Skip to main content

paranoid theory of the week :: are we being controlled by bacteria?

you cannot resist- we are already inside you!
isn't that a lovely thought for our first paranoid theory of 2016? what if we are not individuals with thoughts and feelings and our own distinct characteristics? what if everything we think of as our conscious behaviour is in fact driven by billions of bacteria living in us at all times, essentially meaning that everything we conceive of as us is really them and there is no us at all?

do you dare question your very existence? do your micro-controllers want you to look through the words below?

the theory ::
human behaviour is chiefly guided by the needs of the billions of microscopic bacteria that live in and on our bodies.

the origin :: 
very tricky to say with any exactitude, but conjecture around it is inextricably linked with the human microbiome project, which was the first large-scale effort to map and categorize the flora living on all human bodies. so we'll cite that as the root of all subsequent theories.

the believers ::
a number of people involved in or interested in the microbiome project from various health sciences fields, although by no means all of them.

the bad guys ::
there are no good guys. there are no bad guys. in fact, if the theory is true "good", "bad" and "guys" are all meaningless terms. there is nothing but bacteria terraforming human cells to perpetuate the life of its kind.

the evidence ::
first off, we must confront an uncomfortable reality: we are more them than we are us. of the total cells that make up the thing that stares back at us in the mirror, human cells represent only about 10%. the rest of that meatbag we call a body is made up of lots of microscopic bacteria, who are just trying to make it work for their people in their corner of the you-niverse. [what human cells lack in number, however, they more than make up for in size/ weight; for instance, the 100 trillion bacteria that live in the average human gut amounts to only a pound or two. so if it's any consolation, by mass, you're definitely human.]

except that the inoculation will only increase our strength
there are certainly examples of microscopic organisms that can control behaviour, but studies have tended to focus on invasive varieties. the best known today is probably toxoplasma gondii, or the "crazy cat lady" parasite. this clever protozoan can live in any warm-blooded animal, but it can only reproduce inside members of the felidae family. here kitty kitty. as you've likely heard, t. gondii has developed a mechanism to make perpetuation of the species more likely: it gets into the brains of the warm-blooded animals where it lives and makes a few tweaks. on the surface, these are pretty harmless, but for species like mice, rats, and birds, they're deadly. that's because the teeny, tiny cysts that t. gondii create have a tendency to turn off the panic reflex these animals have when they come in contact with signs of feline predators. indeed, rats infected with toxoplasmosis not only don't panic when they smell traces of cat urine, they seem to be curious about it. if you're a whole rat, that's suicide. but if your t. gondii living in a rat, it's a crucial change that allows you to get to the only environment where your people can survive. so, yes, this scenario likely ends with the rat-host dying a violent death, but if you're t. gondii, you're all going to die anyway unless you can find a cat.

but toxoplasma gondii is something that's not normally present in humans. there are millions of varieties of bacteria that are normally present in humans and all of them want to create the most hospitable environment for themselves too. think of your ancestors, many thousands of years ago, as they tried to get the hang of farming. they learned that they needed certain things to happen in their environment in order for crops to succeed, primarily irrigation. if there wasn't enough water coming into the land naturally to feed crops, then the humans had to intervene and make a change that brought more water into the land. that's what bacteria do, except that their needs aren't generally as simple as water and the land that they're managing is you.

the gut is the greatest source of bacteria, both in terms of overall number and variety. and not all of those bacteria agree on what constitutes ideal living conditions, not by a long shot. some like to have a more acidic environment. others like things more alkaline. and most of the time, the overall environment is kept balanced enough that everyone can live together, but sometimes, certain species get a taste for expansion and that's when things get weird. when the balanced environment shifts, some bacteria are able to greatly expand their territory, essentially committing bacterial genocide by displacing their neighbours who are less suited to changes in the environment.

their victory only makes them realise the possibilities for even greater conquests, which prompts them to do things that make expansion easier, i.e., things that make their environment [you] more hospitable. what scientists have discovered is that bacteria can do things like signal the vagus nerve to deliver more stuff that will make the environment hospitable, like say, keeping the scid levels higher than normal. the vagus nerve deals with these signals by shooting them into your brain, where you experience them as cravings for things like pasta and pickles, which increase acidity in the gut.

