Slowing Supergerms Up; Considering Evolution and Truth..

Or Why Teaching New Dogs Old, More Soothing Ways To Rest May Be Our Best Defence
Although supergerms have been with us for billions of years, we are breeding resistance with new drugs, so each time we kill most of the germs a few are left that can resist, returning in stronger power the next time around. Including sharing and swapping chromosomes in a truly woeful way. The supergerms may soon knock out hospitals and be in our food since the last of our antibiotics are failing. This may be worse than the plague, indeed plague germs are being held at bay by antibiotics.Those who say knowlege of evolution has no value may be influenced soon by this drama as it plays out. Some say this is only evidence of artificial selection and not evidence for mutation, but the examples of artifical selection like this are what led Darwin to believe the same general forces of mutation and selection could explain the evolution of life on earth over geologic time. There is mutation with each generation at "high speed" or there would be no new changes to select out. Our knowledge of evolution is important to the equations used to calculate the rate of mutations of viruses to know exactly how much power we need to outcompute them with drugs that either overpower them or to know our best defence. Details..

I had thought of this in a sort of like the wild at first, I thought, you know, if you're out in the wild for millions of years and there are these "wolves", wolves are the germs. If we build a fire of immunity or drugs, to keep the wolves at bay we also may burn ourselves, the fire has to burn the germs inside us, while not burning us. To simply build the fire of our immune system up often isn't an option because often the immune system in patients we want to help is not initially strong to save lives and health ect. We can train our own dogs of immune boost to be stronger than the wolves, and the wolves get smarter and smarter with time, but I wonder it this used wholesale as people tend to do would cause the same type of problem, the wolves learn and get stronger and stronger. A third possiblity is to build a large fence, the problem here is it's too complex, the complex surface is huge and the food is too complex, just shaking hands is complex, there are more than 100,000 germs on our hands alone. The bacillus on your computer keyboard are far more common than in faucet or even the restroom. But there's something missing here. The genome of the bacillus is a giant computer. It seems to be a much larger computer than ours because the bacteria will always win, their computation is faster and knows more than ours. An interesting question arises. Why didn't we get totally wiped out by the computer, why didn't life just totally perish because of the bacteria? If the germs are superferocious why didn't we perish and the rest of evolution too? And the answer is simple, like other "predators" they couldn't lose their "prey" and with no food, the "predators perish along with the prey". Say in real evolution, the bacteria kill a few individuals. The individuals then build up resistance, and on the other hand if they aren't able to, a few may perish, if some die, the bacteria lose their food and the life like us rebounds, both sides of evolution are resilient and rebound, in a sort of resilient tension in cycles over millions of years. This is how your body is, for each extensor there's a reflexor, and body systems are in action reaction pairs. If your heart has problems, your kidneys have to do more by stress, and vice versa and ect. So there's a balance established sort of as if the giant computer is agreeing to make moderate amounts of peace. We hear about these people who fight in primitive tribes like in Malaysia where we read in magazines like Reader's Digest, they actually have a sign up that says, "12:00 is Time to Rest From the Battle", so they take time each day to rest even if in battle, because they believe rest is almost as valuable as fighting. Indeed other research shows there was no war among the American Indians before AD 1000, so perhaps peace not just war was of worth in evolution. Our heart's resting 5/6th of the time, the most active muscle of the body. As Darwin thought, love is a lot more important in evolution than survival of the fittest, In his book "The Descent of Man" Darwin used the word Love 87 times and Survival of the Fittest just once.

If you think about it it's generally not wise to attack a system much larger and powerful than oneself. This is how evolution was for millions of years. Although evolution wasn't perfect, if you attack a much larger complex system that's evolved and able to evolve, in the short run you might seem to win, but there would be resistance and in the long run there would be a crash.

Sort of like the sleeping dog, there's the old Hee Haw joke with a sing in the country general store, "Beware of Dog!" They say "Why beware of the dog? He's just a slow flop eared hound dawg?" "Because what if someone trips over him?" New research after all what else proves you can teach an old dog new tricks, if you have a hound dawg who fetches you the paper, he will read it to you, though in a thousand woofs!

