Even a single bacterial cell can sense the seasons changing
quantamagazine.org
quantamagazine.org
There are plenty of papers out there which try to explain viral seasonality and just about all of them fall short in terms of really getting a grasp on why viruses tend to 'like' certain meteorological conditions.
I love this paragraph:
"The complex interplay of variables that results in a given virus having such a specific seasonal pattern made me think of the Drake equation. Formulated in 1961, the Drake equation was meant to spark dialogue over the possibility of alien life by taking into account a handful of factors, like the fraction of stars in our galaxy that might have planets and the average number of planets that could support life as we know it. The possibility of extraterrestrial life was not solely determined by one variable but rather by a succession of quantities that needed to be estimated. Likewise, the seasonality of viruses cannot be attributed uniquely to outside temperature, or indoor gatherings, or even shifting humidity levels throughout the year. It’s a result of how all of these factors and more play together with the unique characteristics of individual viruses. If anything, it’s a reminder of the extraordinary complexity of life."
Source: https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/virus-ever...
Some calendars like this he Persian/Kurdish ones start with first day of spring. Beginning of autumn is "mid-year", which intuitively makes a lot of sense.
We'd all be using different calendars if that was the case, not sure how well that would work in a globally connected world.
"Ok, lets meet the 15th of Spring"
"Ah, so in 6 months?"
"No, I meant German Spring, not Chilean Spring"
"Ah, so 15th of Autumn, got it!"
> But if our immunity is “restructured” in some way every few months, we would again expect all viral infections to peak at the same time
It is clear the author doesn't have a good understanding of basic immunology.
Much of the mystique falls away when you understand concepts such as adaptive immunity (how it develops and is retained), antigenic drift, environmental conditions (on the host) that improve transmission, etc.
Even with all of our technological achievements, we can barely build something at this level of complexity. And to make it so cheaply and quickly? Pure science fiction. Yet scoop up a handful of dirt or pour a glass of water and you can get billions of these sophisticated machines in your hand.
Earth and its biosphere is a marvel of technology. Shame we don't seem to appreciate it enough.
The transistor based direction may be folly, but it will get close. All within 100 years passed vacuum tubes.
Don't scientists out there very explicitly avoid building self-replicating systems at any significant scale to avoid the associated risks?
I think they already can create artificial/synthetic lifeforms in a lab - it's just that there are not a lot of use cases that make building a factory worth it, at least so far.
[Upd: I stand corrected - I thought they can, but turns out they can't. Thank y'all.]
All of these "synthetic lifeforms" I have seen are usually very gimped and nowhere as robust as a normal bacteria. It is still an ongoing effort to make a real, designed from scratch, comparable bacteria that can match the original. But speaking as someone who worked on these things, I would not expect any major breakthrough soon.
The only self-replicating thing we can "build" is a modified biological cell and that’s already a tremendous achievement.
It would be nice to think that a scientist in command of self-replicating artificial life technology will have the restraint to hold back on deploying it at scale. But if someone comes along and says “hey I made an artificial bacterium that can eat all the CO2 in the atmosphere, want me to replicate it globally?”, someone is going to push the button.
In non-biology, most of the work has been self-assembling, not self-replication. IE, put all the puzzle piecees in a bag, jiggle for long enough, and you get a fully assembled puzzle out.
There's also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenobot
Realistically, many scientists are working towards fully self-replicating machines. Generally, nobody has been able to articulate a realistic danger that is not highly implausible; we work under the assumption either nothing bad will happen, or we'll be able to stop it well before it's an issue.
Our world is exceedingly rare and beautiful.
We lucked into an incredible solar system configuration, and evolution has done some seriously heavy lifting.
The molecular biology of DNA alone -- its biochemistry and enzymatic machinery -- is enough to be its own field.
> Shame we don't seem to appreciate it enough.
The domain experts do. This complexity is very difficult to teach to laypeople and those not interested in science communication. It's so easy to take it all for granted. You have to develop an understanding first in order to appreciate the marvel of biology.
Communication is getting easier, though. I'm sure we'll get there.
so with that said, and the addition of 'simulation theory' or some other such never-knowable.. well , maybe it is all technology, we'd just never know.
I think I prefer the grand splendor of natural phenomena, myself. Even as just a think-er it's just a more interesting premise to me.
Clearly no number of pseudonymous accounts on HN can decide anything on behalf of anyone else.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%84%CE%AD%CF%87%CE%BD%CE...
That word is all about human (or other) intelligence and skill. Natural things developed and grew by natural processes, not clever skilful design. It's a different animal.
It's the difference between art and science. Technology is a form of art. Patents use the term "prior art" for a reason.
It’s not. But watching ATP synthase essentially run a turbine [1] looks damn close to what we’d design (and extend).
I'm no biologist but I liked that quote :)
Could have also seen it via https://jsomers.net/i-should-have-loved-biology/ which quotes it directly