Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘Freeman Dyson

Come on, Can’t those restricted clubs find a better term than Tribe?

Note: A re-edit of a 2011 article “What is this notion of modern “Tribe”? Is nomadic life-style back in favor?”

It appears that old terms for social organization are considered exotic enough to be used in order to effectively disseminate new concepts; as if languages are too poor to create new words for an evolving civilization, or maybe it is a sarcastic metaphor to mean that our social organization and social behaviors did not improve after hundred of centuries.

One of these most commonly adopted words is “tribe” to describe a collection of people with same shared passions and interests, intellectually or professionally.

We know that there are syndicates, associations, organizations (profit and for non-profit), collectivity, cooperative, community, gang, cartel, commission, political parties, “circle of friends”, sects, cult, castes, clans, classes of people (privileged, poor, elite…), club, strata, close-knit group, regiment, brigade, division, army, squadron, brotherhood, sisterhood…

But why selecting “tribe” among all these social terminologies for gathering in organized units?

Is nomadic life-style back in favor?

Sort of back to nature and retaliations and vendetta customs?

Why chose a term that carries heavy bad connotation of violence and prehistoric traditions?  Such as raiding another tribe, massacring all male members and saving only the virgin girls so that to secure no retribution in kind will happen in forms of vendetta, decades later, or even centuries later!

Obviously, before ransaking all their chattels and domesticated animals for the survival of the famished and unfit mentally.

For example, what is common among Meg Ryan, Debbie Allen, Brian Ray, Hellen Pilcher, Don Lipski, Matt Groening, Ewa Laurance, and Black Ice?

Ken Robinson in his “Element” would like us to believe that they all found their own tribes:  Each one of them, finally, felt part in their new career domain “tribal members in the field” and hit it well with the “field” colleagues.

They discovered that the tribe members validated their passions, passions they share in the tribe, they talked shop, bounced ideas around, shared and compared techniques, indulging enthusiasms or hostilities for the same things.  They were finally convinced that what they were doing mattered and was worth doing.

Is that how tribe members behaved in prehistory?

Working with your tribe, you receive inspiration and provocations to raise the bar on achievements.

For example, William Choukeir borrowed the term “tribe” in his blog notesby.me to refer to “high-energy” gathering of people who join in demanding physical activities and converse on topic of  high quality intellectual level (no argumentations permitted for degrading the discussions).  This process within the tribe is targeted to recharge in energy.

Many professionals in math, sciences…poets, painters, athletes… might prefer to work alone.

Fact is, they are interacting frequently within their close-knit associations:  They publish and interchange ideas and comments:  They stand on the shoulders of previous giants in the profession.

Otherwise, no challenging problems are resolved.

Freeman Dyson says: “Up to a point, you welcome being interrupted because it is only by interchanging ideas with other people who you get anything of interest done.  When I write, I close the door; but when I’m doing science I leave the door open.”

Why using this cute term “tribe”?

Tribes were constituted of population over 150 members; consequently, tribes were split naturally to smaller units or clans for adequate communication among the members and remembering names and the family history of each member.

If the name “team” is too common or Unit is Not appropriate then, how about Tfield, meaning Terrific members (in a particular field of specialty), or Punit for pulsating unit, or RKteam for reversed karma team?

 

How Many Jobs Will Be Replaced By Software Bots and droids? 

Bill Gates: People Don’t Realize How Many Jobs Will Soon Be Replaced By Software Bots

“Robots and algorithms are getting good at jobs like building cars, writing articles, translating.
Jobs that once required a human. So what will we humans do for work?” Andrew McAfee

As it turns out, when tens of millions of people are unemployed or underemployed, there’s a fair amount of interest in what technology might be doing to the labor force.

And as I look at the conversation, it strikes me that it’s focused on exactly the right topic, and at the same time, it’s missing the point entirely.

The topic that it’s focused on, the question is whether or not all these digital technologies are affecting people’s ability to earn a living, or are the droids taking our jobs? And there’s some evidence that they are.

0:43 The Great Recession ended when American GDP resumed its kind of slow, steady march upward, and some other economic indicators also started to rebound, and they got kind of healthy kind of quickly.

Corporate profits are quite high.

In fact, if you include bank profits, they’re higher than they’ve ever been. And business investment in gear, in equipment and hardware and software is at an all-time high. So the businesses are getting out their checkbooks.

What they’re not really doing is hiring.

So this red line is the employment-to-population ratio, the percentage of working age people in America who have work. And we see that it cratered during the Great Recession, and it hasn’t started to bounce back at all.

