SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 24h37m22s-should-be-close-enough-for-anyone dept.
A team of scientists from Holland, Germany and the UK's University of Manchester studied animals in which variation in a single gene dramatically speeds up the natural circadian cycle from 24 to 20 hours (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1516442113).
It is the first study to demonstrate of the value of having an internal body clock which beats in tune with the speed of the earth's rotation.
The researchers released animals with 24 hour or 20 hour clocks into outdoor pens, with free access to food, and studied how the proportion of animals with fast clocks changed in the population over a period of 14 months.
This allowed the team to study the impact of clock-speed in context of the "real-world" rather than indoors.
Mice with fast-running clock gradually become less common with successive generations, so that by the end of the study, the population was dominated by animals with "normal" 24h clocks.
The research has potentially important implications for human health: clock-disruption associated with abnormal work and lighting conditions, such as night shift work leads to health problems, such as increased risk of Type 2 diabetes.
Wouldn't Mars-born humans gradually select for circadian rhythms that match Mars's rotation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:16AM
Geez, and I was all psyched up to go.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:18AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:21AM
I thought that in studies where they isolate people from natural light, they found the body's clock tended to be about 25 hours anyway.
Random corroboration: Human Biological Clock Set Back an Hour [harvard.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:37AM
Days on Earth are gradually getting longer, because of the tides raised by the Moon. The moons of Mars are, relatively, smaller so the tidal effects ought to be weaker. Eventually, the length of the day on the two planets is likely to become the same (and after that, Earth will have longer days than Mars).
(Score: 2, Informative) by fraxinus-tree on Wednesday January 27 2016, @10:28AM
Mars actually gets _faster_ because of tidal forces and will keep this way until Phobos finally manages down to the planet. Both effects (on Earth and on Mars) have no measurable impact on a civilization timeframe.
Then again, humans are much less dependent on daylight than mice (and humans probably will be even less connected to the daylight on Mars where the it is much less and will be even less if it has to enter a small pressurized windows)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:44AM
When i was studying for my PhD, spending most of my waking hours in windowless rooms working on computers, my circadian rhythm was about 26 hours. Now that I'm in a regular environment, every morning comes too soon. Could this be typical of nightowls?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Kell on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:53AM
I am inclined to agree - I think it's a societal adaptation that allows part of the tribe to be asleep while someone is always awake and on the lookout for tigers. A 'rolling' circadian rhythm means you randomise your sentries' down period and cannot predict when is optimal to strike. This also allows the rest of the tribe to benefit from whatever system-wide advantages are to be gained from having the vast majority of people running on a regular integrated rhythm.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:02AM
Bah, you call it system-wide advantages; I call it rush hour.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:25AM
A 'rolling' circadian rhythm means you have N24 and are shunned from society. There are extremely few jobs where you can come in later every day and not be instantly labeled as extremely lazy and then fired, even with a doctors note and with it being against disability laws. No one likes waking up in the morning, so if you don't/can't you're simply lazy. People pride themselves on how much they can drug themselves with caffeine and sugar instead of sleeping. Want to go out walking at night when you're wide awake? Expect to be harassed by police as only trouble makers are out 'excising' at 3am. It's not even legal to be about at that time of night when you're younger. How would you like it if it were illegal to go outside during your 'day'? No social activities, no parks, no stores, etc... At least now there's the internet 24x7 and it's faster at night.
I had a sleep doctor tell me I can get up in the morning because she has three kids and she can do it. So since I don't have any kids its easier for me.
So despite 17 years of sleep problems, 3 firings, and 2 suicide attempts, I'm a friend-less lazy bum making 80K and nearing my 4th job loss. Forcing yourself to go to sleep when you're most alert and productive, then trying to do all your work when you're half asleep and least productive is extremely difficult, not lazy.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:59AM
I can sympathise, I have the same sort of problem with my sleep cycle and get the same "oh you're just lazy" type shit for it.
