Viruses and bacteria are a nuisance; can't we just eradicate them all? It can be tempting to think that way, because viruses and bacteria are the cause of many ailments and deaths. But unfortunately, it's not that simple. Both bacteria and viruses have their place in nature, and we depend on them. It is bacteria that break down dead organic material so that it can be reused. It is fungi, bacteria, and protozoa that live in the rumen and break down the cellulose in grass so that cows, sheep, and other ruminants can get nutrition. Human digestion also depends on microorganisms. In the large intestine, there are many microorganisms that help with digestion. If this bacterial flora is disturbed, one can get an upset stomach. Microorganisms also have a role on the skin and mucous membranes. An American study has concluded that we have more microorganisms on and in our bodies than we have cells in our bodies. But they are so small that they nevertheless only make up about 3 kg of an adult man.

Bacteria and protozoa are quite hardy creatures. As long as they get moisture and nutrients, they can withstand quite a lot. If they don't get these, many of them can hide inside a capsule waiting for better times. But they have an Achilles' heel. They eat! They have a metabolism, and we can trick them by feeding them something they cannot tolerate. For example, penicillin.

The word virus actually means poison. It is a bit worse with viruses. Viruses do not eat. We cannot give them poisonous food. We have to fight them in other ways, preferably by stimulating and supporting the body's own defense against viruses. We can inject antibodies into the blood. The antibodies find the virus particles and bind to them. This prevents the virus from attaching to a cell, and they act as a label that allows the virus to be detected and destroyed by the body's own defense system. The common method is to inject dead or weakened viruses into the body. The virus is not capable of making us sick, but the immune system learns to make antibodies on its own. We call this vaccination. It is a method that can be used against both bacteria and viruses. Once the body has learned to recognize a virus and produce antibodies against it, the immune system remembers this for a shorter or longer time. In some cases, for a lifetime.

But the very best thing is that we don’t let the virus into our bodies at all. We can stay away from those who are infected. We can wash our hands and surfaces. We can disinfect with chemicals or heat. We can use masks and gloves. I mentioned earlier that viruses are fragile things. They consist of a few strands of RNA or DNA, genetic material, which is the recipe for making new virus particles. These are encapsulated in a shell of proteins. The surface of this shell has 'hooks' that can attach to a cell. When that happens, there are mechanisms that open the cell wall and let the genetic material into the cell. There, it takes over the cell's machinery and starts it producing viruses. It continues to do so until the cell bursts and releases all the virus particles, the virions. Viruses are, as I said before, fragile things. It takes little to destroy a virion so that it doesn’t work. Errors also occur in the production process; mutations happen. That is when the genetic material is copied incorrectly. Then the new virus is different from the old one. Almost all mutations fail. They cause the virus to stop working. But occasionally, a rare mutation provides an advantage. It's like winning the lottery – for the virus, that is. Such mutations can make the virus's coat slightly different so that our immune system doesn't recognize it. This is often the case with cold viruses. They mutate so frequently that it's not worth the effort to try to develop a vaccine. The same is true, to some extent, with the flu. We make vaccines, but it's uncertain how effective they are if the virus has changed significantly along the way.

Coronavirus. It got its name because under the microscope it has an aura around it, somewhat resembling how we see the sun through a coronagraph, a special telescope that blocks out the solar disk so that one can study the sun's glowing atmosphere. Corona actually means crown. SARS-CoV-2 is what we call a zoonosis, a pathogen that can infect both animals and humans. It is also considered highly contagious and has a high fatality rate for some of those who become infected.

The world has chosen different strategies to combat this virus, ranging from denying that it exists at all to complete lockdown and isolation. Some countries reacted quickly, some late. Our neighboring country, Sweden, believed that the best approach would be for as many people as possible to get the disease so that natural immunity in the population would occur, the much-discussed herd immunity. That is when so many are immune that those who are infected cannot infect many others, and the infection rate is below one. Then the epidemic will die out. The infection and disease will continue to exist, but not as an epidemic. The infection rate for Norway is currently at 0.66. But that is due to lockdown and isolation measures, not herd immunity. Norway has chosen a strategy of lockdown and isolation. It will not eradicate the disease. It could have done so if it were a limited area. As it stands, the spread is global, and we must assume that even if one were to manage to eradicate the virus in Norway, it would always come back. We simply cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world forever.