1:29 But the story is not just a recession story. The decade that we’ve just been through had relatively anemic job growth all throughout, especially when we compare it to other decades, and the 2000s are the only time we have on record where there were fewer people working at the end of the decade than at the beginning.

This is not what you want to see. When you graph the number of potential employees versus the number of jobs in the country, you see the gap gets bigger and bigger over time, and then, during the Great Recession, it opened up in a huge way. I did some quick calculations.

I took the last 20 years of GDP growth and the last 20 years of labor productivity growth and used those in a fairly straightforward way to try to project how many jobs the economy was going to need to keep growing, and this is the line that I came up with. Is that good or bad?

This is the government’s projection for the working age population going forward. So if these predictions are accurate, that gap is not going to close.

2:32 The problem is, I don’t think these projections are accurate. In particular, I think my projection is way too optimistic, because when I did it, I was assuming that the future was kind of going to look like the past with labor productivity growth, and that’s actually not what I believe.

When I look around, I think that we ain’t seen nothing yet when it comes to technology’s impact on the labor force. Just in the past couple years, we’ve seen digital tools display skills and abilities that they never, ever had before, and that, kind of, eat deeply into what we human beings do for a living. Let me give you a couple examples.

3:10 Throughout all of history, if you wanted something translated from one language into another, you had to involve a human being. Now we have multi-language, instantaneous, automatic translation services available for free via many of our devices all the way down to smartphones. And if any of us have used these, we know that they’re not perfect, but they’re decent.

3:34 Throughout all of history, if you wanted something written, a report or an article, you had to involve a person. Not anymore. This is an article that appeared in Forbes online a while back about Apple’s earnings. It was written by an algorithm. And it’s not decent, it’s perfect.

3:51 A lot of people look at this and they say, “Okay, but those are very specific, narrow tasks, and most knowledge workers are actually generalists, and what they do is sit on top of a very large body of expertise and knowledge and they use that to react on the fly to kind of unpredictable demands, and that’s very, very hard to automate.”

One of the most impressive knowledge workers in recent memory is a guy named Ken Jennings. He won the quiz show “Jeopardy!” 74 times in a row, took home three million dollars. That’s Ken on the right getting beat three to one by Watson, the “Jeopardy!”-playing supercomputer from IBM.

When we look at what technology can do to general knowledge workers, I start to think there might not be something so special about this idea of a generalist, particularly when we start doing things like hooking Siri up to Watson and having technologies that can understand what we’re saying and repeat speech back to us.

Now, Siri is far from perfect, and we can make fun of her flaws, but we should also keep in mind that if technologies like Siri and Watson improve along a Moore’s Law trajectory, which they will, in six years, they’re not going to be two times better or four times better, they’ll be 16 times better than they are right now. So I start to think that a lot of knowledge work is going to be affected by this.

5:12 And digital technologies are not just impacting knowledge work.

They’re starting to flex their muscles in the physical world as well. I had the chance a little while back to ride in the Google autonomous car, which is as cool as it sounds. (Laughter) And I will vouch that it handled the stop-and-go traffic on U.S. 101 very smoothly.

There are about three and a half million people who drive trucks for a living in the United States. I think some of them are going to be affected by this technology. And right now, humanoid robots are still incredibly primitive. They can’t do very much. But they’re getting better quite quickly, and DARPA, which is the investment arm of the Defense Department, is trying to accelerate their trajectory.

5:54 The droids are coming for our jobs.

In the short term, we can stimulate job growth by encouraging entrepreneurship and by investing in infrastructure, because the robots today still aren’t very good at fixing bridges. But in the not-too-long-term, I think within the lifetimes of most of the people in this room, we’re going to transition into an economy that is very productive but that just doesn’t need a lot of human workers, and managing that transition is going to be the greatest challenge that our society faces. Voltaire summarized why. He said, “Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need.”

6:36 But despite this challenge, I’m personally, I’m still a huge digital optimist, and I am supremely confident that the digital technologies that we’re developing now are going to take us into a utopian future, not a dystopian future. And to explain why, I want to pose kind of a ridiculously broad question. I want to ask what have been the most important developments in human history?

6:58 Now, I want to share some of the answers that I’ve gotten in response to this question. It’s a wonderful question to ask and to start an endless debate about, because some people are going to bring up systems of philosophy in both the West and the East that have changed how a lot of people think about the world.

And then other people will say, “No, actually, the big stories, the big developments are the founding of the world’s major religions, which have changed civilizations and have changed and influenced how countless people are living their lives.”

