5 ms·

>>Recent medical and biological studies are showing that we are, in fact, evolved to live with an entire symbiotic ecosystem of fungus and bacteria. Please cor

by kamaal 12y ago

>>Recent medical and biological studies are showing that we are, in fact, evolved to live with an entire symbiotic ecosystem of fungus and bacteria. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't it common in the days of the past to see frequent outbreaks of contagious diseases? Agreed that part of it is due to bad sanitation. But then one could argue that was a part of the symbiotic ecosystem too. Perhaps we are meant to just die if get diseases until we evolve to tackle them. But then most people won't agree with you on that. Especially those who are dying due to those diseases.

Houshalter 12y ago
Well many of the diseases we had are relatively recent on an evolutionary timeline, coming from our domestication of animals. Concentrated populations of humans living in cities is also relatively new. Diseases wouldn't spread as easily before that.
- kamaal 12y ago
  >>Well many of the diseases we had are relatively recent on an evolutionary timeline Many of the diseases have diagnosis and classifications only in the recent times. Before that it was just that a person would fall ill, and then die. Now we have the most detailed and granular classification, hence we feel the diseases are appearing now. But I think most diseases existed back then too.
  - Houshalter 12y ago
    I'm talking about thousands of years ago. The reason native Americans didn't spread epidemics to Europeans, rather than the other way around, is because Europeans had domesticated animals. The diseases of animals jumped to humans after so much exposure. Cholera and HIV also evolved recently and thrive because of denser populations. The statistics also show infectious diseases declining a lot over the last hundred years so I you're theory can't be correct.
    - king_jester 12y ago
      > The reason native Americans didn't spread epidemics to Europeans, rather than the other way around, is because Europeans had domesticated animals. The diseases of animals jumped to humans after so much exposure. The reason was that European peoples had exposure to some kinds of disease that peoples in the Americas did not. Civilizations in the Americas had domesticated animals for quite some time, just different kinds of animals.
      - jtheory 12y ago
        If that were the only factor, then the diseases of the Americans would likewise have wiped out the arriving Europeans. The Europeans had much more hard-core diseases because of a mix of factors (including animal domestication), but the chief one was population density. European diseases evolved in tandem with the people themselves -- each time something swept through the population and crippled/scarred/killed large numbers of the people, the folks with some level of natural immunity would be favored. The diseases would evolve (at a rapid pace, due to reproducing at enormous scale...), as would the people (very painfully). People in the Americas were mostly more widely spread out. A nasty variant on a disease that wipes out a village and stops there goes extinct. There were some cities, trading between areas, etc., but not on a European scale. (Source: "Guns, Germs and Steel", which went into this all in fascinating detail... though admittedly I read it years ago now).
        ebrenes 12y ago
        You are correct, from my understanding, in that a variety of factors from population density, to agriculture and animal domestication led to a greater spread of diseases. Even in analysis of native american populations before European contact we see that diseases increased when population density increased [1]. The other factor that hasn't been mentioned is that a disease can be deadlier when the population density is higher. The disease can find another host to infect before the original dies and still stay active. Whereas in a situation with spread apart populations the deadlier variant would die out once the small local population was killed. The European diseases carried this much deadlier profile and thus were more effective in killing native americans than native american diseases were in killing americans. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/
headShrinker 12y ago
This isn't about "bad sanitation". In the olden days they didn't have clean water nor did they bathe on a daily basis. I don't think anyone is saying stop bathing or stop using water. The point of all this is water is a really good solvent for cleansing while still leaving your skin and it's support system intact. Soap is unnecessary and even harmful.
netcan 12y ago
It's not an either/or question. People died from starvation in the past. That doesn't mean that unlimited and unexamined calories are always good. Similarly, treating serious bacterial infections with antibiotics is a good things. Sterile surgery is a good thing. Microbes don't know if that they are supposed to be symbiotic. Sometimes they can be both. They harmful in certain amounts or circumstances and helpful in others. BTW, the idea that killing all microbes is bad is not really a controversial one. It's just the specifics that need to be worked out. For example, we know that sterilization an antibiotics raise the risk of harmful fungal infections (thrush, ringworm, etc). Wrestlers or other especially at risk of ringworm (for example) avoid anti-bacterial soap.

by kamaal 12y ago

Houshalter 12y ago

Well many of the diseases we had are relatively recent on an evolutionary timeline, coming from our domestication of animals. Concentrated populations of humans living in cities is also relatively new. Diseases wouldn't spread as easily before that.

kamaal 12y ago
>>Well many of the diseases we had are relatively recent on an evolutionary timeline Many of the diseases have diagnosis and classifications only in the recent times. Before that it was just that a person would fall ill, and then die. Now we have the most detailed and granular classification, hence we feel the diseases are appearing now. But I think most diseases existed back then too.
- Houshalter 12y ago
  I'm talking about thousands of years ago. The reason native Americans didn't spread epidemics to Europeans, rather than the other way around, is because Europeans had domesticated animals. The diseases of animals jumped to humans after so much exposure. Cholera and HIV also evolved recently and thrive because of denser populations. The statistics also show infectious diseases declining a lot over the last hundred years so I you're theory can't be correct.
  - king_jester 12y ago
    > The reason native Americans didn't spread epidemics to Europeans, rather than the other way around, is because Europeans had domesticated animals. The diseases of animals jumped to humans after so much exposure. The reason was that European peoples had exposure to some kinds of disease that peoples in the Americas did not. Civilizations in the Americas had domesticated animals for quite some time, just different kinds of animals.
    - jtheory 12y ago
      If that were the only factor, then the diseases of the Americans would likewise have wiped out the arriving Europeans. The Europeans had much more hard-core diseases because of a mix of factors (including animal domestication), but the chief one was population density. European diseases evolved in tandem with the people themselves -- each time something swept through the population and crippled/scarred/killed large numbers of the people, the folks with some level of natural immunity would be favored. The diseases would evolve (at a rapid pace, due to reproducing at enormous scale...), as would the people (very painfully). People in the Americas were mostly more widely spread out. A nasty variant on a disease that wipes out a village and stops there goes extinct. There were some cities, trading between areas, etc., but not on a European scale. (Source: "Guns, Germs and Steel", which went into this all in fascinating detail... though admittedly I read it years ago now).
      - ebrenes 12y ago
        You are correct, from my understanding, in that a variety of factors from population density, to agriculture and animal domestication led to a greater spread of diseases. Even in analysis of native american populations before European contact we see that diseases increased when population density increased [1]. The other factor that hasn't been mentioned is that a disease can be deadlier when the population density is higher. The disease can find another host to infect before the original dies and still stay active. Whereas in a situation with spread apart populations the deadlier variant would die out once the small local population was killed. The European diseases carried this much deadlier profile and thus were more effective in killing native americans than native american diseases were in killing americans. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/

headShrinker 12y ago

This isn't about "bad sanitation". In the olden days they didn't have clean water nor did they bathe on a daily basis. I don't think anyone is saying stop bathing or stop using water. The point of all this is water is a really good solvent for cleansing while still leaving your skin and it's support system intact. Soap is unnecessary and even harmful.

netcan 12y ago

It's not an either/or question. People died from starvation in the past. That doesn't mean that unlimited and unexamined calories are always good. Similarly, treating serious bacterial infections with antibiotics is a good things. Sterile surgery is a good thing. Microbes don't know if that they are supposed to be symbiotic. Sometimes they can be both. They harmful in certain amounts or circumstances and helpful in others. BTW, the idea that killing all microbes is bad is not really a controversial one. It's just the specifics that need to be worked out. For example, we know that sterilization an antibiotics raise the risk of harmful fungal infections (thrush, ringworm, etc). Wrestlers or other especially at risk of ringworm (for example) avoid anti-bacterial soap.