Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: smart on 20/02/2018 09:18:25
-
Eating quality food is a source of environmental pollution and is becoming really expansive. Many peoples on this planet just cannot afford three meals per day and must adapt themselves to food scarcity.
Furthermore, eating requires a lot of energy to process food in the digestive system and obesity is becoming a clear threat to human health in America and elsewhere...
So, would it be possible to hack the digestive system genetically to process food slower in order to make us require less food on a daily basis?
What do you think?
-
It is probably possible scientifically and technologically, but there will be major political/social/religious obstacles to any research, let alone implementation.
It might be easier (politically and maybe scientifically) to genetically engineer the bacteria that live in our GI tracts. We have a symbiotic relationship with many different types of bacteria, and there is a fair amount of research suggesting that some strains of bacteria are linked to obesity (and even some linked to depression). It makes sense that they would have significant control over how much of which nutrients get absorbed.
This might be an interesting read (and without a paywall!!! Trigger warning: poop)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479392/
-
When genetic-engineering is involved, you can control just about anything about an organism that you want to (within the limits of biological laws, of course). The issues would be in terms of knowing exactly how to do it, how to do it safely, and whether or not the political or cultural climate would allow for it. In terms of the obesity problem, you could potentially solve that by either making humans less efficient (absorbing a lower percentage of the calories we ingest than normal) or making them want to eat less in the first place.
For people who don't have much food available to them, you could either make them more efficient at absorbing nutrients from food (assuming there is room for much improvement) or slow their metabolism down so they don't require so much energy. Obviously, slowing your metabolism could prove troublesome if their lifestyle requires them to be active. Another alternative might be to engineer them to be able to digest things that humans normally can't derive much nutrition from, such as grass or wood shavings. That would increase the food available to them.
-
All animals burn fuel at pretty much the same rate: 1 - 2 Calories per kilogram per hour. Smaller animals need proportionally more to compensate for surface/volume ratio heat losses, and the digestive systems of herbivores probably run at slightly higher temperatures than carnivores, but the only way you can get humans to consume less than 2000 calories per day is to make them a lot smaller, possibly a lot hairier, or provide more artificial heating.
The good news is that there are two things we can do to make human life better and indefinitely sustainable at no cost and no effort: breed fewer humans and stop eating farmed meat. With a predominantly vegetarian diet supplemented with wild meat and sustainable (i.e. non-EU) fishing, the British Isles could support 10 - 20% of the present population in unimaginable luxury for ever, including renewable energy and traffic congestion at Canadian* levels.
*for the benefit of resident nitpickers, I exclude the Toronto rush hour. I'm thinking more of the Rocky Mountain highways compared with the M6.
-
I think that this is a very interesting question, but I think that so far at the moment of technology development, it is impossible to hack human DNA. And even more so, when it becomes possible, it is not known what else to get out of it. Although it would be very funny to hear about genetically modified people, with separate genes and features.This reminds me of two pictures: 1) The classical anti-utopia, in which people with new genes are and represent the elite of humanity, and all the rest are just misfits. 2) Atomic apocalypse and some people get new opportunities, and not always they remain pleasant. I think that Hollywood in the future will use some of these scenarios, lol
-
No one has mentioned the microbiome yet, and that, we now realise, plays a critical role in how we handle calories and how many of those calories end up on your bum and hips.
So perhaps the suggetsion from @tkadm30 about hacking the intestine should consider hacking the microbiome - which we can already do - to maintain it in a less obesogenic state...?
-
I think that this is a very interesting question, but I think that so far at the moment of technology development, it is impossible to hack human DNA. And even more so, when it becomes possible, it is not known what else to get out of it. Although it would be very funny to hear about genetically modified people, with separate genes and features.This reminds me of two pictures: 1) The classical anti-utopia, in which people with new genes are and represent the elite of humanity, and all the rest are just misfits. 2) Atomic apocalypse and some people get new opportunities, and not always they remain pleasant. I think that Hollywood in the future will use some of these scenarios, lol
The barriers to "hacking" human DNA are largely ethical/legal, not technical.
