CharonY

Bleach is a chemical and therefore cannot infect anything. Do you mean affect? Either way, the only difference is the route (oral vs injection). The fact that the ingestion is blood does not matter much. Depends on the concentration. If there was something like that, maybe. But the issue is that toxic components would affect you.

Airbrush, that is not how it works. You made a number of claims without backing them up with data and countered arguments from others with incredulity. Then you expect people to blindly agree with you? As other have noted, the legal and civil rights framework is an issue. A democratic government should have only limited powers in restricting the movement of its citizens. Another reason is that it is unclear whether it is going to be efficient despite legal issues. It can result in alternative routes that are harder to monitor And yes there are professional reasons to go to dangerous areas. Because there are courageous people who want to do their job. According to a recent MSF report they have about 720 staff in Syria running hospitals and other projects. They are known to be operating in the most dangerous areas of Earth, be it wars or diseases, such as ebola. I am surprised that you are surprised by it. Since I have got their report right here I can add some more things: In Aleppo they run a 27 bed hospital. Between Jan and Aug 2015 they had: 23k outpatient consultations, 1k inpatients consultations, 11251 emergency room treatments and 900 surgeries. In NW Syria, they run a 15-bed hospital that has now specialized in burn victims. In NE (Kurdish) area they run health care centers that provide basic services and reported for example over 500 deliveries and so on. Also the fact that still reporters are getting killed or gone missing (in July three Spanish journalists for example) indicates that some are still there documenting the war and the atrocities. Again, incredulity is not an argument.

As Overtone mentioned, the rate is an issue. But there is, of course more. The biggest long-term challenge are likely to be ecological changes on potentially global scales. Human interventions has already damaged or destroyed many ecosystems, but the effects of climate change in that amount of time is likely to act as an multiplier to that damage. In addition, things like acidification of oceans are going to be effects that we simply cannot assess. But considering the scope, it is obvious why it does make people (especially those studying those systems) somewhat nervous.

Well, this is the reason why these studies cannot be based on anecdotes. There have been numerous studies that actually show that depression does show a heritable pattern. But obviously it is not purely genetic, rather (as so often) it is an interaction of environment and genetics. It should be noted that I am talking about the extreme form of depression (Major depressive disorder) which is not necessarily what is used in regular jargon. An example is a recent study in Plos one, which found moderate genetic contributions (based on family studies, see Fernandez-Pujals et al. 2015). Finding the molecular mechanism is very difficult, which is to be expected. There is some work on serotonin transporters, but again, due to the complexity of this issue, it require much more work to figure out potential mechanisms.

Before one should even consider that one should actually have some data on the travelers. For example, there are numerous help organizations such as Doctors without Borders are active in that region. It should also be noted that not all areas are active battle zones (though the fronts are shifting). Policies based on gut feeling or incredulity have the tendency to bite one's butt at some point in the future. Another thing that I am suspecting is that by allowing travel, it is easier to track movement. It is much harder to see who is getting in, if people slip in through borders. It may be more inconvenient, but if they are radicals I doubt that this will be significant hindrance.

First of all, injecting bleach is not safe. Typical concentrations of hypchlorite used for disinfection are around 5-6%. Injecting about 1 ml in something human-sized is probably not lethal but will have serious toxic effects. For mice it is well in the lethal range. For your first set, the blood does not matter. Its actions of disinfection are independent of blood. And it is indeed routinely used to clean up blood spills. Note that pus is not bacterial in origin (although produced during inflammation). Also you are aware that S. aureus are also bacteria, right? If you are thinking in terms of resistances, they are against antibiotics. Bleac as well as ethanol work differently (though certain differences in the cell hull make certain species more resilient). For killing anything with bleach it is a matter of concentration. There is little connection whether they feed on blood or not. If you think to increase the concentration of bleach in the bloodstream so that it gets sterilized you are certainly killing the host. Also, the strong reaction you see is due to the actions of a group of proteins in the blood with hydrogen peroxide which is quite unrelated to the actions of hypchlorite in this context.

So if it is a two-photon effect the eye would respond as if it was of shorter wavelength (albeit at much lower efficiency). However with 852 this does not appear likely as it should be around the UV range? I wonder what else may be the reason, considering that multiple people were able to perceive it.

A neurotransmitter is what a neuron releases to create signal in the neurons it is connected to. This process is universal but there are many forms of neurotransmitters as well as specific receptors to which they bind. You have similar pathways for other nociception pathways. What I am suggesting is that you read up on the principles of the transfer of neuronal information as it will help you understand the process better than looking for one specific subset. That is only if you are interested in the biology of it, of course.

Like all bacteria: cell division. Sporulation is not the normal mode of replication, but rather a response to harsh environmental conditions. You may confuse them with fungi, who use spores to disseminate.

