Send us Fan Mail

Hello people. This is Matt Science Supreme, talking today about the tree of life. Now this comes from Discover magazine, spring 2026, page 3-6. Now it's labeled all the barcodes in the world. Well, if you do a DNA analysis, it comes out looking kind of like barcodes. So call it barcode of life, barcode of the world. Well, you look at those barcodes and you analyze all these different DNA of all these different animals and plants and viruses and whatnot, and you find that you can tell how closely related each thing is to each other thing. Like you can take my DNA and tell that I'm really closely related to my brother and I'm less related to you, but we're still related. Now, we're much farther away from a chimpanzee or a gorilla or a horse, etc. So, but we're still related to that tree in the yard, the grass, the whales, everything on life, everything that's alive in the world is related to each other. We can check the barcodes and see how closely related we are to each other. Well, that's useful in some ways, and this is being published. So, there's an old saying: if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Well, life didn't give you lemons; humans made lemons because we took two different species, citrus fruit, crossed them, and made a lemon tree. Lemons didn't exist until we made them by crossing two different species together. Now these two species didn't normally produce offspring otherwise lemons would have been natural. But through our work of again and again putting the pollen of one species on the stamen of another species, we got them to eventually produce a lemon, and we ended up with lemonade. Okay, we crossed a radish and a cabbage, and we ended up with the top of a radish and the bottom of a cabbage. Well, that's not what we wanted, but that's what we got. Well, let's hope somebody's out there doing that experiment again and again and again, trying to get the other side where you get the top of a cabbage and the bottom of a radish. Well, potatoes and tomatoes are also closely related. Maybe through crossing those back and forth, we eventually get the top of a tomato and the bottom of a potato. So we can plant one thing and get two fruits out of it, or two harvests out of that one plant. And on and on and on. By crossing different things, we can make, well, food better for us. Look at corn. Corn has a massive problem. You plant one seed, a plant grows up, you get a lot more seeds out of it, but then the whole thing dies, the roots and everything. So you have to plant a seed and do the whole thing over again. While if it would regrow from the roots, you could have a massive root network that already has all that energy expended, all that energy sitting there waiting to grow that new sprout. So you end up getting a faster harvest, or the whole stock lives and just constantly produces new corn. Well, corn comes from old ancient stocks that don't die. That do live. They just forgot because we've been planting them for so long how to live from the roots. Well, if we back-cross again and again and again, it's going to take a lot of experiments to do it. We can possibly get corn that just grows from the roots year after year. So a farmer could plant once and never have to buy seed again. So the seed companies have said, Oh, we're experimenting with this. We're going to make these universal seeds. But you never hear any more about it. And I fully expect that if I was to bring up a charity that hired people to go do this, that I'd get sued into oblivion, because they don't want competition. And on their bottom line, it is better to eliminate the competition. That's why I think corporations, by their very nature, are evil. Because they don't look for the best for humanity. They look for the best for themselves. While somebody who holds it right here, they will do what's good for them, but they can also do what's good for humanity. That's why I don't think corporations that are stock-owned should be able to invest in politicians, should be able to buy off politicians, do any charity at all. All their money should go to their stockholders. Then the stockholders they can give to wherever they want. When a company has the power and the money to buy off politicians, they're going to make rules to benefit that company. Well, that's screwing over everybody else. So they shouldn't be allowed to do that. And not all stockholders are going to agree with whatever the company's doing in the way of politics or charities, etc. So you're taking from someone who disagrees with you, and that's wrong also. So, anyway, that's a little bit off topic there. But the tree of life, we should help get all the different information, and then something like tuberculosis, it's a bad bacteria, infects people, people die with it. Well, if you take that bacteria and look on the tree of life, you'll find another bacteria somewhere along that distance that is infected by viruses. And you may find several related bacteria that are affected by viruses, and you raise those bacteria with closely related to tuberculosis bacteria, spread that virus on over, and over time the virus will mutate to attack that new bacteria. And you keep adding the next layer, the next layer, until you get to tuberculosis. And when you get a virus that can kill tuberculosis, you can have people inhale it one time and wipe out tuberculosis. And that project would be very good to have. You could set up a charity to do that. But the companies that make the antibacterial medicine for tuberculosis, they're going to see their profits dwindle if that comes into effect. So expect to be sued and run into the ground because of safety concerns or some other concerns. They will sue you for every data thing in the world in order to keep you from doing it. So if you're going to do it, do it in secret. Spread the cure out there in secret and never tell anybody. That's how you can get that stuff done. But in our litigious world, where we allow corporations to sue because they don't want the competition, that's just crazy talk. But we do it. So I encourage you to go out there, well, make your own lemons to make your own lemonade, but do it in secret. Do it without the eyes of those big corporations on you. Because I fully expect they will stop you if they can. Because, well, they have the power, and they don't want competition. Well, nobody really does. If you're the only dry cleaner in a small town and somebody else tries to open a dry cleaning shop, you may well, if you're a little bit unscrupulous, go out and find some ordinance or pay the city council to make an ordinance to make new dry cleaning shops illegal through some technical term or technical way. Well, corporations have to do that. That's their thing. Anyway, thank you very much for listening. This is Matt Science Supreme, signing out.

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Bad Scientist Read, talking today about human evolution.
We have changed over time, and we're still changing.
This comes from two articles. One is from Science, April 16, 2026, page 241, about how the rise of farming and cultural changes accelerated human evolution. The other comes from Scientific American, September 2026, page 15, discussing what genetics is teaching us about the human sense of smell.
Put those two subjects together and you get an interesting question:
Did civilization stop human evolution, or did it simply change what evolution rewards?
For most of human history, smell mattered.
Imagine living without refrigerators, expiration dates, grocery stores or health inspectors.
Is that fruit ripe?
Has this meat spoiled?
Is there smoke nearby?
Is there something dead in that direction?
Odor provides information about the world, and differences in our ability to detect particular chemicals can sometimes have a genetic basis.
Humans have roughly 400 types of functional olfactory receptors. They don't work like 400 individually labeled smells. Different odor molecules stimulate different combinations of receptors, and the brain interprets those patterns as an enormous variety of odors.
And we're not all genetically identical.
Some people can detect particular chemicals extremely well. Others can barely smell them or cannot detect them at all.
Thousands of years ago, some of those differences could potentially have influenced whether somebody found food, avoided spoiled food or recognized environmental dangers.
Today?
You can have a terrible sense of smell and order dinner from your telephone.
That's what technology does to evolution.
It doesn't necessarily stop natural selection. It changes the environment in which natural selection operates.
🌾 Then We Invented Farming
Agriculture was one of the greatest environmental changes humans ever created for ourselves.
Hunter-gatherers faced one collection of survival pressures. Farmers encountered another.
Farming produced more dependable supplies of certain foods and eventually supported vastly larger populations. But early agriculture wasn't necessarily an easier or healthier life. Farmers could experience malnutrition, crop failures, repetitive physical labor and infectious diseases spreading through increasingly dense settlements.
Then we started living beside domesticated animals.
Pathogens had new opportunities.
Our diets changed.
Our communities became larger.
And evolution responded.
One of the classic examples is lactase persistence.
Most mammals stop producing large amounts of the enzyme needed to digest lactose after infancy. But after some human populations domesticated dairy animals, genetic variants allowing adults to continue digesting milk became extraordinarily valuable.
People changed their culture.
Culture changed the environment.
And the new environment changed the frequencies of human genes.
That's gene-culture coevolution.
👓 Technology Changes the Rules Again
Now look at eyesight.
Suppose somebody can't see clearly at a distance.
In an ancient environment, severe visual impairment could have been a serious disadvantage.
Today?
Put on glasses.
Or contact lenses.
For appropriate patients, corrective surgery is another possibility.
The genetic variation didn't necessarily disappear. Instead, technology reduced some of its consequences.
Medicine does this constantly.
Conditions that once might have killed somebody before adulthood can now be treated. People survive illnesses, injuries and inherited disorders that previous generations could not.
That doesn't mean humans are "devolving."
Evolution doesn't have a destination.
There isn't a perfect human being that natural selection is trying to manufacture.
Evolution simply means inherited characteristics change in frequency across generations.