And then some other folk will say, “Actually, what changes civilizations, what modifies them and what changes people’s lives are empires, so the great developments in human history are stories of conquest and of war.”

And then some cheery soul usually always pipes up and says, “Hey, don’t forget about plagues.” 

There are some optimistic answers to this question, so some people will bring up the Age of Exploration and the opening up of the world.

Others will talk about intellectual achievements in disciplines like math that have helped us get a better handle on the world, and other folk will talk about periods when there was a deep flourishing of the arts and sciences.

So this debate will go on and on. It’s an endless debate, and there’s no conclusive, no single answer to it.

But if you’re a geek like me, you say, “Well, what do the data say?”

And you start to do things like graph things that we might be interested in, the total worldwide population, for example, or some measure of social development, or the state of advancement of a society, and you start to plot the data, because, by this approach, the big stories, the big developments in human history, are the ones that will bend these curves a lot.

8:39 So when you do this, and when you plot the data, you pretty quickly come to some weird conclusions.

You conclude that none of these things have mattered very much.

They haven’t done a darn thing to the curves. There has been one story, one development in human history that bent the curve, bent it just about 90 degrees, and it is a technology story.

9:06 The steam engine, and the other associated technologies of the Industrial Revolution changed the world and influenced human history so much, that in the words of the historian Ian Morris, they made mockery out of all that had come before. (Anything that increase power?)

And they did this by infinitely multiplying the power of our muscles, overcoming the limitations of our muscles. Now, what we’re in the middle of now is overcoming the limitations of our individual brains and infinitely multiplying our mental power. (Our individual mental power or the multinational knowledge power?)

How can this not be as big a deal as overcoming the limitations of our muscles?

So at the risk of repeating myself a little bit, when I look at what’s going on with digital technology these days, we are not anywhere near through with this journey, and when I look at what is happening to our economies and our societies, my single conclusion is that we ain’t seen nothing yet. The best days are really ahead. (Increased unemployment is that good?)

9:59 Let me give you a couple examples. Economies don’t run on energy. They don’t run on capital, they don’t run on labor. Economies run on ideas. (Then why economy is still reliant on cheap oil and gas?)

So the work of innovation, the work of coming up with new ideas, is some of the most powerful, some of the most fundamental work that we can do in an economy.

And this is kind of how we used to do innovation. We’d find a bunch of fairly similar-looking people we’d take them out of elite institutions, we’d put them into other elite institutions, and we’d wait for the innovation.

As a white guy who spent his whole career at MIT and Harvard, I got no problem with this.

But some other people do, and they’ve kind of crashed the party and loosened up the dress code of innovation. 

So here are the winners of a Top Coder programming challenge, and I assure you that nobody cares where these kids grew up, where they went to school, or what they look like. All anyone cares about is the quality of the work, the quality of the ideas.

11:07 And over and over again, we see this happening in the technology-facilitated world.

The work of innovation is becoming more open, more inclusive, more transparent, and more merit-based, and that’s going to continue no matter what MIT and Harvard think of it, and I couldn’t be happier about that development.

11:25 I hear once in a while, “Okay, I’ll grant you that, but technology is still a tool for the rich world, and what’s not happening, these digital tools are not improving the lives of people at the bottom of the pyramid.”

And I want to say to that very clearly: nonsense. The bottom of the pyramid is benefiting hugely from technology. The economist Robert Jensen did this wonderful study a while back where he watched, in great detail, what happened to the fishing villages of Kerala, India, when they got mobile phones for the very first time, and when you write for the Quarterly Journal of Economics, you have to use very dry and very circumspect language, but when I read his paper, I kind of feel Jensen is trying to scream at us, and say, look, this was a big deal.

Prices stabilized, so people could plan their economic lives. Waste was not reduced; it was eliminated. And the lives of both the buyers and the sellers in these villages measurably improved.

Now, what I don’t think is that Jensen got extremely lucky and happened to land in the one set of villages where technology made things better. What happened instead is he very carefully documented what happens over and over again when technology comes for the first time to an environment and a community.

The lives of people, the welfares of people, improve dramatically.

12:40 So as I look around at all the evidence, and I think about the room that we have ahead of us, I become a huge digital optimist, and I start to think that this wonderful statement from the physicist Freeman Dyson is actually not hyperbole.

This is an accurate assessment of what’s going on. Our digital — our technologies are great gifts, and we, right now, have the great good fortune to be living at a time when digital technology is flourishing, when it is broadening and deepening and becoming more profound all around the world.