It seems to be a complicated matter. There is actually a hoarding disorder which seems to be a progression from OCD symptoms . In this case, patients feel severely distressed when throwing things away. There some potential associations with certain abnormal brain functions. Though there is large heterogeneity so that it requires much more research to figure out what is going on (see e.g. this for a review).

It seems that you may misunderstand the concept of Y-chromosomal Adam. It taps into the concept of most recent common ancestor of today's population and not that of modern humans. If you move back the timeline in human ancestry, the Y-chromsomal Adam will be shifted back, too. That being said, while the concept of interbreeding was controversial, I do not think that most scholars would have thought it to be ridiculous. For the longest time, there was simply no evidence. However, at least since 2002 there have been fossil findings that have been used to support the notion of interbreeding (see e.g. Trinkaus et al PNAS 2003 100:20). So the idea has been kicking around for a while before that.

On the diagnostic side there has been a massive amount of effort in identifying genes involved in diseases. However, from what I have seen, the success relative to the effort was fairly limited. Though in an absolute sense there have been definite advances. A major issue is that much of the data is based on association whereas the mechanism of the disease are still obscure. Gene therapy is not my field but currently a number of approaches being tested. To the best of my knowledge well over 1000 phase I trials have been conducted on a number of targets (with various cancer forms being the plurality) and less than hundred have been approved for Phase III. AFAIK worldwide there are less than five gene therapies approved in their respective countries (and none in the US, though I could be wrong). It is important to note that in many cases the precise functions of these therapies may not be known in detail. In the case of rAD-p53, which utilizes an adenovirus to target the p53 protein in cancer cells it is assumed that it will overexpress p53 which somehow leads to tumor repression. In addition some synergistic effects with natural killer cells. The logic behind it was that p53 is often mutated or had reduced expression in cancer cells. Thus, overexpressing it seemed to make it more vulnerable. Whether that is precisely how it works is a bit obscure, however. But again, I am not a specialist in this field.

I suggest to look at things in perspective. Compared to today European powers during the age of colonialism were in severe conflicts and many were very brittle. In fact, one reason that colonialism and territory expansion was ditched was because it was not profitable enough anymore. Past WWII we have seen unprecedented economic growth and wealth throughout (Western) Europe. Even looking at the 2009 economic crisis just highlights how much stronger Europe is now compared to what it used to be. The last time a similar economic crisis occurred was in the 20s and look at the consequences. Europe is now nowhere near facing revolution or war. The worst case scenario now is that Greece has to leave the EU. The worst scenario then was millions of deaths. If you think about it is complaining from a high level of comfort you can worry about demographics because you do not even need to think for a millisecond about the possibility of an European war, for example. If you compare to colonialism and post-colonialism you will find that basically all indicators have been massively improving, standard of living, economy, health, crime and so on. Many are at least partially technology-driven, but that also means that land grabs or similar ideas are useless in modern times. No, I think despite current economic issues Europe has never been in better shape to deal with it, especially when compared to how European nations used to be. I do agree that we still face issues of discrimination, it seems to be part of human nature. However, at least we acknowledge widely that is not a good thing. Whether we can live up to that ideal is up to each of us.

As ajb mentined, OP is vastly overestimating our knowledge on biological systems (on literally all levels). That being said, if we are not talking about X-man level superpowers but merely enhancements, then it moves from the realm of fantasy to science fiction. We do not have the knowledge to genetically improve abilities or even comprehensively model our existing physiology on the molecular level. Will it ever be possible to improve some aspects of human physiology? That is entirely unclear. We are essentially complex integrated systems. If we change certain aspects it may very well cause imbalances that create issues. Chances are that there are hard limits, but again, we do not know enough of anything to even begin thinking about it.

What I think is that one has to be very precise in contextualizing what you are actually looking at. Like any other scientific question it is relevant to disassemble an issue into pieces that can be investigated. I think we can agree that culture is a very broad term and in my mind not fine-grained enough to find anything of relevance. For example, assume that in a particular population (take any classifier, ethnicity, religion, whatever) domestic violence is more frequently than in another (incidentally this is something where little good comparative statistics is available but many have preconceptions). If we just state it is a culture of violence, we have learned precisely nothing. Instead, we would have to figure out what the reasons behind violence in group 1 vs group 2 are. What external and internal factors and stressors may or may not be involved (income, job distribution, psychological stress, nutrition, familial relationships, social connections or lack thereof, history of alcoholism and so on). Even then, we are barely scratching the surface, but by leading the discussion using these rough identifiers at reduces it to soundbites. As you have noted, people from each cultural background can have abhorrent ideas. Another thing that I dislike about culture or ideals is that people often mistake the ideals of their society and benchmark people from outside of their cultural circle against this ideal rather than against reality. What I am saying is that we should look at contents, instead of labels. With regards to mentality, I think that while true, the question is under which circumstances are these mentalities created? On USA vs Canada, it is an interesting perspective. I cannot say I had the same experience (Canadians seem to be a bit muted in general in terms of national pride), most of the time I have discussions that were like, yeah I am Canadian/Insert US state here but my great-great parents were from (insert European country here). I have heard that in Quebec it may be different, though. Likewise, Canadians from different visible ethnicity that I have met all declared themselves Canadian. Exceptions were freshly immigrants to either US or Canada. But then again these are only personal anecdotes. I do have noticed a massive difference in the status of native Americans/First nations, though.

That is entirely hyperbole and unfortunately an argument that has been repeated in certain circles without much in-depth thought of context. First of all, if demographics of a country changes, it is obvious that the society will change. Be it that we have an aging society an ethnically homogeneous one or a diverse one. Some feel that there is a status quo that has to be preserved, but looking at even recent history it is clear that societies were never static. In contrast, especially in modern times values and cultural norms have changed more rapidly in the past, to a large extent due to modern means of communication. If a population is declining by choice (i.e. no wanting to have children) what is the issue or solution? Forcing people to bear children? And this line of thinking highlights another issue. There is the assumption that Muslims cannot be part of the general (Western) population (we have to count them differently) and as long as these thoughts persist, how can we expect integration? The problem with terms like "values" or "culture" is that they are very vague and subject to changes, yet everyone thinks they know what it means without questioning (reminds me of something...). For example, if you meet a modern well-educated Iranian coming from Tehran and discuss world views, do you think that you will agree on more or less things than someone from your population from, say 60 years ago? Or 70? (think in terms of controversial topics such as LBGT rights, role of women, anti-semitism etc.). Check out colleges, it is great place for meeting highly educated foreigners. Or how about a comparison with contemporary groups of your chosen ethnicity that are considered fringe (say, radical revolutionists or neo nazis)? The big issue of using things like culture or values is that they are so vague that they can always be conveniently be used (by either side) as a divisor and hence prevent integration. This is not even touching the issue that at least in Europe culture is often seen to be interchangeable with ethnicity which makes it very hard for immigrants to be properly accepted (even after several generations). What should be an uniting aspect (and in that regard I think North America is doing a better job) should be the constitution in which the values of a nation are openly presented and against which behavior can and should be benchmarked individually and there should be no difference in the treatment of citizens, regardless of their faith (which, incidentally is typically something anchored in most constitutions). Of course, certainly particularities should be addressed, but it is dangerous for example to simplify these issues simply down to culture. The role of women, for example has changed markedly in Western societies, even within the last decades. Treating Islam as monolithic unchangeable construct has the danger of being a self-fulling prophecy, rather, modernization should be supported and embraced, but stating that this can be done due to the mythical "culture" is self-defeating. Note that I am specifically addressing that as in former discussions in Germany a number of politicians have proclaimed that just following the constitution is insufficient, but rather that people also have to follow Judeo-Christian values (which, in some way, is quite hypocritical). Using that line of thought, you can as easily sow division as proclaiming that everyone has to follow the one true religion. Mind you, I am not saying that this one-sided. However the point is that it is more constructive to get people together that see and work on commonalities rather than standing one side and accusing the other (whichever side one is on). That being said, looking at various estimates the Muslim population in Europe is supposed to to increase within the next 20 years by 2% (8 up from 6%). But again, this is just a minor distraction from rather complex issues that, unfortunately, tend to be often fueled by fear.

The point about preservatives is that it is just a compound that minimizes bacterial growth. Depending on the compound and consumed amount it may or may not have negative impact on human health. Which pretty much applies to all food. Thus the blanket statement that preservatives are bad for you is simply wrong. Or at least about as incorrect as stating that fruit is bad for you.

Not the way I suspect you may think about it. Let's forget about itch for the moment. It is easier to think in terms of a sensory neuron that sense a signal. What is genetically controlled are presence of proteins, including receptors (to sense chemicals for example) and ion channels (to create the action potential). However, it is in a way a tautology, if those and other proteins were not present, it would not be a sensory neuron (actually it is a bit more complicated, but that would be somewhat advanced). Cells generally have a very dynamic protein turnover, meaning that proteins are getting produced and removed constantly. Thus, for a sensory neuron to perceive anything (itch, pain whatever) it requires active gene expression and protein production. So in that context it would be a yes, but quite a meaningless ones as it just means that in order to function the cell needs a functional nucleus (as opposed to simpler red blood cells, for example). There are some situations (including long-term potentiation) where altered gene expression does play a specific role, but I think that is actually quite a more advanced concept and goes beyond your question.

The ability displayed are for the most part physically impossible. Just calling it sci-fi does not make it science. And bioengineering is not magic. There are hard limitations to what is biologically possible. So yes, any ability that I can think of is pure fantasy. An exception may be becoming quite hairy. Still science fiction, but at least within the realm of possible.

There is evidence of inheritability of certain conditions. However, there are no specific associations with specific alleles. There are various reasons, including (to my knowledge) that most likely mental disorders are complex traits that are not directly determined by genetics, but are the result of genetic and environmental aspects. I.e. even if one is genetically susceptible to certain disorders one may never actually develop it and vice versa. Furthermore, characterization and classification of mental disorders are very complicated and similar symptoms may be related to completely different molecular/physiological/neuronal causes.

I doubt that this the idea behind it. There are a few things that appear to be more likely to me (all speculative, of course). The first is to use it as propaganda/recruiting tool. A second but related aspect is incite internal conflicts in the targeted countries with the Muslim minorities. A third, but probably not expected goal is to leverage these conflicts to limit the offensive capabilities of these countries against ISIS. Just to be clear, there is not a single aspect that makes a territorial grab likely (i.e. man power, military supremacy, support from separatist movement or, heck, even just geography).

Do you really suggest that Isis is trying to make a territorial grab in France? How does that even begin to make sense? Edit: cross-posted. Was referring to post 51. Moon, I think we are touching on what I mentioned earlier. The creation of fanatic groups is not due to crazyness either by the leaders or the followers. Rather, it falls under the broader aspect of propaganda to further political goals. Symptoms, not causes. Based on historic evidence, pretty much any ideology can be adapted to inspire followers and legitimizing bloodshed.Religion just happened to be a terribly convenient one as most demand a certain amount of obsequiousness from the followers towards the religious leaders.

There is quite a lot out there on the psychology and neurophysiology of pain perception. But of course one would need to read up on it, instead of making things up.

The mechanism is very different. The claws do not retract beneath the dermis. Besides, the actual superpower is rapid healing, the claws cut through the skin every time. Either way it is pure fantasy not remotely rooted in reality. You could as well ask whether people will ever develop spellcasting skills.

I think in some ways Islam is just a convenient vehicle. Currently, the Isis and other factions that utilize terror are in conflict with Western Countries and using Islam as a justification for their action is a way to rally the actors. If there was no religion I have little doubt that those in charge will find or create other justifications, be it ethnicity, culture, ideology or whatever. In some ways I think that focusing on that aspect is a bit of a distraction. Islam or religion does not lead to terrorism itself (otherwise the world would look very different). Rather, it is about politics and power. I do think that any ideology if framed "correctly" can be used to attract and justify violent actions. Left-wing ideologist (depending on inclination based on Marx, Lenin or Mao) have inspired numerous groups. In Rwanda (potentially fake) ethnicity (i.e. Hutu and Tutsi) was used to inspire genocide etc. I think there are a number of things that are generally playing into this. People can be turned to violence rather easily. Not everyone, of course. But given the right circumstances, many otherwise decent people, can turn to violence or at least condone violent actions.It is easy to think that people like hooligans, neo nazis, extremists or KKK members are just the fringe or crazies. However, outside their ideologies they are probably fairly normal. It is also (fairly) easy to convince people to condone certain types of violence against certain groups. Eugenics was quite accepted before WWII in most Western countries, for example. Now, if the society as a whole (as Western societies, for example) is fairly peaceful, these actions are unlikely to happen en masse. The problem is if people do not feel empowered by the society, but rather suppressed (real or imagined). In these cases anti-societal movements or just anything that makes them feel not to be the losers will become attractive. And again, in historic context I do not see a fundamental difference in what the ideology is in detail. Buddhism, for example is a fairly peaceful religion. Its doctrine is almost impossible to align with terror or murder. Yet, there are is violence committed or incited by Buddhist monks (Myanmar being a current example). Of course, they need to spin it differently than Islamists as to my knowledge they cannot refer to scripture. Yet, the result is still violence and death. To summarize, whether Islam is an easier tool to justify violence than other religions or ideologies is, IMO, only of minor relevance. Provided with sufficient motivation nearly everything can be used as justification. At the basis of this are unfortunate things like human nature (the negative parts, including fear) and manipulative power plays (at least for sustained movements). In many ways this reminds of a common, but ubiquitous strategy of using associated labels to shift discussion towards these labels. E.g. labeling something left or right in instead of discussing the policies in detail. Of course, highlighting radical Islam does make sense in so far as currently for Western (and some other) countries it is the most organized form of terrorism. Yet I do think that we should not lose perspective on the matter and fall into the trap of assuming that symptoms are the disease.