I've always compensated for it by doing things I probably shouldn't, like staying up 20-30 hours as needed to correct my schedule again after it gets too far away from an "acceptable" rhythm. Or, at one point I was only sleeping 3-4 hours a night for months because I had to work mornings but couldn't fall asleep early enough, no matter how exhausted I was, because I'd always get a second wind around 11pm or midnight. The only thing that's ever helped me is exercising myself into exhaustion, but that only does so much, so I still tend to wake up during my "high" times. It's also not as convenient to do where I live now, because I used to live within a few blocks of a gym that stayed open fairly late, so I'm dealing with the same shit again.
As for being out late and treated like shit for it, it sucks but it also depends on where you live. For example, nobody gives it a second thought if you're still out that late in Manhattan, at least if you know where to go; businesses around Times Square (especially restaurants) don't even close until around 3am. Then you go to some podunk town in western NY and get harassed by cops fishing for something to bust you over because you made the mistake of being out at 9pm.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @02:52AM
> Then you go to some podunk town in western NY and get harassed by cops fishing for something to bust you over because you made the mistake of being out at 9pm.
Do you kill them?
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:48AM
When I had to follow a conventional work schedule, I found that taking a nap during my lunch-time was helpful. So, I think, was avoiding bright, blue light at night. If you're earning $80 k/year you're beating the US average [wikipedia.org]. Is there work you can do that would allow you a flexible schedule? Even if your income took a hit, it might be worth it for your sanity's sake.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:23AM
Er, no. That's not how it works. We all have a circadian rhythm that is not 24 hours.
Exposure to sunlight keeps us in sync. That's why some blind people have such a problem with this -- it's like being jetlagged for half their lives.
There was a study that showed that shining a bright light in the ear during daylight hours could substitute for light in the eyes, keeping the subject in sync with daytime. This is also why sitting in front of an LCD monitor late at night is not a good idea if you want to sleep well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Kell on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:42AM
We have a circadian rhythm that is 24 hours and 11 minutes [wikipedia.org] long. The previous study that said it was 25 hours long was faulty, exactly because of the effect of lighting that you mention. Other studies have supported that there is natural sleep phase variation in humans - the wiki article on delayed sleep phase disorder [wikipedia.org] is enlightening. If people with a vision impairment have natural sleep phases and light sensitivity, then I have no doubt that they would experience the effect you describe. Might the sleep phase differences between people simply be a result of one's sensitivity to ambient light? If I am not very sensitive, a little darkness will not make me sleep and a little light will not make me wakeful - I need deep darkness (late night) and strong light (late morning) to sleep and rise. I can personally attest that even with no exposure to natural lighting, I am alert and attentive until the early morning, likewise it takes a very great deal of natural light to wake me up (typically near-midday levels of light).
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:22AM
There are different levels of "blind", but some blind people have no eyes and they do drift off the normal day rhythm. I know one such person.
My personal anecdote is a trip to India, which is almost opposite in phase to where I live. On the day of my arrival (a Sunday), I spent several hours by the outdoor pool at the hotel. I got over my jetlag quicker on that trip than any other I can remember.
The article on DSPD is interesting. I find that I naturally sleep best if I go to bed quite late (11:30 to midnight). Attempts to shift my sleep time result in waking during the night.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:48AM
Yes, I've worked with people with vision impairment extensively. Some have no eyes, limited vision and varying degrees of light sensitivity. I'm not at all surprised that people with no light sensitivity get out of sync with the day time, although I haven't seen much of that myself. Interestingly, rather than "blind", the preferred terminology in our professional environment is "person with vision impairment"- it places the focus on the person, rather than the condition. This was an interesting education for me the first time I started working with them. I've met some astonishingly capable people like Gerard Gosens and Daniel Kish. They are simply amazing in what they can do.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:07AM
The person that I know who is blind refers to herself as "blind". Also, we volunteer for "Guide dogs for the Blind" [guidedogs.com]. No one that we have come across through that organization has any issue with the use of the word "blind", although many people with guide dogs have a small amount of vision.