🏙️ Civilization Is Our Environment Now
There's another side to this.
Human societies discourage some behaviors that might have been advantageous under completely different circumstances.
Extreme aggression might help an individual in some environments. In an organized society, the same behavior can bring punishment, imprisonment, retaliation or social exclusion.
Meanwhile, characteristics useful in modern society can provide entirely different advantages.
Intelligence.
Cooperation.
Communication.
Patience.
Technical ability.
Social skills.
And occasionally extremely specialized sensory abilities.
Consider the professional perfumer.
Some people have exceptional abilities to recognize and distinguish odors. Combined with extensive training, that can become a valuable professional skill.
Nobody needs to identify hundreds of perfume ingredients to survive a winter anymore.
But civilization can take an unusual human ability and give it entirely new value.
👶 And Evolution Ultimately Comes Down to Reproduction
Evolution doesn't care how much money somebody earns, how strong somebody is or how intelligent somebody is by itself.
From an evolutionary standpoint, what ultimately matters is whether inherited characteristics contribute to descendants being produced and surviving to reproduce themselves.
Modern societies have dramatically changed that equation.
People make conscious decisions about whether to have children and how many to have. Economics, education, contraception, religion, culture and personal preference all influence reproduction.
Those are enormous cultural forces.
Whether particular reproductive preferences themselves have a meaningful genetic component is a much harder scientific question, so we shouldn't automatically assume that people who choose larger families possess a genetic "resistance" to smaller-family culture.
But the larger principle remains fascinating:
Culture can change which traits are passed into future generations.
🧬 We Never Stopped Evolving
Agriculture didn't end evolution.
Cities didn't end evolution.
Eyeglasses didn't end evolution.
Medicine hasn't ended evolution.
Technology continuously changes the environment in which evolution operates.
Sometimes technology removes an old selection pressure.
Sometimes it creates a completely new one.
And sometimes culture changes so quickly that biology hasn't had anything close to enough time to catch up.
So when somebody asks what humans will evolve into next, don't imagine evolution sitting there with a blueprint for Humanity 2.0.
Look at the environment we're creating.
Look at our food.
Look at our diseases.
Look at our technology.
Look at whom we're having children with and how many children we're having.
Because those things are part of the environment shaping whatever humanity becomes next.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is the Bad Scientist Read, signing off.
🔬 Science & Keywords
Science, April 16, 2026, p. 241 • Scientific American, September 2026, p. 15 • human evolution • gene-culture coevolution • agriculture • lactase persistence • olfactory receptors • genetic variation • natural selection • modern medicine • reproductive fitness
✅ What's Well Established
Humans continue to evolve. Agriculture produced major new evolutionary pressures involving diet, pathogens and population structure. Lactase persistence is a particularly strong example of culture influencing subsequent genetic evolution. Humans possess roughly 400 types of functional olfactory receptors, with considerable genetic variation between individuals.
⚠️ Important Distinction
Modern medicine allowing people with particular conditions to survive isn't biological "devolution." Evolution has no objective of making organisms stronger, faster or healthier.
Likewise, differences in family size can affect which genes reach future generations, but that doesn't establish that wanting many or few children is itself primarily genetic.
The more scientifically interesting idea is broader:
Humans created culture, culture transformed our environment, and that new environment became another force acting on human evolution.
Open with a stronger smell example
Clarify the farming tradeoffs
Connect smell back to civilization

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is Mad Scientist Green, talking today about evolution.
Not our evolution.
Everything else's evolution because we're here.
This comes from BBC Science Focus, March 2026, page 21, with the wonderfully disturbing title:
“Mosquitoes Are Becoming Thirsty for Human Blood.”
Think about what happens when humans move into an area.
There might originally be deer, bears, opossums and all kinds of other animals living around a water source. Then people arrive. Roads go in. Houses go up. Wildlife moves away or declines.
But the mosquitoes are still there.
And mosquitoes need blood.
Female mosquitoes don't just fly around randomly hoping to crash into something edible. They use carbon dioxide, body odors, heat and other chemical and physical signals to locate potential hosts.
Now introduce natural selection.
Suppose some mosquitoes in a population are particularly good at finding deer, while others happen to be slightly better at detecting humans.
