood? They will turn the entire country to rubble, and in the end they will only have bred even more terrorists. Israel kills 10 Lebanese and Palestinian civilians for every one Israeli civilian that Hezbollah or Hamas kills. But Hezbollah and Hamas are called terrorist organizations by the American government and Israel's military is supported by billions of American tax dollars. We might as well put our signatures on those shells alongside those Israeli children's, we bought the damn things.
Interestingly, E.O. Wilson, the greatest living authority on ants, partially attributes the great success of ants over the last fifty million years to the evolution of glands that produce fungicides and anti-bacterials. Of course these chemical countermeasures alone are not the only secrets of their success. Wilson lists as the most important innovation the life habits of the ants, their position as the dominant terrestrial insect predators (leaf cutter and harvester ants notwithstanding). But they presumably would be unable to succeed in their evolved lifestyle to the extent that they have, or to live in their densely packed colonies without the advent of some form of defense against infections. For further illustration of the importance of antibiotics in the lives of eusocial insects, Wilson points out that both eusocial bees and wasps raise their larvae in antibiotic impregnated cells. He doesn't mention whether or not termites, the only non-hymenopteran eusocial insects, employ any form of antibiotics.
Why am I mentioning these arcane details about the life histories of eusocial insects? Well I have always thought that these highly successful and nearly ubiquitous insects employ social structures that are more similar to human social structures than those of any other species, though there are enough notable differences to make the comparison quite strained. The vast differences being noted, I've always imagined that we can learn a great deal from the strategies that eusocial insects employ to allow them to succeed as densely packed colonies, for the human species will need a multitude of strategies to allow us to continue to survive as dense urbanized populations. One of the most important issues that densely packed populations need to deal with is hygenic conditions, which is an issue that grows in importance relative to increasing population densities. How does a population keep parasites and diseases from exploiting conditions that will allow them to spread rapidly from host to host once they initially infect a population? Absent the ability to sterilize every conceivable surface humans have increasingly relied on antibiotics over the last 3/4 of a century or so. But as our use of antibiotics has increased we have found our bacterial antagonists to be ever more adaptable at evading our defenses. One antibiotic after another has grown nearly useless for fighting disease causing bacteria. So why are the ants able to ward off disease with their antibiotics for millions of years when humans have met with only mixed results? How do they deal with bacteria evolving resistence to their antibiotics? Do they change the formula periodically? Do they apply them in a way that is more effective than methods that humans have used?
Another thought is that environmentalists and others that are generally skeptical about western medicine have tended to shun antibiotics. In the past I have generally supported this stance, in that I've always advocated for using antibiotics only in extreme life or death circumstances, and not as a prophylactic against possible infections as they are often employed, or as constituents of antibiotic soaps and cleaning products. Perhaps this is a shortsighted view of the situation though. It seems that ants spread their antibiotics throughout their nests with what seems to be great success. Perhaps epidemiologists should investigate antibacterial behavior of ants to understand how they defeat drug resistence in bacteria and employ similar techniques to control infectious bacteria in our own environment. If the ants are to be our model, perhaps I should be less harsh in my estimation of drug companies in the future, or about the behavior of doctors in over prescribing drugs.
Why am I mentioning these arcane details about the life histories of eusocial insects? Well I have always thought that these highly successful and nearly ubiquitous insects employ social structures that are more similar to human social structures than those of any other species, though there are enough notable differences to make the comparison quite strained. The vast differences being noted, I've always imagined that we can learn a great deal from the strategies that eusocial insects employ to allow them to succeed as densely packed colonies, for the human species will need a multitude of strategies to allow us to continue to survive as dense urbanized populations. One of the most important issues that densely packed populations need to deal with is hygenic conditions, which is an issue that grows in importance relative to increasing population densities. How does a population keep parasites and diseases from exploiting conditions that will allow them to spread rapidly from host to host once they initially infect a population? Absent the ability to sterilize every conceivable surface humans have increasingly relied on antibiotics over the last 3/4 of a century or so. But as our use of antibiotics has increased we have found our bacterial antagonists to be ever more adaptable at evading our defenses. One antibiotic after another has grown nearly useless for fighting disease causing bacteria. So why are the ants able to ward off disease with their antibiotics for millions of years when humans have met with only mixed results? How do they deal with bacteria evolving resistence to their antibiotics? Do they change the formula periodically? Do they apply them in a way that is more effective than methods that humans have used?
Another thought is that environmentalists and others that are generally skeptical about western medicine have tended to shun antibiotics. In the past I have generally supported this stance, in that I've always advocated for using antibiotics only in extreme life or death circumstances, and not as a prophylactic against possible infections as they are often employed, or as constituents of antibiotic soaps and cleaning products. Perhaps this is a shortsighted view of the situation though. It seems that ants spread their antibiotics throughout their nests with what seems to be great success. Perhaps epidemiologists should investigate antibacterial behavior of ants to understand how they defeat drug resistence in bacteria and employ similar techniques to control infectious bacteria in our own environment. If the ants are to be our model, perhaps I should be less harsh in my estimation of drug companies in the future, or about the behavior of doctors in over prescribing drugs.