It is truly amazing what some of them can do. For example Trevor Thomas, [blindhikertrevorthomas.com] who seems to have no problem with the use of the word "blind".
(Score: 2) by Kell on Wednesday January 27 2016, @08:17AM
Sure. I'm not saying it's common or expected to use that terminology, at all. I just said it was interesting that that's our usage in our professional work, as stipulated by Vision Australia (with whom we collaborate).
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:46PM
I guess it must differ by country. Groups of people with disabilities in some countries actually disprefer person-first language [rationalwiki.org] when it becomes awkward.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:56AM
They have to contend with:
- An unbreathable atmosphere.
- Water that is likely laced with poisonous chemicals.
- Limited food supplies.
- Limited power supplies.
- Low gravity - this is one that's really edited out of most of the movies about Mars expeditions.
- Trying to not get on each others' nerves.
- Being years from help if they need it.
Yeah, I think they're really going to be upset about a day being 20 minutes longer. Which is more-or-less fixable by using sun-like lamps in the tin can they are living in. Going to Mars is going to be one of the hardest things our species has ever managed to do, assuming we manage to do it at all before we blow ourselves to bits with nukes or something (although a solution presents itself [xkcd.com]).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:41PM
Well, low gravity may be an ongoing issue (or not, we really only know that micro-gravity is an issue, and the mechanisms we've identified don't seem like they'd be really sensitive to exactly how much you have, as long as it is "a lot more than effectively nothing", but pretty much everything else has been solved, at least in principle. The International Space Station has shown we've mastered surviving in tin cans in far more hostile areas.
Possibly poisonous water - I'm sure we can purify it. With luck through bio-remediation in the greenhouses, possibly with the help of reverse osmosis. Worst-case by electrolysis and re-combustion, though that would probably rely on getting power from nuclear reactors rather than solar panels.
Power - maybe, but while solar yield will be only 40% of what we get on Earth, the Russians have already developed fission reactors that work equally well on Earth or in orbit, so I think that's a solved problem.
Atmosphere - plenty of of oxygen right outside on Mars, just need to pressurize it and let some plants breathe it first. As a bonus they'll convert the carbon in the CO2 into food and other useful materials.
Being years away from help? Really? It's called "helping yourselves" You know - the way colonists to the Americas didn't go back to Europe every time they stubbed their toe. Yes, it will take a while to build up the infrastructure for uncommon problems, and yes, in the meantime people will die from things that they would have a good chance of surviving on Earth. But that's always the case with colonization.
But yeah, in the early days there's always the chance that some major problem may wipe out a young, isolated outpost. But that's always been the case with colonization - it's a dangerous business being on the front lines of conquest. Be it the natives who don't want to let you take their stuff, or the ecosystem so unwelcoming that there are no natives.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:04PM
I'm not implying that we shouldn't go for it. I'm just saying that this seems to be focusing the attention on one of the most minor problems they'd have to contend with. And yes, I fully expect that landing on Mars will involve a body count, just like landing on the moon and even going into LEO did and still occasionally does.
If you compare hypothetical Mars colonists with the North American 1600's colonists, you'll see that the Mars colonists have a much tougher time of it. The things you need to survive are:
Shelter - The east coast of North America has plentiful supplies of wood that can be used to build shelters, so this was not much of a problem. By contrast, on Mars, all there is to build with are rocks, which can be used for building but are not airtight and are much harder to work with than wood.
Air - The east coast of North America had the same basic composition of air that Europe did. Mars doesn't have anything close.
Water - The Americas had and still have plenty of water on the east coast. It's not surprising that the earliest attempts were at river mouths.
Food - This was a real problem for the American colonists, but they were aided significantly by friendly native Americans both in learning farming techniques and actual supplies to do it. The would-be Martians, by contrast, have no supplies of food except what they bring with them.
