5 ms·

I always wonder this and maybe people in the comments here know the answer: If humans had the technology to eliminate all viruses on Earth, what would be the ou

I always wonder this and maybe people in the comments here know the answer: If humans had the technology to eliminate all viruses on Earth, what would be the outcome? Do viruses keep other bad things in check? Would there be bad consequences if we eliminated all viruses?

ocfnash 1y ago
Most viruses are bacteriophages, so I imagine bacteria would run wild!
- zahlman 1y ago
  Aren't bacteria generally much larger than viruses?
  - karolinepauls 1y ago
    Phages don't devour bacteria, they get inside and hijack them, like viruses tend to do with cells.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      Seems strange to call them that, then; but such is English I suppose.
    - melagonster 1y ago
      Sometimes when phages get enough copies inside bacteria. The host will explode and release all phages inside it.
lotsoweiners 1y ago
Population control.
- aurizon 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - olddustytrail 1y ago
    Not really. Races don't exist biologically. There are certainly traits within populations but that's a bit like my cousins tend to be fatter than my family. It's not something that can be accurately targeted.
    - asdff 1y ago
      You'd be surprised. There is quite a bit of polymorphism within the human species that is very much distinguishable per population. E.g. haplogroup analysis or microsatellite analysis is remarkably accurate in this regard due to a lack of interaction between far flung populations until quite recently in human history. Now, does this imply all the bullshit eugenicists and other racists tend to preach about with race? Hell no, social factors are responsible for most of that variance, but to suggest there would be no biomarker for "race" in its colloquial definition as proxy for population of origin is inaccurate. This is also why there is a big focus now to seek out underrepresented populations in genetic analysis, because there may be population specific biomarkers that are relevant in disease that you miss if you limit yourself to the handful of widely sequenced homogeneous populations (e.g. there are Utah and Iceland datasets that are popular to use for this).
      - lanstin 1y ago
        What there isn't is a small number of distinct subgroups that are more related to each other than to the other subgroups.
        asdff 1y ago
        There is, due to the way humans migrated and geographically isolated themselves over human history where founder effect, genetic drift, and evidence for introgression (both within our species and from hybridization with other species of hominids) is easily appreciated among populations even today.
fritzo 1y ago
The world of viruses is wide and beyond our current understanding. 50 years ago one might have dreamily wondered whether "eliminating all bacteria" would improve the world. Now we know we'd all die quickly without bacteria (e.g. gut biome). I think we're about at that level of understanding today regarding viruses.
- wildylion 1y ago
  There's a hypothesis that a viral gene made mammalian placenta possible: [pubmed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10693809/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10693809/). And there's not even the only one (there are other syncitins). Disclaimer: I'm not a medical professional
Lalabadie 1y ago
Eliminate all viruses: Population issues in other organisms down to bacteria is my guess. We break a link in a significant food chain, basically. Eliminate human-tropic viruses: We have to monitor for outbreaks when new viruses mutate and jump species to successfully infect humans. If there's zero mass immunity across the population at every outbreak, we're still in a high-risk situation.
Tagbert 1y ago
Viruses kill a lot of bacteria. We might trade viral infection for increased bacterial infections
djmips 1y ago
Viruses have had a lot to do with the evolution of life and specifically us, where perhaps our distant ancestors were bestowed with a system of transcribing short term memory into long term memory via the hijacked machinery from a virus. This is only one example that I could remember off the top of my head, there are surely many more. Would that matter going forward? I feel like we'd better be sure that we aren't causing more problems than we are solving.
asdff 1y ago
Loss of genetic diversity overtime will happen as well as a different path of evolution. Much of what you see on earth today is the result of virus-host interactions shaping evolutionary outcomes. Viruses are capable of providing horizontal inheritance of genetic material.
0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
I would be worried about: * An increase in autoimmune diseases (related to the hygiene hypothesis). * Decreased resistance to future viral pandemics, since the body wouldn't have practice since childhood in fighting viral disease.
- anonymars 1y ago
  On the other hand viral infections themselves can instigate autoimmunity. After all, your body now has to fight your own cells (in contrast to other foreign infection)
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    Yep, hard to know for sure which way it would go.
chasil 1y ago
We aren't the target of most viruses. It could be chaotic, I think. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SbvAaDN1bpE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SbvAaDN1bpE Are we also eliminating transposons? We would not survive that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element
ammon 1y ago
For one thing, viruses keep bacteria in check. Bacteria populations live in an equilibrium standoff with bacteriophages (viruses). The human gut contains more bacteriophage virions than bacterial cells. So eliminating all viruses could lead to bacteria overgrowth
throwaway81523 1y ago
Viruses are part of other biological processes as well as keeping things in check. For example, there is a bunch of viral activity involved in human pregnancy. A quick web search found this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6177113/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6177113/

ocfnash 1y ago

Most viruses are bacteriophages, so I imagine bacteria would run wild!