The world will have to live with the genome of the bacillus indefinitely as is.. It's real improbable we could go and kill all the bacteria in the world (other than perhaps with the boost to the machines of fusion) in the buildings, under the buildings on top of the water, in the air, you could do that, though it would cost too much. The bacteria have a biomass the size of England, they have huge weight. This is not like reducing our other predators like the wolf and the jaguar, which we've also reduced in a simple manner though this is causing problems too as I say on my site about Evolution and Overpopulation . (See opsin solution at bottom of page in solutions list, I believe opsins are perhaps the best solution to gradually peacfully reduce overpopulation we have in the early 21st century we haven't had before with other science.). We are going to have to live with the bacterial genome perhaps indefinitely and it's much larger than us. I think of it as our evolutionary heritage. If we try to treat the genome bad, we'll have to live with it. If it's obvious the ecosystem is going to kill us if we continue to kill it, it's a good time to make peace not war. To pacify means not to kill, although you might think death is a way to be pacified, like the ancient Greek philosopher who's saying death is not to be feared because it's only unconsciousness or the other philosopher who's saying, "increase your income or decrease your wants." Dying is not so much the problem as not living! I've decreased all my wants but one! I believe in respect so with the bacteria the wisest thing for us to do is stop the killing.

Or as I believe, we should Let These Sleeping Dogs Lie. We have too complex a problem here, though just as the bacteria weren't ending all the life in evolution, the killing has been a sort of artificial buildup and then the letdown. I believe in the perspective of the super bacilli as we now know, the solution is to "slow down" and "freeze" the evolution of the germs as they are now. For our general course of action, this wouldn't be the same as killing them, rather, like the "Beware of Dog Sign" of the flop eared hound in the general store there may be truth in jest we need not fear evolution if we pay respect..


I had thought of cleansing food by first injecting antibodies into the food and using sensors to find out where all the bacteria are if there are any there, and then to inject laser beams that are on the outside but at lower energy and then combine together at the point where the germs are, with a much lower dose of radiation, because when they cleanse herbs like cooking herbs they use like a billion chest X rays worth of radiation, is that what we really want for our food? So I was thinking this might be a good solution for cleansing food. I read this month that another person has thought of this, a scientist in France several years ago, but my idea is the addition of the antibody method and the sensor was to make it viable sooner, he lists it as perhaps useful for food in 100 years, and I think this might be sooner via the antibodies. And an improvement in cleansing the body in real time including e.g cleansing the blood of small tumors even while in circulation, ect.

Even so about the general genome, it's too complex to kill or defend by trying to kill, which I didn't actually realize like most until more recently, so recently I've tended to have another belief. That is as I say the best option may not be to kill the dogs rather to slow them down.

Here's my proposal, we use small cellular pumps, the bacteria don't notice them they seem to be like food. The bacteria gobble them up. These small cellular pumps or nanobots inside the bacterial nucleus are cooling pumps, these take some natural substance inside the germ for power, and basically slow them down, cool them down from the inside gradually like the dawg in the general store, (he's calm being out in the country!) This slows them down they do not harm to us and they leave the body and wake up with outdoorsy type weather, with change in temperature. Notice that the genome of the bacteria hasn't changed. If the ecosystem hasn't gotten any better overall, at least it hasn't gotten any worse.

This seems to be a better method than others I'd thought of. I thought of e.g. a personal fan that blows the germs away from you when you're in the doctor's office, or perhaps a magnetic field shield that uses sensors and efficiently moves the germs away from you. Hot tub sensors to sense germs might be of worth, these methods like others may be of worth in a limited way because most hot tubs have a large level of pathogens, or when walking in the door a super futuristic scanner might one day find if any germs are entering the house and an alarm would sound. And I thought of laser hand cleaners to automatically sense and wash your hands sort of like the laser food cleanser with antibodies to sense but lower energy and non professional use, and so on and so forth. Some sensors (of all types some may say!) have gotten a lot cheaper. For the anthrax scare of the postal office I thought of a use of the cheap 2 dollar sensors that use just two wires of the right metal of different type to bend just so to sense a given chemical. These would sense the anthrax in the post office as it zips past and throw a cosmic cyber wrench in the machine with big stamps. Another use of the sensors would be throughout a blanket, easy to wash. The only way to completely stop germs would be by sensors that could go through walls, when you walk through doors you walk through walls twice. This is why killing germs with the guidance of sensors won't win for us, once is not enough.

No doubt methods like these are just somewhat of value and the problem still remains that each time you would use the antibacterial like soap, you're still programming them. So I think the idea of using small cooling sort of nano pumps may be best, so the bacillus just think we're nice delicious food, that they harmlessly gobble up may be our best bet. This may not be the exact method, but this and other methods along the same lines may be best. At any rate something that keeps the genes the same of the germs before and after their interaction with us perhaps by editing the DNA of the germs with each go round of interaction. One possibility might be to use sensors to monitor all the germs entering and leaving the body and edit their genes so they are more identical to the rest of the germs around by some method before releasing them into the "wild".  Plans like this are being tried with mosquitoes in the tropics. Insert genes that seem the same but stop reproduction, though perhaps the wiser way here might be to make the genes more benign to both them and us.