Temperature control - The Americas had a similar-ish climate to Europe, just somewhat colder. Mars is much much colder than anywhere on Earth.
Not getting sick - That's the one thing the Mars colonists probably won't have to encounter, but if they do, it's an immediate death sentence.
So I stand by my statement that it will be the hardest thing we've ever done. We should still do it though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:31PM
No argument - I see Mars colonization as growing beyond the ISS successes - less frequent restocking, but bountiful natural resources. Lots of sand, which with the right binding agent should make for sturdy, reasonably airtight concrete structures, and I believe there's some folks working with Martian soil analysis with the goal of producing a local-made binding agent as well.
And of course lots of potential to harness micro- and nano-cellulose grown from local resources as an incredible building material. Nanocellulose especially has incredible potential on a dry planet - comparable strength to aluminum, translucent, and extremely gas-impermeable. Microcellulose is more like particleboard "clay" in comparison, which still has immense potential for furniture and the like. Both can be made from plant waste using only mechanical processing, so should be readily compostable as well. And both act like a strong water-based clay - malleable when wet, rigid when dry, allowing for easy repairs. Got a hole in your dome's airtight lining and no patches handy? Just scrape off the waterproof paint, get the area good and wet, and massage it a bit so it flows together again (provided the concrete structure slows air leaks enough that the "plastic" doesn't flow appreciably while drying... though that actually has some really cool potential in it's own right if you can do it in a controlled fashion - think that "plastic bubble" kids toy dome on a living-dome scale.)
As for food, air, and water - those are all interconnected, call it ecosystem, and Biosphere II showed that we can mostly manage an artificial system in a pseudo--steady-state. Adding the local availabiliy of water, CO2, and whatever useful minerals we can find should go a long way towards making the system stable and capable of growth, though obviously it might take years before whatever seed ecosystem we took with us grew large and strong enough to support a colony, and we would be heavily dependent on imported supplies until then.
Heat may be a challenge, but thermodynamics dictates that pretty much any power source other than solar or p-B fusion is going to produce more heat than electricity. And it's worth considering that while Mars is cold, it's also essentially a giant vacuum thermos - you only have to insulate yourself from the ground - the air is so thin as to be effectively temperatureless for most purposes.
As for being sick - it seems extremely unlikely that they will be able to purge infectious diseases from the colonists, but that doesn't really matter, The vast majority of modern medicine miracles boil down to antibiotics, and penicillin is still one of the most powerful universal antibiotics available, and is basically just easily grown mold. We stopped using it not so much because newer drugs are more effective, but because it's not protected by patents (no inflated profits to be had), and over-use was beginning to breed penicillin-resistant diseases (such resistance tends to fades rapidly in its absence). And possibly slightly fewer patient reactions with other drugs (though I'm reminded that heroin was invented as a safer, less addictive alternative to opium...)
As for non-infectious diseases - well, yeah, the population is going to need to grow pretty large before it can start supporting cardiac specialists and the like, or for that matter the long-term bedridden. So end-of-life may occur much more rapidly than on Earth. On the other hand that could be a good thing. In the US especially we've become obsessed with extending life long beyond the point where it's worth living, just because we can (and everyone in the medical profession stands to profit from it). But there's beginning to be a cultural backlash, could be Mars returns to sanity by the simple expedient of being unable to afford extreme measures. Besides there will almost certainly be good general surgeons backed by the best in expert systems and non-emergency consultations with specialists on Earth.
It's not like the medical knowledge will be lost - just a lot of the more extreme technology. And for that... well there's some awesome work being done targeting rural India, Africa, and similar money-poor, off-grid hospitals to develop low-tech hardware as a 90% solution to the fact that Western medical hardware rapidly becomes useless junk without a steady supply of reliable power, expensive ongoing parts and maintenance, and well-trained operators. Such simple, durable hardware should be easy to repurpose for Mars.