zahlman 1y ago
Aren't bacteria generally much larger than viruses?
- karolinepauls 1y ago
  Phages don't devour bacteria, they get inside and hijack them, like viruses tend to do with cells.
  - zahlman 1y ago
    Seems strange to call them that, then; but such is English I suppose.
  - melagonster 1y ago
    Sometimes when phages get enough copies inside bacteria. The host will explode and release all phages inside it.

lotsoweiners 1y ago

Population control.

aurizon 1y ago
[flagged]
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  Not really. Races don't exist biologically. There are certainly traits within populations but that's a bit like my cousins tend to be fatter than my family. It's not something that can be accurately targeted.
  - asdff 1y ago
    You'd be surprised. There is quite a bit of polymorphism within the human species that is very much distinguishable per population. E.g. haplogroup analysis or microsatellite analysis is remarkably accurate in this regard due to a lack of interaction between far flung populations until quite recently in human history. Now, does this imply all the bullshit eugenicists and other racists tend to preach about with race? Hell no, social factors are responsible for most of that variance, but to suggest there would be no biomarker for "race" in its colloquial definition as proxy for population of origin is inaccurate. This is also why there is a big focus now to seek out underrepresented populations in genetic analysis, because there may be population specific biomarkers that are relevant in disease that you miss if you limit yourself to the handful of widely sequenced homogeneous populations (e.g. there are Utah and Iceland datasets that are popular to use for this).
    - lanstin 1y ago
      What there isn't is a small number of distinct subgroups that are more related to each other than to the other subgroups.
      - asdff 1y ago
        There is, due to the way humans migrated and geographically isolated themselves over human history where founder effect, genetic drift, and evidence for introgression (both within our species and from hybridization with other species of hominids) is easily appreciated among populations even today.

fritzo 1y ago

The world of viruses is wide and beyond our current understanding. 50 years ago one might have dreamily wondered whether "eliminating all bacteria" would improve the world. Now we know we'd all die quickly without bacteria (e.g. gut biome). I think we're about at that level of understanding today regarding viruses.

wildylion 1y ago
There's a hypothesis that a viral gene made mammalian placenta possible: [pubmed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10693809/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10693809/). And there's not even the only one (there are other syncitins). Disclaimer: I'm not a medical professional

Lalabadie 1y ago

Eliminate all viruses: Population issues in other organisms down to bacteria is my guess. We break a link in a significant food chain, basically. Eliminate human-tropic viruses: We have to monitor for outbreaks when new viruses mutate and jump species to successfully infect humans. If there's zero mass immunity across the population at every outbreak, we're still in a high-risk situation.

Tagbert 1y ago

Viruses kill a lot of bacteria. We might trade viral infection for increased bacterial infections

djmips 1y ago

Viruses have had a lot to do with the evolution of life and specifically us, where perhaps our distant ancestors were bestowed with a system of transcribing short term memory into long term memory via the hijacked machinery from a virus. This is only one example that I could remember off the top of my head, there are surely many more. Would that matter going forward? I feel like we'd better be sure that we aren't causing more problems than we are solving.

asdff 1y ago

Loss of genetic diversity overtime will happen as well as a different path of evolution. Much of what you see on earth today is the result of virus-host interactions shaping evolutionary outcomes. Viruses are capable of providing horizontal inheritance of genetic material.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago

I would be worried about: * An increase in autoimmune diseases (related to the hygiene hypothesis). * Decreased resistance to future viral pandemics, since the body wouldn't have practice since childhood in fighting viral disease.

anonymars 1y ago
On the other hand viral infections themselves can instigate autoimmunity. After all, your body now has to fight your own cells (in contrast to other foreign infection)
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  Yep, hard to know for sure which way it would go.

chasil 1y ago

We aren't the target of most viruses. It could be chaotic, I think. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SbvAaDN1bpE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SbvAaDN1bpE Are we also eliminating transposons? We would not survive that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposable_element

ammon 1y ago

For one thing, viruses keep bacteria in check. Bacteria populations live in an equilibrium standoff with bacteriophages (viruses). The human gut contains more bacteriophage virions than bacterial cells. So eliminating all viruses could lead to bacteria overgrowth

throwaway81523 1y ago

Viruses are part of other biological processes as well as keeping things in check. For example, there is a bunch of viral activity involved in human pregnancy. A quick web search found this: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6177113/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6177113/