It will take a very long time for Norway to achieve natural resistance in the population. Due to the strategy we have chosen, few people are infected. To achieve the effect of herd immunity, at least 60% of the population must have antibodies. Nevertheless, I believe Norway has chosen a favorable strategy, provided that a vaccine becomes available within a reasonable time. By vaccinating, immunity is achieved without experiencing the disease.

There is also a big difference in how severely the disease affects each individual. This may be due to some cross-immunity stemming from other illnesses, like flu, colds, etc. Another factor that can play a role is the infectious dose. If a person is exposed to a massive dose of the virus, the body has less chance to fight it compared to if the dose is smaller, allowing the immune system time to respond before a large number of cells are infected. It is also the case that, regardless of the disease, not everyone gets sick. During the Black Death, many fell ill, but not all. The Spanish flu did not affect everyone. Not everyone gets the flu, and not everyone contracted measles, rubella, chickenpox, and so on. Some are naturally immune without any detectable reason.

The pandemic leaves its mark on the economy. When people miss work due to illness or quarantine, it results in losses. We see that many politicians and lobbyists are more concerned about the country's (or their own) economy than about the health of the population. The government is quite generous in handing out saved funds to large, international players while small businesses have to struggle and manage as best they can. Some predict a global recession that will last for decades to come.

The world's wealth is very unevenly distributed. While some wallow in luxury, others are dying of hunger. Could it be time for a revision of our economic systems? We consume the Earth's resources to produce superfluous and unnecessary things. Could it be time to return to the essentials? We travel around the world in search of experiences and entertainment in exotic settings. Could it be time to become a bit more 'introspective' and rather seek amusement in our immediate surroundings? We pull fish from the sea, transport it halfway across the globe to have it processed before sending it back the same way. Could it be time to put an end to such madness? We are so busy that goods are sent by energy-consuming and environmentally damaging trucks instead of by ship or railway.

There are many things that don't add up. Pandemics are certainly not the only problem we are struggling with. Not even the worst.

Sometimes, when night falls and the house becomes quiet, thoughts start to wander on their own. Then it can easily happen that curiosity takes complete control and reason, which tells you that it is bedtime, must give way. You examine one thing and along the way discover another thing that needs to be looked into – and so on. Until the night comes to an end and you go about the day in a half-asleep state.

Energy, for example, is something worth thinking about. We are in the process of depleting the Earth's energy resources at an accelerating pace. We have long been aware of this, but we refuse to fully acknowledge it. At least not to a significant degree. Driving electric cars might help a little, but unfortunately it is far too little. We live in a world of denial, along with a firm belief in miracles, that we will be saved when science provides a deus ex machina solution. Unfortunately, this is a phenomenon that belongs in the world of movies and novels. However, it may be that the world is beginning to wake up. If so, it is because of a young woman from Sweden who has made it her mission to awaken the world. Because we need change. Yet at the same time, the idea is associated with fear, for it is likely that these changes will hardly be very comfortable.

But if we let our thoughts spin a little in the night. Have you ever wondered how far a car could drive if it ran on slices of bread – or oats for that matter? Have you ever wondered how much gasoline you would need if we humans could run on gasoline?

Fortunately, the situation is such that we still have enough energy to run the internet. There, one can easily find basic data by doing a quick Google search. First, I looked at the daily energy requirements. From the Norwegian Health Informatics website, I obtained the daily energy requirements for women and men under different conditions, as shown in the table below. The energy requirements were given in kilocalories, a useless unit for calculations, so I immediately converted it to joules (kilojoules) and then to the amount of gasoline that contains the same amount of energy.

As shown by the table, we animals are considerably more efficient than machines. Yes, we are animals too, mammals and warm-blooded. Cold-blooded animals that do not use their energy to maintain body temperature are even more energy-efficient than us, but that can wait for another night. We do have an impressively low consumption – less than half a liter per day. Imagine how much gasoline it would have taken to build the pyramids if all the workers were gasoline-powered?

Then I also visited a website belonging to Ingrid Kristiansen. To reassure people who know me: I don't usually frequent such sites. It was just a one-time occurrence and solely for the purpose of finding information. What I learned on that site is how much energy we use on different activities.

Once again, one is amazed at how efficient we are. We also see that the most effective way to move is to walk – not run.

But what if we build an engine that runs on whole-grain bread with yellow cheese (without butter)? How much fuel would that require?