Another way other than as food to get the cooling pumps inside the germs might be to use the immune system, though the persons needing improvement like in the ER often are just the ones who are lacking in immune defence. Eventually we may have an entire artificial immune system or mostly so we can inject into a patient, much as tissues are being engineered, perhaps this would last just for a few days or months for life defense while most needed. Or an artificial system engineered to deliver just the type of cells you would want, so it would recognize just those types of cells by genetic engineering or whatever. The germs would just cool down and not know it, and not get smarter, and the "battle for peace" here would be over, not an imprecise sort of name..

What about breeding our own dogs from the wolves to fight or just replace the other dogs? I hadn't realized this hasn't been much tried so I didn't consider it before on this site. My own experience with almost a complete cure of gingivitis with good bacilli is indeed the most positive I've found. Click Here. I likened this to the fire above with the wolves. And fire inside like good dogs might burn us as much as the bad germs. Another problem is that many types of defending germs would have to be engineered and like the fire these would have to not interact or damage the body. The cure for toothache may be uncommon because often like the CNS drugs all possible risks would have to be controlled, this is why most drug companies are not researching CNS drugs because they have to be completely safe long term. In essence we are in with antibiotics long term. Some sites say the supergerms seem like a sort of false delimma, like where the ancient greek goddess offers the sailors form the cliff the options of tragedy or doom, whatever happened to two out of three I asked my biology professor as we all failed bio on the first week due to her great two out of three exams! On one site the author notes that cows of many traits like heat resistance or drought resistance or super milk aren't super, they are merely artificial creations of civilization. If we tore down all the fences and they moove on to evolution for say 7 generations, all the super genes would be blended in and the cows influenced for humans wouldn't be able to compete. So too the author laughs, what super germs? Without antibiotics they would also soon fade into evolution, here too the super germs wouldn't be able to compete with stronger life more well adapted for general fitness. This is not a false delimma. On the one hand we can't stop using antibiotics because so many people would die now, and on the other hand if we use more antibiotics, the super germs will win sooner or later. The author of the site merely says super germs are an artifice, and offers no solution other than the use of germs of our own to defend. This seems like a moderately good idea because it seems we aren't crowding the germs but we may be programming them, leading us back to the same question, why in evolution, wasn't most life dying of the much larger computer of the germ or other biome? And here again I offer the basic answer, because why would the world want to hurt life much? Most healthy civilizations make marriage cheap and a celebration of life. It's more of worth and more powerful to live than to try top down methods of control. In research survivors of disasters aren't sad mostly even though earlier belief was they were sad. It's been said life is a terminal illness, and being good and a comic about life is evolution's health plan. No doubt optimism alone is not the best because other research finds too much optimism to lead to downturn by way of too much complacency. But if evolution is kind in balance perhaps it's much the same to believe the world is unkind if treated as less of value. If we try to crowd out the germs with more and more probiotics, they will have stronger and stronger need to find defence unlike in evolution by evolutionary pressure. This is why the solution of the idea of calming evolution, and love more than war may be wiser. Bees are calmed by smoke, better than breeding super bees to return if we calm the germs.

A possible type of nano cooling pump might be my idea of an atomic motor. This involves protons spinning sidewise held by their poles to spin and a continuius beam say of photons or electrons intersects the limb of the proton. The spin of the proton deeper in changes the wavelength of the ray, doing work. The electron is collected on the other side and connected back by a "wire" to the source of the ray. This completes the circuit, and may be a simple way to convert the strong force to useful electric power. Of course it's not that simple, but that's the basic idea. CLICK HERE for details. This pump would be super small, converting mass to energy. I think it may make a super cooling pump. This might be achieved by using the proton to stretch out the beam, which is cooler on one side. The other side has a nano cup with a one way valve into which the heat of the light flow in and could be trapped. Eventually a large amount of heat is stored here as the conversion of the light's eventual conversion of the energy of lots of light to just the mass of one heavy particle like a proton, a super cooling pump. This could also be used for general cooling and the by product would be protons that could combine with electrons from anywhere or in other words hydrogen the fuel of the future.


..