that's all well and good for the bacteria that thrive in acidity, but scientists studying the human microbiome have noted that it can cause long-term environmental damage. people with highly acidic guts are prone to developing all sorts of different conditions, which, unlike acute diseases, don't simply start, progress and pass, but endure, causing ongoing inflammation and deterioration. nor are those limited to the gut. some of the most interesting correlations between human health and acid-base homeostasis [the fancy term for the correct ph balance in the body] have to do with what can happen inside the brain. that's something we've talked about this more than once on more like space.

your size is no match for our superior numbers
the drawback here is that this science is still in its infancy. the human microbiome project was a five-year project that only started in 2008. many of the studies that have produced interesting results have been small. that doesn't make them inaccurate, but it does make them more prone to inaccuracy than larger studies. moving too fast with new technologies can cause more problems than it solves, after all; humanity felt it had made a huge advance when it figured out how to treat sharp force wounds by sewing them up, but that knowledge only became truly helpful when humanity figured out the importance of cleaning the wounds first.

the likelihood :: 7/10
even though the science is young, and it's yet to be determined the extent to which our microbiome makes our decisions, what's come out thus far is pretty damn compelling. bacteria, much like humans, termites, and many other lifeforms, exhibit a type of inverse natural selection, modifying their environment to suit their needs as well as adapting to better survive in it. and we're what's being modified.

there are trillions of them and they are able to send signals for what they need by using our strings of cellular material, signals which we receive and act on. we think we're in control, but every time we want another chocolate, chances are that's a bacterial battalion desperately looking to frack more life-sustaining nutrients out of our lower intestine.

but just because it's been some time since we got all paranoid around these parts, how's this for a potential twist: in two or three hundred years, what are the odds we find out that the bacteria are actually controlled by molecules that cling to their surfaces? how far does this thing go, exactly?

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

filthy lucre

donald trump has shown utter indifference to the possible torture and killing of an american-based journalist jamal khashoggi by saudi arabian security forces acting on the direction of saudi crown prince mohammed bin salman but that's hardly a surprise. he said on the campaign trail that he loved the saudis because they gave him money. he refused to consider placing saudis on his infamous "muslim travel ban" list, despite the fact that saudi arabia is the one country that has been credibly linked to the september 11 terrorist attacks. or that the saudis' particular brand of fundamentalist islam has been described as the root of the extremism espoused by groups like al-qaeda and isis.

trump likes wealthy people and the saudi royals are the blueprint of the type of wealthy people he likes. they spend and live in lavish excess. family members are like catnip for the international celebrity press, even if the news media [like khashoggi] are perceived as enemies of the …

making faces :: written in the stars, in lipstick [part two]

it's the middle of september already? i'm not prepared for that? i mean, i am prepared for it because the heat this summer has been murder on me and i've been begging for a reprieve for months but i'm still bowled over by the speed at which time passes. this year, i've been measuring time through the launches of bite beauty's astrology collection, which arrives like the full moon once a month. [the full moon arrives every four weeks, which is less than any month except february -ed.] earlier this year, i took a look at the first four launches of the collection and already it's time to catch up with four more.

the most important thing for you to know is that after several months of problems, bite and sephora appear to have sorted out their inventory planning. for the last several releases, information has been clear and reliable as to when and where each lipstick will be available [pre-orders taken for a couple of days on bite's own website and a general…

it was my privilege

i haven't posted about the whole u.s. supreme court thing. it's not that i haven't been following it. it's not because i don't have feelings about it. if anything, i have the opposite problem: i have too many feelings about it. i'm normally a pretty icy viewer of news. between dom and me, he's the one who's more sensitive to what happens to other people. i just tend to be focused on what needs to change. or i get angry. and i am angry about what's been going on in the last weeks. but it's not the usual spitting vitriol in the face of the conservative old guard kind of anger. this anger eats away at me like a cancer because it makes me feel hopeless.

many years ago, i thought the idea of "privilege" being accorded to certain groups was a crock. that was because i misinterpreted it as meaning that white people, or men, or straight people, or cisgendered people could never have it as bad as their marginalized counterparts. what it really …