13:10 The droids are taking our jobs, but focusing on that fact misses the point entirely.

The point is that then we are freed up to do other things, and what we are going to do, I am very confident, what we’re going to do is reduce poverty and drudgery and misery around the world. (If these were to happen, they would have been proven in the data and the world would not be in such a dismal condition. And I’m not talking rates and ratio, but actual numbers)

I’m very confident we’re going to learn to live more lightly on the planet, and I am extremely confident that what we’re going to do with our new digital tools is going to be so profound and so beneficial that it’s going to make a mockery out of everything that came before.

I’m going to leave the last word to a guy who had a front row seat for digital progress, our old friend Ken Jennings. I’m with him. I’m going to echo his words: “I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords.”

Patsy Z and TEDxSKE shared this link on FB.
Robots and algorithms are getting good at jobs like building cars, writing articles, translating.
Jobs that once required a human. So what will we humans do for work?
Andrew McAfee walks through recent labor data to say: We ain’t seen nothing yet. But then he steps back to look at big history, and…
ted.com|By Andrew McAfee

It appears that old terms for social organization are considered exotic enough to be used in order to effectively disseminate new concepts; as if languages are too poor to creating new words for an evolving civilization, or maybe it is a sarcastic metaphor to mean that our social organization and social behaviors did not improve after hundred of centuries.  One of these most commonly adopted words is “tribe” to describing a collection of people with same shared passions and interests, intellectually or professionally.

We know that there are syndicates, associations, organizations (profit and for non-profit), collectivity, cooperative, community, gang, cartel, commission, political parties, “circle of friends”, sects, cult, castes, clans, classes of people (privileged, poor, elite…), club, strata, close-knit group, regiment, brigade, division, army, squadron, brotherhood, sisterhood… But why selecting “tribe” among all these social terminologies for gathering in organized units? 

Is nomadic life-style back in favor?  Sort of back to nature and retaliations and vendetta customs?  Why chose a term that carries heavy bad connotation of violence and prehistoric traditions?  Such as raiding another tribe, massacring all male members and saving only the virgin girls so that to secure no retribution in kind will happen in forms of vendetta, decades later, or even centuries later!  Obviously, before ransaking all their chattels and domesticated animals for the survival of the famished and unfit mentally.

For example, what is common among Meg Ryan, Debbie Allen, Brian Ray, Hellen Pilcher, Don Lipski, Matt Groening, Ewa Laurance, and Black Ice?  Ken Robinson in his “Element” would like us to believe that they all found their own tribes:  Each one of them, finally, felt part in their new career domain “tribal members in the field” and hit it well with the “field” colleagues.  They discovered that the tribe members validated their passions, passions they share in the tribe, they talked shop, bounced ideas around, shared and compared techniques, indulging enthusiasms or hostilities for the same things.  They were finally convinced that what they were doing mattered and was worth doing.

Is that how tribe members behaved in prehistory?

Working with your tribe, you receive inspiration and provocations to raising the bar on achievements.  For example, William Choukeir borrowed the term “tribe” in his blog notesby.me to refer to “high-energy” gathering of people who join in demanding physical activities and converse on topic of  high quality intellectual level (no argumentations permitted for degrading the discussions).  This process within the tribe is targeted to recharging in energy.

Many professionals in math, sciences…poets, painters, athletes… might prefer to work alone; fact is, they are interacting frequently within their close-knit associations:  They publish and interchange ideas and comments:  They stand on the shoulders of previous giants in the profession.  Otherwise, no challenging problems are resolved.  Freeman Dyson says: “Up to a point, you welcome being interrupted because it is only by interchanging ideas with other people who you get anything of interest done.  When I write I close the door; but when I’m doing science I leave the door open.”

Why using this cute term “tribe”?  Tribes were constituted of population over 150 members; consequently, tribes were split naturally to smaller units or clans for adequate communication among the members and remembering names and the family history of each member.  If the name “team” is too common or unit is inapropriate then, how about Tfield, meaning Terrific members (in a particular field of specialty), or Punit for pulsating unit, or RKeam for reversed karma team?

“A short history of nearly everything” by Bill Bryson (written on September 25, 2007)

This is a voluminous book of 575 pages that describes and explains the scientific achievements that tried to comprehend Earth and the life processes.

I will try to summarize the discoveries chronologically, each discipline taken separately such as physics, chemistry, and geology and so forth.  It is a long undertaking but it would be useful for me in this assimilation process and quick review of science on the march, to explain, and to conquer.

