On the various types of bacteria in the matter of their regulation of CNSs.

In shaping a new approach to the human habitat as a result of the hypothesis that bacteria regulate all animal CNSs it is apparent that the different types of bacteria that exist need to be better interrelated. It is my view that there is in relations between bacteria a demonstration of a division of labor, even more developed than that which exists in the world's many national economies. This division can be basically framed as being in two groups, one which operates directly on central nervous systems, and one which serves to keep them under some sort of accessibility by degrading the self-control of the individual animal, through effects on the many internal organs and members of the body and their functioning.

Animals must inhale and exhale and this makes it impossible to prevent some access to and from the body by bacteria. But also, animals have contact with the ground, and this provides a certain tendency to allow an incursion of bacteria through the outer covering, whether that be skin or some other covering. Once inside the body an advanced form of division of labor, keeping the central nervous system penetrated or enveloped or both, by bacteria, becomes an economical operation. Buildings, ventilation systems, cleaning methods, and clothing, all intercede in access of bacteria to human bodies, but also provide reservoirs that allow it.

What emerges is a field of operation rich in possibililties for metabolic reward for bacteria. Success of a species comes about under the regulatory actions of bacteria, and when it reaches its zenith bacteria is in a prime position to enjoy the CNS vitality as a place with access to stable conditions and priority of measures to maintain those. Perhaps at the top of the division of labor is the group that dwells in or near the CNS. This is only a "perhaps" because regulation raises the possibility of the existence of ranks of bacteria higher than the dwellers in and near CNSs, which must be in a more orderly position so that the many species being regulated, including Homo sapiens, can be kept in some sort of general state of bounty for use by bacteria, or enabled to adaptively evolve so that the bounty to bacteria increases or dangers to it neutralized.

Such a system would only respond favorably to a discovery of it if that discovery recognizes the fact that bacterial regulation has been an agent in the rise to prominence of Homo sapiens, and that continuation or growth of that prominence depends on approval by bacterial ranks in charge of the evolution of animals. Pride and shame are in for a revolutionary awakening, possibly a rude one. It is not just intelligence that must succomb to a new view of ecology, but every hard-won human attribute, all the way to spirituality and will. Shame and guilt must suffer the same demise. Depending on how successful the investigation of regulation of CNSs is, so will improvement come about from the discovery. It may come down to a matter of individual readiness to investigate the hypothesis that determines whether an individual benefits from it or is simply shunted into one or another circle of ignorance, the current general state being one such circle already.

The key challenge to a world under one constitution--vandalism.

In a world united under one constitution it would seem that there would be one fundamental challenge, other than the myriad acute challenges of political power, and that would be vandalism in a world where blame for all behavioral failings is laid to bacteria. Such a world would be deprived of its current answer to vandalism--punishment. How could vandalism be prevented from spinning out of control and destroying civilization from within?

This is a problem no one has considered, because bacteria are deemed incapaable of intelligent behavior.

Here I am using the term vandalism to include all crime, up to and including terrorism.

Much depends on how well the argument that bacteria regulate all central nervous systems goes, and with which groups and individuals. That also will determine whether the world will ever unify under one constitution.

Much also depends on how much understanding of misfortune comes about, and what government decides is rightfully addressed, as a result of a successful argument about bacteria.

I see no reason why humans shouldn't seek a symbiotic steady-state with bacteria, something on the lines of what some insects have. If human leadership is able to understand the argument but the masses are not, as I suspect will be the case, then a serious schism will come about that will give serious power to those who understand, and a more stable environment for others. In a sense, everyone stands to gain significantly.

A hypothesis that bacteria regulate all animals' CNSs.

In the year 2010 I posted to the site physicsforums.com, stating that it is my hypothesis that bacteria regulate all animals' CNSs, their central nervous systems. I stated that this hypothesis prompted me to speculate that the reason humanity began to experience wars was that they started to put their dead in coffins, denying bacteria of the tissue of humans for ingestion. I stated that to validate this speculation I looked in a reference work on anthropology for the approximate dates of these two events, the start of wars and the start of coffin use, to see if they were about the same, as this would point to the possiblility of a causal relationship. I don't recall the figures I found but I do recall that they were very nearly the same. I included this fact in my post to physicsforums.com.

I also stated in the post that I had considered it necessary for my hypothesis to be correct that the population of bacteria adhering to the human body must be extremely numerous, but that I had no information of my own on this matter and always had assumed, before forming my hypothesis, that there was only a small population. I posted that I had checked and found that there is inheed an enormous population of bacteria on the human body, ten times the number of cells of the body itself, the exact number varying with the way the question is defined. The reason that a large body population is necessary is that each organism has to be fit into a comprehensive ecological array of relationships within the bacterial population, and doing this requires that the bacterial interest in each species that is important to a species has to be represented in the bacteria surrounding each individual body, so that existing arrangements with regard to any emergent actions or situations may be enforced immdiately.

The result of this post was that I was banned from the site, with the reason stated as "crackpot."

Consequently, I find it contrary to my interests to share any further work of my own with scientists, and share details about my bacterial hypothesis here only because I have already revealed it, and in the event others find it to be reasonable and worthy of investigation I will get full credit for the discovery, if that is what it is found to be.

If the hypothesis is correct then evolution in the animal kingdom is the result of scheming by bacteria, the course of human history is not of men's own doing, and productivity leading to ownership and power, and culpabillity of criminals, are not attributable to those enjoying or suffering them, to any significant degree, but to the whims of bacteria, or whatever their equivalent affect is.

Since I cannot attribute to the operators of physicsforums.com the responsibility for banning me I have no reason to damn them. But like so many of the things I see people glorify themselves with while I refuse to engage in the same sort of grab bag, I certainly hold out hope that eventually my science and my industry will emerge as the superior agent of fortune, and those who choose to join with me in pursuing my hypothesis in a spirit of collegial endeavor such as underlies the best of science, will also join with me in the rewards such an endeavor ultimately will bring, if I am right, while those who call me a crackpot will fall into a lesser circle of knowers and doers to be handled like chattel.

Intelligence is an acquired trait.

A corollary to my hypothesis that bacteria regulate all central nervous systems is that intelligence is an acquired trait, one that forms along a strongly over-determined pathway so that the result is a trait that in most cases does not vary in testable measure.

That measure is perhaps a matter of taste more than anything else--taste for education.