Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About slade19

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Astrology Sign
    How rational.


  • Biography
    not much
  • Location
    France, but been in Egypt most of my life
  • Interests
    cellular biology, system biology, microbiology, neurosciences...
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,294 profile views
  1. According to your definition, favorising the wealthy reproducing among themselves is positive eugenics. I am sure the caste system in India is very open to the mixing of the classes. I think instead you are over-emphasizing unproven genetic selection over more efficient social programs. The only thing demonstrably hereditary about wealth is money.
  2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7646/abs/nature21710.html It's basically the first expressed protein that discriminates cells that did integrate HIV in a quiescent way (reservoir from which the infection can start back from scratch in the absence of therapy), from bystander cells of the same type. This is the first step to a possible real cure to HIV, because it means we could now target and destroy cells that integrated the genome of the virus, so that even if one stops following the tritherapy, the virus wouldn't resurface. Basically getting rid, finally, of all traces of the virus in the body. to the researchers involved.
  3. You are missed. And that's an objective fact. ;)

  4. Genesis and extra-corporeal survival of womb cost>>>surrogate, and that will continue to be the case for a long long while. For now it's not even feasible.
  5. You just multiplied the cost and furthered the date where it could be conceivable by such a large leap...
  6. That's ectopic pregnancies and the leading cause of death in mothers until we could detect it. Embryos can implant themselves in any tissue whether male or female, but only the womb has evolved to handle them and give a chance for the mother to survive.
  7. There is so much silicates everywhere, I can't imagine that nothing has been found yet capable of digesting it in the 4 billion years since Life cohabitates with sand. Oh wait.
  8. You are getting way ahead of yourself in the rest of your post, but let's start with this. Immunological interactions between the mother and fetus are key to its future health, and that includes not only her body but the hosts on it, as has been shown with the formation of the proper microbiome through natural birth (as opposed to cesarean) and the way the immune system of the mother can train and calibrate the fetus's system. Next is hormones; In this contraption there is no placenta (which is made of the zygote's cells), which is a medium through which a very varied set of interactions with the mother, hormonally and cellularly, happen. We have no idea yet how that might impact the future child, except that all the effects we have already identified are probably going to be impaired. This contraption is also going to be incomparably more costly than actual mothers. Here you have to carefully monitor all its vital functions, prepare and synthesize all components of the amniotic fluid, including hormones (which is, chemically speaking, sometimes extremely difficult) and filter all toxins yourself. None of the items here come cheap, in fact most are pretty expensive. A goat needs only grass and some space and it takes care of all that for you, it would be dumb to pass on that (in the case of non-human research that is). Finally, this is but a mere first-step, on fetuses that can occasionally, be viable on their own (we are talking about extreme prematures, not embryos). I don't see this device as being generalizable to other stages, as I said in the OP. Considering how complicated this simple step was to achieve (the main problem was managing blood flow) I think you can imagine how difficult it would be to build a machine capable of accomodating a microscopic embryo and its annexes while it grows to become a fully formed child. What you are describing is a science-fiction scenario, there is no reason to get that excited based on this here because most of what would be required to make your ideas conceivable is not related to it at all.
  9. I don't think this example encompasses what Otto is referring to, I think instead that comparing how various cultures/religions envision "enlightenment" would do it justice. Since Proudfoot's perspective lends itself to empirical study, it should be settled this way by looking at what anthropologists have found. Since I am not particularly familiar with that subject's research, I must refrain from siding with one or the other.
  10. This was published online yesterday: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15112 It's not even close to being able to support an embryo, but it managed to carry an extreme premature lamb (105 days post-fertlization) for four weeks, to a point where it had functional lungs and normal brain myelination. It's first and foremost aimed at supporting extreme premature fetuses, I doubt the setup could be used for stages prior. On the other hand, the lambs that reached 145 dpf (term) were indeed weaned successfully and showed negligible or no differences behaviourally, physiologically, or histologically (tissue structure). That's an impressive achievement.
  11. Even then, if the thing you are trying to explain has multiple causes, one entity may not be enough. For example "why did the cell migrate" may require two independent signals, and not work with one or the other alone.
  12. That's a misunderstanding of the principle which only states that you shouldn't multiply entities unnecessarily. So if you can explain a phenomenon or provide an argument with a single object/assumption, you shouldn't include more assumptions. If the behaviour you try to describe, or your argument, is complex, you may need more than one entity. The simplest example is a function describing a phenomenon and the number of variables taken into account; no need to consider the skin elasticity of the shooter when calculating a ballistic trajectory.
  13. We can brute force our way to sequencing more Genomes and Transcriptomes (and now even metagenomics), thereby dramatically increasing our ability to resolve dynamics and patterns of expression throughout life and in specific situations or tissues. This leads to huge amounts of data on which Big Data and Machine Learning approaches can be applied to extract informations that would be invisible otherwise, and a lot of Proteins are identified this way, way before we know how they work. The trade-off is size; there is a bioinformatics department with the quote "Oh my god, that's 320 Tb" stappled to a door. But you are right that the more we sequence, the more complex it all gets and ultimately the models become less and less mechanistic. For example we now think of the genome as very fluid thanks to recent data, as opposed to something that can be mapped for a species or individual and remain stable and trustworthy afterwards. While the hardware is going strong, bioinformatics techniques have lagged behind. Automated annotation is not yet fully figured out; I remember a notorious mistake: a protein sequence was found expressed in mammal brains, when we sequenced the genome of Maize, the protein was found there as well, so the automated annotation program wrote it was the Maize's brain protein. The thing is, the dramatic increase in sequencing power is not all there is, omics technologies in general are dramatically increasing our ability to explore the state of a population of cells or even single cells for long periods of time at a lot of different levels. And due to the fact that we all evolved from a common ancestor, what is figured out in an organism can really help us in others, so we can build on what has been done before and the difficulty to annotate or resolve specific patterns decreases as well. So it's a mixed baggage.
  14. Depends in what aspect.
  15. The same as Gabriel's Horn but actually coatable?