The manuscript is divided into 6 parts: lost in the Cosmos, the size of the earth, the new age, dangerous planet, life itself, and the road to us.  I am including a few quotations of scientists that preface each main part.

Hans Christian von Baeyer in “Taming the atom“: “The physicist Leo Szilard announced to Hans Bethe that he was thinking of keeping a diary: “I don’t intend to publish.  I am merely going to record the facts for the information of God”   Bethe asked him: “Don’t you think God knows the facts?”   Szilard replied: “God knows the facts, but not this version of the facts

The Astronomer Geoffrey Marcy describing the solar system: “They’re all in the same plane. They’re all going around in the same direction.  It’s perfect, you know.  It’s gorgeous. It’s almost uncanny”.

Alexander Pope in an epitaph intended for Sir Isaac Newton: ” Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said: “Let Newton be!” and all was light”

An anonymous: “A physicist is the atoms’ way of thinking about atoms”

The British geologist Derek V. Alger: “The history of any one part of the Earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror”

Freeman Dyson: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming”

Remark of the wife of the Bishop of Worcester after Darwin’s theory of evolution was explained to her: “Descended from the apes! My dear, let us hope that it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known”

Byron in “Darkness”: “I had a dream which was not all a dream

The bright sun was extinguish’d, and the stars

Did wander…”

Lonely planet

Earth is not the easiest place to be an organism, even if it is the only place in our nearest galaxies.  The portion of land mass or continental area we are able to live in is only about 12% because we are not adaptable to hot or very cold weather.  Apparently, the most recent super volcano eruption occurred at Toba in Northern Sumatra, about 74,000 years ago and almost annihilated human kind; maybe a thousand human survived, which account for the lack of our genetic diversity.

Greenland ice cores show that the Toba blast was followed by at least six years of “volcanic winter” and many poor growing seasons after that.  There are currently 13 active super volcanoes and Yellowstone in the USA is the only continental one.  Yellowstone is estimated to erupt every 600, 000 years and is ready for another of his monstrous feat; the last eruption was estimated to spew enough ash to bury the State of California under 6 meters of ash; ash covered the whole western states of the USA and a large part of Canada.

We belong to the portion of living things that decided 400 million years ago to crawl out of the sea and become land-based and oxygen-breathing creatures.  We abandoned the vast seas for a more restricted area with the advantage that we can climb over 7000 meters and live at very high altitude while the feat of the Italian Umberto Pelizzari recorded 72 meters under water.  We cannot bear the pressure of the water; for every 10 meters of depth we add one atmosphere.

A few professional divers, aided by weight to descend up to 150 meters, their lungs are compressed to the dimensions of a Coke can.  Since our body is mostly water and water cannot be compressed by water, it is the gases in our body that is fatal in the depths.  At a specific depth, Nitrogen in our system starts to bubble and enter our blood stream and obstruct the tiny blood vessels, depriving cells of oxygen.

Human technology was able to send a diving vessel to the deepest point in the Mariana Trench in the Pacific at 11.3 kilometers down; they discovered a type of crustacean similar to shrimp but transparent.  There are particular microbes that strive in water at temperature over 70 degrees Celsius.

Observers have identified two dozen fortunate breaks we have had on Earth to create the living organism.  If the Sun was larger it would have exhausted its fuel before Earth could be formed because the larger the star the more rapidly it burns.  If we were two light minutes closer to the Sun we would be like planet Venus that cannot sustain life; Venus surface temperature is 470 degrees Celsius and all its water has evaporated driving hydrogen away into space.

If we were 1% further from the Sun we would be like frozen Mars. If our core didn’t contain molten liquid we would not have magnetism to protect us from cosmic rays.  If our tectonic plates didn’t collide to produce more gases and continually renew and rumple the surface with mountains then we would be under 4,000 meters of water.

If our moon was not large enough, one fourth the size of Earth, then Earth would be wobbling like a dying top with unstable climate and weather. It is to be noted that the Moon is slipping away at a rate of 4 centimeters a year, relinquishing its gravitational hold.  If comets didn’t strike Earth to produce the Moon or asteroid to wipe out the Dinosaurs or if we didn’t enjoy enough stability for a long time human would not be what they are.

Earth contains 92 naturally occurring elements and barely 6 of them are of central importance to life.