Many cars today consume about half a liter per ten kilometers. But gasoline engines are not particularly efficient. They have an efficiency of 20% (perhaps a little better with new engines, but in this calculation, we use 20%). This means that most of the energy is wasted as heat. Only 0.01 liters go towards moving the car forward one kilometer. That corresponds to an energy of 0.088 kWh, which in turn corresponds to 757 kcal. A slice of whole-grain bread with yellow cheese has an energy content of 152 kcal. This means that this car with a bread engine would need to chew through almost five slices of bread per kilometer. Then one would need to load a significant amount of fuel to drive a trip to Tromsø. Maybe one would also need to bring a stoker to feed this greedy machine. I really think we are going to have to scrap the car as a means of transport.

Comments. I have made it quite difficult to post comments on this page. This is to avoid having to clean out all those who try to sneak in shady links on the site. Comments are welcome via email. (click here) or post on Facebook page mine (opens in a new tab). Let's just hope that no major calculation errors have crept in!

When it says men in the headline, it means men in the sense of humanity in general, and not at all male beings of the human species. Otherwise, one might think that I mean the following considerations do not apply to female beings. But they do. The fact is that it sounds much better when one says 'about bees and men' than when one says 'bees and humans.' And besides, it's not just bees we're talking about here, it's also ants, termites, and other creatures that live in the same way.

Bees live in colonies. In beehives when they are 'tame' or in hollow tree trunks or wherever else they find it suitable to exist. A bee can hardly be said to possess much intelligence. From birth, it is intended for specific tasks. Some are guards and ensure that intruders do not enter. Some take care of the young and feed them, some act as living ventilation systems and fan air through the hive when it is hot, or just vibrate their wings to generate heat when it is cold. Some go out to collect honey and pollen. Some are heaters for the queen. The queen, yes. The queen eats and gives birth. That is what queen bees do. And then she controls the other bees by emitting scents.

When looking at bees individually, one can probably detect a certain intelligence. However, most of their behavior is genetically programmed and dictated by the demands of the colony or the queen. One could say they are hardwired and remotely controlled. It is different when looking at the colony as a whole, as a single organism. In a bee colony, most, often all, worker bees are daughters of the queen. Like cells in the body, they are centrally controlled by chemical stimuli. In the body, these are called hormones, but in bees, we call them pheromones. Just like brain cells communicate with each other through synapses, bees also communicate with each other. Brain cells exchange information through chemicals and electrical signals, bees exchange information with each other through scents and through dancing and tail-wagging. When a bee returns home with full loads of nectar, it performs a small dance, and with the direction of the dance and a slight wag of its tail, it tells the other bees which way to go to find good nectar. One might argue that the intelligence of the colony is greater than the sum of its individual members.

Humans may be the animal on Earth with the highest individual intelligence. We do not know for sure; we just believe it. For we have no real way to measure intelligence. It is true, however, that some claim that human intelligence was at its peak around 10,000 years ago and that it is now declining. Sometimes it can be easy to believe that. But what is more important is that humanity as a whole does not act intelligently. We prefer to use our abilities to acquire goods at the expense of others. In the extreme, we kill to live the good life as we wish. We do this surprisingly easily. In fact, we are often willing to go to war and kill simply because someone believes in different stories than we do. We are not capable of using our collective intelligence, if it exists, for the benefit of all humanity. Just look at the issue of climate change. We have long known that our extraction of the Earth's energy resources is not sustainable.

Throughout Earth's history, there have been several mass extinctions. Some global, some more local. A common factor for most of them is that they have been linked to climate change. Insects have had their heyday on Earth. So have reptiles and mammals. Which group is next in line? Is it the insects again? Perhaps the mollusks? Could we witness intelligent shells and literary snails? Philosophical octopuses. Octopuses are already considered highly intelligent, despite lacking a central nervous system. Or is it the machines that will take over? This was a popular theme in the Science Fiction genre in the 1960s and 70s. A superorganism of interconnected computers that secured dominion over the world and kept humans as slaves. Theoretically, this is not impossible. It might even have already happened. For aren't we, to a large extent, good slaves to our machines? Many of us are lost and dysfunctional and fall into a vegetative state the moment the phone is out of battery. If we are to have even the slightest hope of surviving, we must strive to develop a collective intelligence. We simply must become more like the bees.

