A new drug's being tested that may - may - do for treatment of viral infections what antibiotics did for treatment of bacterial infections.

The drug is designed to enter cells and look for evidence of viral infection. If it finds that evidence it causes the cell to self-destruct.

This is pretty edgy stuff so I can see unpleasant surprises popping up during testing. Still, it certainly is kind of exciting to see the broad range of viruses the drug's already been tested against: "the common cold, H1N1 influenza, a stomach virus, a polio virus, dengue fever and several other types of hemorrhagic fever."

Link

Fascinating, I often wonder if playing God is really a good idea.
At some point Nature retaliates, like antibiotics now failing.

I'm no genius, but at some point there is payback, something will come along and nearly wipe out the human race simply because it was not allowed to progress naturally.

A little too much anthropomorphization for my taste.

Sorry, I just don't get nearly enough opportunities to drop "anthropomorphize" and variants appropriately into the conversation.

Anyhow, Nature doesn't retaliate. Tornadoes aren't evil and a rattlesnakes don't bite you out of spite.

The eventual failure of antibiotics was entirely predictable and in fact was predicted. The only question is how fast the failure occurs. More responsible use of antibiotics, like not prescribing them for colds or including them in animal feed, might have put off the time antibiotics would lose their effectiveness but that end was inevitable.

But the fact that antibiotics will eventually fail is hardly a reason to not pursue/develop them any more then the realization that someday, no matter what you do, you're going to die is a reason to sit there and quietly starve to death.

As human beings we're endowed with certain capabilities and I'd argue that a failure to use them would also be a crime against nature to the extent that phrase means anything.

The condition of the human race is notably better today then when I was a kid and a whole lot better then when my dad was a kid. The reason that's the case, to a large extent, is that we know more and thus can do more. Farmers grow more food with an hour of their labor or on a square foot of their land so the cost of food's lower. It may be tougher to attain the sort of privacy you could get by living like Daniel Boone but you don't have to endure the sort of isolation Daniel Boone had to learn to endure either.

I've always been suspicious of "them was the good, old days" sentiments since people tend to see, and remember, what we want to see and remember. The good, old days weren't that good and, in many cases, sucked.

Quote from: arpad on August 12, 2011, 05:15:42 AM
A little too much anthropomorphization for my taste.

Sorry, I just don't get nearly enough opportunities to drop "anthropomorphize" and variants appropriately into the conversation.

It was a figure of speech, don't read too much into it, like the Jane Goodall' of the science community. ;)

QuoteAnyhow, Nature doesn't retaliate. Tornadoes aren't evil and a rattlesnakes don't bite you out of spite.

The eventual failure of antibiotics was entirely predictable and in fact was predicted. The only question is how fast the failure occurs. More responsible use of antibiotics, like not prescribing them for colds or including them in animal feed, might have put off the time antibiotics would lose their effectiveness but that end was inevitable.

But the fact that antibiotics will eventually fail is hardly a reason to not pursue/develop them any more then the realization that someday, no matter what you do, you're going to die is a reason to sit there and quietly starve to death.

As human beings we're endowed with certain capabilities and I'd argue that a failure to use them would also be a crime against nature to the extent that phrase means anything.

The condition of the human race is notably better today then when I was a kid and a whole lot better then when my dad was a kid. The reason that's the case, to a large extent, is that we know more and thus can do more. Farmers grow more food with an hour of their labor or on a square foot of their land so the cost of food's lower. It may be tougher to attain the sort of privacy you could get by living like Daniel Boone but you don't have to endure the sort of isolation Daniel Boone had to learn to endure either.

I've always been suspicious of "them was the good, old days" sentiments since people tend to see, and remember, what we want to see and remember. The good, old days weren't that good and, in many cases, sucked.

I tend to agree, basic care is leaps and bounds above what it was just 40 years ago, but, and there is a but.
Take making babies, we now have the ability to allow couples to bare children that Nature never intended them to create.
Does this weaken the human animal?
Only time will tell.
It used to be that only the strong survived, in turn making man even stronger through his prodigy, now that isn't the case, now people are making babies for the welfare check, some drug addicted, genetic abnormalities entering the gene pool.
These kids would have never survived in the days of Boone, let alone procreate.

Now will any of this weaken the human moving forward, only time will tell, but if the World were to have a catastrophe hit, there will be a cleansing of the human race and all the weak will perish, starting the whole human experiment all over again, "only the strong will survive".

"Strong" takes on a different, more subtle meaning when brains start to get big and genetic fitness is a distinctly creepy idea within the context of a representative form of government. Besides, "survival of the fittest" isn't quite as simple an idea as a lot of people suppose.

Being big, strong and bad-assed might seem like just what the doctor ordered if you want to father a mighty dynasty but the ladies have a different set of priorities then us guys and sometimes those priorities work against the big, strong and bad-assed.

Quote from: arpad on August 12, 2011, 12:07:16 PM
"Strong" takes on a different, more subtle meaning when brains start to get big and genetic fitness is a distinctly creepy idea within the context of a representative form of government. Besides, "survival of the fittest" isn't quite as simple an idea as a lot of people suppose.

Being big, strong and bad-assed might seem like just what the doctor ordered if you want to father a mighty dynasty but the ladies have a different set of priorities then us guys and sometimes those priorities work against the big, strong and bad-assed.

I agree, but intellect takes a beating as well.
Women tend to look for security, be it financially or physical.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2011, 12:15:43 PM
I agree, but intellect takes a beating as well.
Women tend to look for security, be it financially or physical.

Which is why all women want to be with Chuck Norris - rich and able to round-house kick any other living thing into oblivion!

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2011, 12:15:43 PM
I agree, but intellect takes a beating as well.
Women tend to look for security, be it financially or physical.

One of the first things I discovered with Solar is that I felt safe for the first time in years.  I knew from day one he would never let anything happen to me.  And I know he would do anything to protect me.   

I have explained to so many of my female friends and my daughters that this feeling is what a relationship should have.   Knowing that my body, heart, and soul are safe with him.   8) :-*

Quote from: Solars Toy on August 13, 2011, 07:30:49 AM


One of the first things I discovered with Solar is that I felt safe for the first time in years.  I knew from day one he would never let anything happen to me.  And I know he would do anything to protect me.   

I have explained to so many of my female friends and my daughters that this feeling is what a relationship should have.   Knowing that my body, heart, and soul are safe with him.   8) :-*

Well I guess that cements my point, now don't you have a kitchen that needs attending? ::) :-*