Of every 200 atoms in our body, 126 are hydrogen, 51 are oxygen, 19 are carbon, 3 are nitrogen and the remaining atom is divided among all the other elements such as iron to manufacture hemoglobin, Cobalt for the creation of vitamin B12, Potassium and Sodium for the transmission of electrical charges in the nerves, Molybdenum, manganese and vanadium to keep the enzymes purring and Zink to oxidize alcohol.

Oxygen is the most abundant element on Earth crust of about 50%, then silicon, and aluminum the fourth.  Carbon is only the 15th most common element or 0.05% of Earth crust, but is the most promiscuous since it adheres to almost every atom and holds extremely tight, and is the very trick of nature to build proteins and DNA.

What we marvel at is not that Earth is suitable to life but that it is suitable to our life.  A big part that Earth seems so miraculously accommodating is that we evolved to suit its severe conditions.  When elements don’t occur naturally on earth, like plutonium, we have evolved zero tolerance for them.  Selenium is vital to all of us but is toxic at a little higher level; even tiny dozes of arsenic, lead, copper and other natural elements we have managed to tolerate but industrialization is not allowing the natural tolerance process in evolution to absorb these huge amounts of noxious elements in our artificial environment.

The building blocks of life might be the 20 amino acids that combine in certain sequences to form the 700,000 kinds of proteins in our body; the number of proteins discovered is increasing and might be in the range of one million kinds.

Hemoglobin is only a chain of 146 amino acids long, a runt by protein standards in length, and yet it offers 10 at an exponent of 190 possible amino-acid combinations in order to have the exact sequence of the different kinds of amino acids.

To make the protein called “collagen” you need to arrange 1,055 amino acids in precisely the right sequence which means you need 1,055 spinning wheels with 20 symbols in each wheel to coincide exactly for the jack pot! Thus, the odd that any protein was formed by hazard is nil.

Any protein cannot reproduce itself and it needs DNA, which is a whiz in replicating itself.

DNA can do nothing but replicate proteins and proteins which are useless without DNA.  Are we to assume that these two organisms arose simultaneously with the purpose of supporting each other?

No atom or molecule has achieved life independently; it needs some sort of membrane to contain them so that they come together within the nurturing refuge of a cell.  Without the chemicals, the cell has no purpose.  It is little wonder that we call it the miracle of life.  Forming amino acids is not the problem because if we expose water to ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and methane gases and introduce some electrical sparks, as a stand-in for lighting, then within days you will have amino acids, fatty acids, sugar and other organic compounds.

What was needed is a process of a few of these amino acids to procreate and then cluster to discover some additional improvement.

What do we know about cells so far?

A single cell splits to become two and after 47 doublings you have 10 thousand trillion cells and ready to spring forth as a human being.  Each cell carries a copy of the complete genetic code, the instruction manual for your body, and it knows far more about you that you do, and is devoted in some intensively specific way to your overall well-being.

The human body has at least a few hundred types of cells and they vary in shape, size, and longevity; we have nerve cells, red blood cells, photocells, liver cells that can survive for years, brain cells that last as long as we live and they don’t increase from the day we are born but 500 die every single hour, and so forth.  The components within a cell are constantly renewed so that everything in us is completely renewed every nine years.

The outer casing of a cell is made up of lipid or light grade of machine oil but on the molecular level it is as strong as iron, then the nucleus wherein resides the genetic information and the busy space called cytoplasm. The cell contains about a thousand power plants or mitochondria that convert processed food and oxygen into ATP molecules or battery packs.

A cell would use up one billion ATP molecules in two minutes or half the body weight every day. The electrical energy activities in a cell is about 0.1 volts traveling distances in the nanometers; or when this number is scale up it is the equivalent of 20 million volts per meter or the amount of what a thunderstorm is charged.

Each strand of DNA is damaged 10,000 times a day and swiftly repaired, if the cell is not to perish by a command received from a hormone. When a cell receives the order to die then it quietly devour its components. For example, nitric oxide is a formidable toxin in nature but cells are tremendous manufacturers of this substance which control blood flow, the energy level in cells, attacking cancerous cells, regulating the sense of smell, and penile erection among other things.

Our body contains 200,000 different types of protein and we barely understand a tiny fraction of them. 

Enzymes are a type of protein with tasks to rebuild molecules and marking the damaged pieces and other protein for processing. 

A cell might contain 20,000 different types of protein.

In the 1860s, Louis Pasteur showed that life cannot arise spontaneously, but come from pre-existing cells. 

.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

May 2020
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Blog Stats

  • 1,383,684 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 731 other followers

%d bloggers like this: