Humans are born every second, and our planet can’t sustain humanity for much longer. Earth’s population limit is at about 10 billion people. After that, there will appear serious problems with the availability of fresh water and food. It is estimated that Earth’s population will reach 10 billion by 2050.
If Earth can’t support us much longer, what are the best places in space where humanity can evolve?
1. Our Moon
The moon is a perfect place for humans to colonize in the near future. We can build a permanent lunar station that would serve as a great middle-point for other missions. The moon also can be mined for valuable resources, like Helium-3, which would be worth approx. $10 billion per ton.
2. Mars
I think you saw this one coming. Mars’ surface conditions, temperature, and the presence of water make Mars the second most habitable planet in our Solar…
Previously I discussed the psychological basis around it which ties into the nature vs nurture argument which psychological theories edging more towards the nurture edge of the argument. Rest assured there is still an adequate amount of evidence to suggest that it really can be biological.
First let’s define what it personality:
Personality is according to Dictionary.com ‘The sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual’. However this can differ in psychology according to whether we are using the idiopathic view or the nomothetic view.
There is a 5-factor model that is study and measure personality, these are:
Openness to experience Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
In Biology, we focus on the specific traits that the individual has which can for example range from brain structures to the central nervous system structures. If we zoom in a little bit more, we get into Genetics which can brilliantly and not so brilliantly master control basically well everything. For example, if we look at personality disorders which can be hereditary, we can see that there is a correlation between personality disorders and a malfunction in most cases the 5HT-1A serotonin transporter genes (more about serotonin in my ‘Chemicals of Depression’ post).
Structure of Dopamine
If we zoom in again look at the hormones (neurotransmitters) released and the quantity of it. Since the malfunctioning transporter is a genetic change not a temporary one, the individual is constantly low on serotonin making them depressive, suicidal and having increased chances of developing OCD and a variety of mood disorders. Other similar genetic changes are the dopamine D4 receptor (again mentioned in the other post) which has direct effects on exploratorybehaviour which allows them to contribute more to both decision-making tasks and more seeking sensation from the reward structures which is what patients with this mutation are lacking since dopamine is involved in the reward pathway in the brain, this relates to our first factor ‘openness to experience’. It is useful to note that dopamine is involved with addiction, individuals with this mutation lack addiction which is considered a ‘personality trait’ therefore supporting the nature argument.
Artistic representation of neural connections within the brain.
The third factor affecting biological personality is synaptic plasticity. Synapse are essentially gaps between your neurones. Neurones are connections between your brain and everywhere in your body that sends signals. Synaptic plasticity is the ability of those synapse to either strengthen or weaken over time, affecting the signals that travel through those connections. Some factors affecting these include psychoactive drugs, hormones, experiences, vitamins ect. There is an increased complexity within this area brain and parts of the brain seem to adapt to experiences which is all good except this doesn’t support the idea that personality is nature driven since experiences result from our environment and the environment nurtures an individual.
So there you have it. Personality is affected by a range of different factors, today we have discussed neurotransmitters, genetic mutations and briefly touched on synaptic plasticity. However, theres not enough to conclude that personality is entirely nature driven and therefore difficult to study, especially in Genetics.
So someone asked me this and it made me think… why am I a moody person and my friend is always happy. So I did my research and it turns out there’s a substantial amount of research on it since large employers are interested in personality and the fate of their future employees. Shock. One study bases this on 5 variables; agreement, extroversion, emotional stability, responsibility and openness to experience. However, there variables were compared against factors like degree level etc.. This brings up the vital question of ‘is it genetically inherited or environmental?’. Psychologists which engage in this research separate their studies into 3 main groups; nomothetic, idiographic and complementary approach.
What is nomothetic?
Nomothetic is an idea around attempting to establish general laws and what they share with others meaning the individuals character can be anticipated, regulated even and the effect of their personality can be foreseen in different environmental circumstances. In so many words this individual is described according to social norms rather than their uniqueness as a person. By studying this approach, psychologists can find patterns. Nomothetic is a juxtaposing approach to idiothetic. Similarly, this approach is used in psychometric testing for employers as mentioned previously since you are comparing an individual with other individuals to analyse and therefore determine their fate in a company.
What is idiothetic?
The idiographic approach looks at the individual and not the environment around them, as a Biochemist I find understanding a study in this way challenging to say the least. An example of why this approach is important is something everyone will find themselves familiar with. For example, do you know someone who everyone says, ‘She looks so quiet but once you get to know her she’s really crazy’? because a nomothetic approach wouldn’t work in this case. Studies with this approach ask more personal questions, examples include the ‘Q-sort’ questioning constructed by Carl Rogers and investigates the perspective of the person, asking individuals to rank on questions such as ‘How do I want my partner to see me?’ or ‘How do I see myself?’
Both theories are valid and thoroughly debated by many psychologists. By no fault of my own, I’ve got a little too excited on the psychology side of this question and away from the more genetic outlook I was going for, so I’m keen to do another post where I can explore more the effects that genetics has and try to answer whether or not it is inherited and why we are different.
Depression is a disease. A disease which many people don’t realise they have or are unaware that it is a disease. A disease caused simply by a chemical imbalance but results in complex consequences hence its basis for most treatments and prescribed drugs. Factors that contribute to this include genetic predisposition, medication, stressful life events and more cases than ever; recreational drugs. Although some researchers believe in the chemical imbalance, facts such as ‘People born since 1945 are 10 times more likely to suffer from depression than those’ suggest otherwise and have no correlation to the chemical imbalance theory. Additionally, it has been suggested that low serotonin is in fact a symptom of depression not a cause, this explains why patients undergo a chemical relapse whilst taking medication since the symptom is treated but not the defeating the cause. Since depression is a disease, it effects the brain chemistry and hence why the serotonin levels are continuously low until cured. Additional factors such as Alcohol play a role with the brain chemistry by interacting directly with the synapse (junctions between neurons where chemicals are released) and therefore disrupting the ratio by increasing inhibitory synapse: excitatory synapse. It turns out that depression is not the case of high or low levels of serotonin but that a variety of different chemicals are involved inside and outside of the neurological systems. So, what does serotonin do? The answer lies in messengers. Serotonin carries signals from nerve to nerve officially known as a neurotransmitter which trigger action potentials. Examples that public may know are dopamine and adrenaline which are also heavily associated with depression. Interestingly, it is manufactured in the brain and the intestines having effects on diverse parts of the body including most importantly the brain, mood, nausea, blood clotting and sexual arousal. Similarly, dopamine directly affects our rewards and disciplinary pathways. A normal outcome would be that someone gets ‘pleasured’ or ‘rewarded’ from activities, a good example is intercourse where an influx of chemicals together with dopamine are released, resulting in a ‘reward’ yet depressed patients don’t receive this same ‘reward’ and therefore don’t get driven to do things as a result of low dopamine levels. So, to conclude, there is no official scientific cause to depression but most likely it seems that the mentioned factors result in the chemical imbalance which in turn results in depression and anxiety. But it is important to remember that scientists are still on debate on its cause and the cases are far more complex than what meets the eye.
What: The weird and wonderful experiment was conducted by William Franklin Dove in 1933 who surprisingly wasn’t a crazy scientist but a biologist at the University of Maine. So why was he interested in unicorn horns? Well according to ancient myths, unicorn horns contained magical powers that protected civilians against poisons. The main point of the experiment was to challenge whether horns could grow directly and vertically out of the skull, opposed to species such as stags whose horns sprout out of the sides.
Article from Popular Science in 1933
Dove’s theory: Horns didn’t grow from the skull but the opposite way around, so the horns grow into the skull overtime via horn buds.
This is because horns start growth as small bits of tissue which are initially unattached and as they age, start to root themselves into the skull; this is how horn buds work.
What he did: Surgically removed the one day old calf’s horn buds, cut/shaped them, moulded them together and inserted the combined horn into the centre of the calf’s head.
Well… The combined horn buds growing to about a foot long were straight and vertical! The horn also influenced its personality, making him the leader of the herd and making him a very obedient character. Did it end there? No. Dove decided to perform the experiment on cows, goats and extend his research to making tri-horned animals.
What next: Timothy Zell completed the same experiment on a goat in 1984 except he adapted it to create an ‘intelligent and controllable’ unicorn. He did this by inserting the horn directly above the pineal gland; a gland responsible for the secretion of melatonin which controls your sleep patterns but Zell suggested it would stimulate the goats stimulus and mental capabilites. The study of horn growth is studied via a branch of scientific research called Morphogenesis which is the development of how organisms are shaped and evolved into these shapes. It also inspired scientists such as Blumburg to alter his research about the neural pathways via the brain and limbs to how the brain reacts to a change in body morphology/anatomy resulting in behavioural change which was initially suggested through Dove’s unicorn experiment.
Timothy Zells Surgical procedure in 1933 involving cows, antelopes, sheep and goats.Image from Dove’s journal (The Physiology of Horn Growth in the Journal of Experimental Zoology (Jan 1935, Vol 69, No 3)) showing the normal skull vs the manipulated skull.
So, there we are. Unicorns are real and hence why this blog was named ‘can we make a unicorn?’. A simple answer to a weird and interesting ‘scientific’ question.
Can we make a unicorn? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.