Then the deer disappear and humans become abundant.
Who's getting dinner?
The mosquitoes better at finding us.
Those mosquitoes survive and reproduce. If some of the traits helping them locate humans are inherited, their descendants are more likely to have those traits too.
Generation after generation, humans can therefore push a mosquito population toward becoming increasingly specialized at finding us.
We didn't deliberately breed them.
We changed their environment, and evolution did the breeding for us.
🧴 Then We Fight Back
We cover ourselves with mosquito repellents.
Take DEET, one of the most widely used mosquito repellents.
It works very well, but mosquito populations aren't genetically identical. Individuals vary. If some mosquitoes are less sensitive to a repellent, they're more likely to get through our defenses, feed and reproduce.
That creates another potential evolutionary pressure.
We're not intentionally training mosquitoes to defeat mosquito repellent. But whenever we repeatedly kill, repel or prevent one group from reproducing while another group succeeds, natural selection gets an opportunity.
We've already watched this happen dramatically with insecticides. Mosquito populations around the world have evolved resistance to chemicals that once killed them very effectively.
Evolution doesn't know what we intended.
It simply rewards whatever works.
🐿️ And It Isn't Just Mosquitoes
Look at the animals living in cities.
Raccoons figure out garbage cans.
Squirrels cross roads, buildings, fences and utility lines.
Rats and mice live inside an environment completely unlike the one their ancestors occupied.
Every one of those environments presents new opportunities and new dangers.
A squirrel living in a forest has trees, predators and natural food sources to worry about.
A city squirrel encounters automobiles, buildings, people, artificial food, garbage, utility infrastructure and countless other things its distant ancestors never encountered.
Some responses are learned.
A squirrel can learn that a particular garbage can contains food. That's behavioral adaptation.
But something even more interesting can happen over generations.
If inherited differences make certain squirrels better at surviving cities, those animals leave more descendants. Eventually the population itself can change.
That's evolution.
Researchers studying urban wildlife have found differences between urban and rural populations in behavior, physiology and, in some cases, genetics.
🐭 We're Building an Evolutionary Laboratory
Think about a mouse living behind your house.
We aren't merely another animal in its environment.
We've changed almost everything.
We've changed where the food is.
We've changed the predators.
We've created buildings for shelter.
We've created poisons and traps.
We've introduced cats.
We've built roads.
We've created artificial light at night.
We've changed the temperature of cities.
We've even changed the sounds surrounding these animals.
Every one of those things can become a selective pressure.
And because mice, rats, mosquitoes and many other small animals reproduce rapidly, evolutionary changes can sometimes become detectable surprisingly quickly.
🌎 Nature Isn't Standing Still
There's a tendency to imagine evolution as something that happened millions of years ago.
Dinosaurs evolved.
Mammals evolved.
Humans evolved.
End of story.
But evolution never stopped.
It's happening around your house right now.
When humans transform an environment, the species capable of adapting to that new world survive. Those that cannot adapt decline, disappear locally or move somewhere else.
Sometimes we're deliberately causing the selection.
Most of the time we aren't.
Either way, we're changing the rules of survival.
So the next time you see a raccoon defeating a supposedly raccoon-proof garbage can, a squirrel navigating a city intersection, or a mosquito that somehow finds the one tiny spot you forgot to cover with repellent, remember:
Some of what you're watching is learning.
Some of it may be evolution.
And over enough generations, today's human-built environment becomes somebody else's natural habitat.
We changed their world.
Now they're changing to live in ours.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is Mad Scientist Green, signing off.
🔬 Science & Keywords
BBC Science Focus, March 2026, p. 21 • mosquito host preference • human specialization • natural selection • DEET • insecticide resistance • urban evolution • behavioral adaptation • urban wildlife • rapid evolution • human-driven selection
✅ What's Well Established
Mosquitoes use carbon dioxide, heat and chemical cues to locate hosts. Mosquito populations can differ genetically in their host preferences, including preference for humans. Mosquitoes have also repeatedly evolved resistance to insecticides.
Urbanization can produce powerful evolutionary pressures. Scientists have documented behavioral, physiological and genetic differences between some urban and rural animal populations.