We have identified many different genes responsible for specific functions in our genome, and can target them selectively for deletion, modification, or amplification. We can splice new genes in (either from other humans, other organisms, or completely synthetic).
There are commercially available bio-engineered animals for scientific research.
And recent advances like CRISPR, can even allow epigenetic modification: check it out, it's really cool stuff! https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting
Of course, it is difficult to say that we have a method that works without having done it extensively in humans, but I am confident that the differences between modifying mice, pigs, and sheep is not that much different than for humans...
-
No one has mentioned the microbiome yet, and that, we now realise, plays a critical role in how we handle calories and how many of those calories end up on your bum and hips.
So perhaps the suggetsion from @tkadm30 about hacking the intestine should consider hacking the microbiome - which we can already do - to maintain it in a less obesogenic state...?
Is this not a mention of the microbiome?
It might be easier (politically and maybe scientifically) to genetically engineer the bacteria that live in our GI tracts. We have a symbiotic relationship with many different types of bacteria, and there is a fair amount of research suggesting that some strains of bacteria are linked to obesity (and even some linked to depression). It makes sense that they would have significant control over how much of which nutrients get absorbed.
This might be an interesting read (and without a paywall!!! Trigger warning: poop)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479392/
-
No one has mentioned the microbiome yet, and that, we now realise, plays a critical role in how we handle calories and how many of those calories end up on your bum and hips.
So perhaps the suggetsion from @tkadm30 about hacking the intestine should consider hacking the microbiome - which we can already do - to maintain it in a less obesogenic state...?
Is this not a mention of the microbiome?
It might be easier (politically and maybe scientifically) to genetically engineer the bacteria that live in our GI tracts. We have a symbiotic relationship with many different types of bacteria, and there is a fair amount of research suggesting that some strains of bacteria are linked to obesity (and even some linked to depression). It makes sense that they would have significant control over how much of which nutrients get absorbed.
This might be an interesting read (and without a paywall!!! Trigger warning: poop)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5479392/
Whoops! I must have missed that post when I read down the page - i am so sorry!
-
No one has mentioned the microbiome yet, and that, we now realise, plays a critical role in how we handle calories and how many of those calories end up on your bum and hips.
So perhaps the suggetsion from @tkadm30 about hacking the intestine should consider hacking the microbiome - which we can already do - to maintain it in a less obesogenic state...?
So you are proposing that we do something very difficult and possibly dangerous in order to lessen the effect of doing something we don't need to do (and many people can't afford to) in the first place. That's as pointless as preventing convicted murderers from committing suicide until they can be executed, or promising to treat smokers for lung disease.
The potential for obesity is built into animals so that they can fatten up in the good times and don't die from occasional shortages of food. The decision to eat today rather than store the food until you need it is entirely voluntary for most humans.
In my world, which has finite resource limits, nobody wastes time and effort on other people's intentional self-abuse.
-
So you are proposing that we do something very difficult and possibly dangerous in order to lessen the effect of doing something we don't need to do (and many people can't afford to) in the first place.
I think that's how powered flight was first viewed...
-
I don't recall anyone suggesting we should weaken the wings or fit less powerful engines to make flying safer. Human flight evolved from curiosity and adventure, with the possibility that it might become pleasurable or useful. It was never intended to protect people from their own stupidity.
Another thread was seeking a distinction between humans and other animals. It could be argued that we are unique in devoting time and effort to sustaining those least fit to propagate the species, whilst committing the fittest to kill each other in the name of a ridiculous hypothesis. This behavior is particularly exemplified in the USA where an intellectually challenged narcissist has been democratically elected to preserve the right of morons to kill students, and in ISIS where similar narcissists encourage societal misfits to kill anyone suspected of being rational.
-
Whoops! I must have missed that post when I read down the page - i am so sorry!
No worries :)