[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 89 KB, 700x525, alcohol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2734001 No.2734001 [Reply] [Original]

Why do bacteria produce something that is lethal to them?

>> No.2734006

Because they can.

>> No.2734009
File: 20 KB, 310x320, HW-AgentSmith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2734009

Oh....no reason....

>> No.2734011

why do humans breath out CO2 when it's lethal to them?

>> No.2734016

>>2734011

Beautiful analogy. Well done. And you got dubs too. Epic win for everyone.

>> No.2734018

We produce CO2, shit, and pee....

I would say that's pretty lethal....

>> No.2734022

>>2734011

Awe, damn...I was too slow

>> No.2734028

Because it's more lethal to other kinds of bacteria.

>> No.2734035

You are nowhere as scared of alcohol as you should be.

Cracked article so you can laugh while pissing yourself in fear:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18503_how-biotech-company-almost-killed-world-with-booze.html

>> No.2734041

You know what's interesting? When OP asks the question, he is assuming that there is a meaning. Humans make up the meaning. There is no "definitive" meaning.

The toxins are simply a byproduct of the chemical reaction called bacteria.

>> No.2734062

>>2734018

We do need CO2. We just produce so much of it that a lot of it needs to be expelled.

I know some cells in our bodies produce peroxides and superoxides, which are pretty nasty.

>> No.2734086

>>2734041
Chemical reactions that can go through a number of pathways and do not necessarily need to produce alcohol as a byproduct. These particular ones do because by doing so they filled an evolutionary niche. The question of "why" they do it is perfectly valid.

>> No.2734113

>>2734035
How much of this is actually scientifically viable?

I've read that before and, yes, brix were shat. But is that actually possible?

>> No.2734145

>>2734086

The question is viable once you lay down the context and premises. Until then though, you are asking a philosophical, non-sense question.

For example, you may view the question from an evolutionary perspective, but I might view the question from the eyes of a physicist.

>> No.2734151

>>2734113

It's a comedy article on a comedy site.

It's highly hyperbolic and one-sided. The so-called savior of mankind actually had to retract the statement because of the lack of accuracy. It wasn't really "close to be shipped" worldwide and the process not remotely as fast as claimed in the article.

>> No.2734165

>>2734035
What has science done!?

>> No.2734220

>>2734151
[citation needed, psyops faggot]

>> No.2734227

>>2734220
FUCK YOU, AMERICANS CAN TRUST THEIR FEDERAL-RESERVE-CONTROLLED REPUBLIC of AMERICA..

>> No.2734242

Why do humans let fucking idiots like the OP to post if it's lethal to our intelligence?

>> No.2734368

>>2734145
If someone's asking what makes your heart pump, there's an assumed physiological or evolutionary context to that question. Replying that 'becuz outcome of chemical reactions of system' is just a fancy way of contributing precisely nothing to the discussion whilst feeling superior to everyone that had an actual input.

Same goes for asking why specific bacteria produce certain byproducts and not others.

>> No.2734379

>>2734242
MAN, PEOPLE ASKING QUESTIONS DUE TO CURIOSITY IS SOOO UN/SCI/ENTIFIC.

>> No.2734461

>>2734379
OBVIOUS TROLL IS SOOOOO OBVIOUS

>> No.2734497

>>2734461
You think
>>2734242
was trolling? Well damn, I got got then.

>> No.2734764

Listen up OP ^_^

All creatures take in chemicals from the environment they are in for use in chemical reactions. They use it fresh or synthesize what they need from it. Once this is done it reacts, and generally one of three things can happen.
1) A useful substance is synthesized as a product of the reaction. This is used by the cell in question in another reaction.
2) A useful substance synthesized as a product of the reaction, but is discarded as it is not currently needed (for example, water. useful, but abundant, so it is discarded).
3) A useless substance is created from the reaction. In general, the only substances which will be useless are ones that are actively harmful to the cell itself. Thus, they are discarded. An example of this other than CO2 is ammonia, which is produced by humans during the breakdown of proteins we ingest but is poisonous, and of no use anywhere in the body. Thus it is changed into urea, and discarded in water as urine.

If bacteria had need of the ethanol they produce, they would not release it. they would use it for something else. Since they do not, they release it, as it is preferable to keep a poison outside the body rather than in. Plus, you must always note that in their natural environment this would not be as great a problem, it is only once in the closed environment of the fermentor that the ethanol builds up to lethal levels.

>> No.2735181

>>2734764

>An example of this other than CO2 is ammonia

Again, CO2 is not useless. The bicarbonate ion is used extensively to buffer the blood.

>> No.2735199

>>2734018
I love poop

>> No.2735219

>>2735181
But you have to admit, we don't use all of it that we produce.

>> No.2735227

>>2735219

Well, yes. So I'd place it in category 2 up there.

>> No.2735631

>>2735181

Sorry. Thats why i put OTHER than CO2, so wed have another example that was more certain to ease confusion. i just ended up making more confusion >.>