It may seem as if collective and individual intelligence are in opposition to each other. If one looks at political systems, capitalism is probably the one that best fits high individual intelligence. Everyone can work to acquire benefits. There is minimal regulation and restrictions. It is good for the intelligent and the ruthless, but it is not good for humanity. To avoid stagnation, such a system is based on continuous growth. It becomes like a pyramid scheme. Some profit, but many lose when it collapses. The other extreme is communism. A centrally controlled regime where everyone works according to a plan that is for the benefit of all. In principle, that doesn't sound so bad, but there are problems. Who should decide the plan? How should the consideration for individual people be ensured? What if someone disagrees with the plan and refuses to follow it? We have also seen the phenomenon that power corrupts. The person or people who were supposed to decide and administer such a plan would have infinite power! Socialism is in many ways a middle ground between these. There is a majority that makes the plans and administers them. Limitations are placed on the individual, but there is still considerable freedom. This system is not without problems either. When the Athenians talked about democracy, they meant real democracy. Everyone showed up and discussed the matter, and decisions were made about what should be done. For practical reasons, this is no longer possible. We elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf. But are we sure that these representatives truly represent those who elected them? Are we sure that the representatives are informed enough to make the right choices? And not least, are we informed enough to choose the right representatives? This becomes difficult. Perhaps we need a supercomputer to take over?

All of this can also be viewed on a larger scale. Nations, not individuals. As long as all nations are only concerned with improving their own conditions, usually at the expense of someone else's, it is contrary to the common good of humanity. In reality, we do not have much hope. If only we were a bee. With a completely different view of existence and not least a different perspective on eternity.

But maybe there is still a small glimmer of hope? A Swedish little girl who manages to make the world listen? Let's hope so. Because there is one thing we humans are very good at, and that is hoping!

Nå er det lagt til et SSL- sertifikat på siden min. Det betyr bare at forbindelsen er kryptert, ingen kan snappe opp underveis det som sendes mellom serveren og mottageren. Egentlig litt overflødig på en slik side, men sertifikat på dette nivået er gratis hos ISP’en min. Så slipper man å få melding om at forbindelsen er usikker. Og best av alt, man får jo et kult, grønt hengelås i adresselinjen. Fancy!

Så er det igjen tid for den kvadrenniale seremonien som skal legitimere stortingspolitikernes eksistens. Det er valg – tid for å stille dem til ansvar for de katastrofer de har nedkalt over det norske folk og verden forøvrig. Dessverre virker det som om politikerne blir mere og mere opptatt av makt og posisjoner som fenomen og ikke som et middel til å tjene dem de representerer. Det bidrar igjen til det fenomenet, at færre og færre finner det bryet verdt å levere sin stemme. Det er jo heller ikke så lett å sile vekk all valgkampstøyen og finne ut hva man i realiteten kan forvente av påfunn fra de forskjellige partier. Det dreier seg stort sett om å finne det minste av de tilgjengelige onder.

Noen ganger ønsker vi bare forandring. Noe annet enn det som har vært. Det går ikke alltid så godt. Se bare på USA. De ønsket tydeligvis noe annerledes. Vi andre holder pusten og håper verden overlever. Skjønt vi har vel ikke så mye å være stolte av vi heller. En En bergensk sandpåstrøer som er travelt opptatt med å strø sand der løshundene hennes har vært og pisset eller gjort det som verre er.

Jeg synes denne regjeringen har vært en katastrofe. Ikke når det gjelder økonomi eller levekår. Slike ting er nå stort sett uavhengig av politikerne. Når det går bra, så er det helst til tross for – og ikke på grunn av politikerne. Og når det ikke går godt, så har de samme politikerne fint lite å stille opp med. Det er alltid den menige hop som må bla opp og betale regningen uansett. Nei, katastrofen er at de har gjort slik at man skjemmes av å måtte fortelle at man er norsk. De snakker om verdier, men kaster vrak på alle idealer som finnes, både norske og internasjonale.

Vi har ikke demokrati i Norge. Det finnes vel knapt noe land i verden som kan skryte av å ha ekte demokrati. Bystatene i det gamle Grekeland hadde det. Ekte demokrati lar seg vel neppe oppskalere til å fungere for et helt land. I stedet har vi noe som kalles representativt demokrati.

Vi velger de som skal være våre representanter. La oss velge verdige representanter, representanter vi kan kjennes med. Det aller minste er at de må ha et minimum av folkeskikk.

Men viktigst av alt: Gjør et valg!

Godt valg