(Score: 2) by dltaylor on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:07AM
In addition to a nasty, well-documented case of delayed sleep phase, my clock runs longer than 24 hours.
I'd be happier with an extra 40 minutes per day.
1-way trip; can I really sign up?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Dunbal on Wednesday January 27 2016, @01:18AM
Wouldn't Mars-born humans gradually select for circadian rhythms that match Mars's rotation?
No. Evolution doesn't work that way. If a mutated Martian native had an immense survival advantage over non natives and managed to spread his genes around while the non mutants had trouble breeding and/or died out, then yeah, there would be selection. What you're thinking of is Lamarkian adaptation which simply doesn't work. No matter how many zebras you place in a pen with the only source of food being fleshy leaves on tall trees, none of them will breed offspring with long necks.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:01AM
No matter how many zebras you place in a pen with the only source of food being fleshy leaves on tall trees, none of them will breed offspring with long necks.
Well yeah, they'd all starve before they could breed, duh. :)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gravis on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:24AM
If a mutated Martian native had an immense survival advantage over non natives and managed to spread his genes around while the non mutants had trouble breeding and/or died out, then yeah, there would be selection.
incorrect. it doesn't have to be an "immense survival advantage," it just has to be an advantage. something as little as being a desirable trait is enough to become prolific and even dominant on a large enough time scale.
No matter how many zebras you place in a pen with the only source of food being fleshy leaves on tall trees, none of them will breed offspring with long necks.
if the zebras had just enough food to live but a zebra that was a bit higher off the ground could get a bit more with every inch, you will get zebras that will be able to get the higher food after many generations. they might have long necks, jump high, stand on each other, climb trees or throw stones to knock the food down but they will eventually find a way. however, the species may split and you actually end up with smaller zebras or zebras with smaller brains so that they can get more food relative to the amount of energy they expend just living.
(Score: 4, Funny) by mhajicek on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:09AM
They would build jetpacks.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by Gravis on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:29AM
They would build jetpacks.
yes... but only after evolving into unicorns. [pinimg.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @02:53AM
Epigenetics [wikipedia.org] is real. I'm not so certain Lamarck was wrong.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @03:37AM
Humanity basically has no selection pressure anymore. Even the weakest and dumbest individuals can survive and breed.
So there's no way that the humans on a tightly managed Mars colony will evolve a Mars-attuned circadian cycle. And there's no need to; if you really want that mutation, you can use embryo editing to make it happen.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @06:35AM
Are you somehow under impression that only strongest and smartest survive? That's not how evolution works.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:37AM
I didn't use those terms, and if I did, I would use them loosely.
The point is that there is very little selection pressure for humans today. Humans on Mars won't get selected.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Wednesday January 27 2016, @12:01PM
Even the weakest and dumbest individuals can survive and breed.
Yes, this is the entire premise of the comedy turned documentary called "Idiocracy".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:42AM
Two comments:
1) From plant-related research I know that light has a huge impact on the circadian rhythm, I doubt it would be different in animal systems, and hence the results are not so surprising.
2) In the December issue of Nature there was a nice image about wake/sleep cycles between current day (social guided pattern) and pre-industrial man (sun rise/set cycle).
How would that fit into this model? Especially with taking into account of changes in sun rise/set differences in different seasons.
(Score: 1) by turonah on Wednesday January 27 2016, @11:58AM
Given that research has shown the average circadian rhythm to be approximately 24 hours 11 minutes (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/07.15/bioclock24.html), a difference of 26 minutes between that and the Martian day is not likely to be as impacting as a four-hour difference in animals that can't knowingly adjust appropriately (i.e. - artificial lighting). I'd suspect other planets with greater differences in time would have more impact.
Entirely possible that Mars-born humans could "select" for a trait inducing a longer circadian rhythm, but it would have to provide an advantage of some sort (like longevity or higher reproduction rate). Otherwise, us "normies" would get along better on Mars than people with disabilities do here on Earth.