⚠️ One Important Distinction
An individual raccoon learning how to open a garbage can or a squirrel learning to avoid traffic isn't, by itself, evolution.
Learning changes an individual. Evolution changes populations across generations.
The fascinating part is that both processes can operate simultaneously. Animals can learn how to survive our cities today, while natural selection gradually changes their descendants for the cities of tomorrow.
Separate adaptation from acclimation
Strengthen the human health stakes
Trim the repeated city examples

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Mad Scientist Supreme, talking today about graphene, graphene thread, and ultimately a ladder into space.
About a year ago, I submitted a patent application based on an idea for manufacturing continuous graphene material. The Patent Office rejected the application, and I decided not to spend the additional money required to continue pursuing it.
So today, let's talk about the idea.
Start with something called sonoluminescence.
Scientists discovered that intense sound waves focused into a liquid can create tiny collapsing bubbles. Under the right conditions, those bubbles collapse so violently that they produce extremely high temperatures and pressures and emit incredibly brief flashes of light.
In other words, sound can concentrate energy into an extraordinarily small region.
Now let's add graphene.
Graphene is essentially a sheet of carbon only one atom thick. Within that sheet, carbon atoms are connected by extremely strong bonds. Ideal graphene has extraordinary tensile strength while remaining lightweight and flexible.
But there's a problem.
Making a tiny piece of excellent graphene is one thing. Making thousands of miles of essentially flawless graphene is something entirely different.
So here's my proposed manufacturing idea.
Suspend graphene flakes or other suitable carbon material in a liquid. Then use carefully controlled acoustic waves to concentrate and compress that material within extremely small regions.
At the same time, introduce electromagnetic energy.
My hypothesis is that under the right combination of pressure, temperature, electrical conditions and carbon chemistry, neighboring graphene structures might be induced to form new carbon-carbon bonds.
Then move the acoustic focal region.
Bond one microscopic region.
Move slightly forward.
Bond the next overlapping region.
Then the next.
Beep. Beep. Beep. Beep.
Instead of manufacturing one microscopic graphene flake at a time, you're continuously extending a carbon structure.
First make a thread.
Then make a wider ribbon.
Eventually, perhaps, make sheets.
⚡ Why Would Graphene Thread Matter?
The first obvious application is electrical wiring.
Graphene has remarkable electrical properties. A practical graphene-based wire would be extremely lightweight, and carbon is vastly more abundant than copper.
But there's an important qualification.
A perfect microscopic graphene sheet having exceptional electrical properties does not mean a macroscopic graphene cable automatically conducts electricity better than copper. Defects, boundaries between graphene structures, electrical contacts and manufacturing impurities can dramatically change performance.
That's precisely why producing a continuous, high-quality structure would matter.
Even if graphene conductors didn't completely replace copper, extremely lightweight conductive cables could have major applications in aircraft, spacecraft, electric motors and other technologies where every pound matters.
And strength opens another possibility.
✈️ From Airplanes to Spacecraft
Ideal graphene is extraordinarily strong for its weight.
If we learned to manufacture large structural graphene materials while preserving enough of that microscopic strength, aircraft skins, vehicle structures and spacecraft components might potentially become substantially lighter.
But my main interest wasn't an airplane.
It was a space elevator.
Imagine manufacturing a cable tens of thousands of miles long.
Carry the initial cable into space. Deploy one end downward toward Earth while extending a counterweight outward beyond geostationary orbit. Properly balanced, Earth's rotation keeps the cable under tension.
Attach electrically powered climbers to it.
Now instead of burning enormous quantities of rocket fuel to accelerate every payload into orbit, electricity powers vehicles climbing the cable.
Once the first cable exists, it helps carry material needed for additional cables.
One becomes two.
Two become four.
Eventually humanity could have multiple elevators carrying satellites, equipment and people between Earth and space.
And extending the structure beyond geostationary orbit produces another fascinating possibility.
Because the outer portions are moving rapidly around Earth, payloads released from sufficiently distant points could gain substantial orbital energy from Earth's rotation. In principle, that could assist missions headed farther into the solar system.
The Earth itself becomes part of the transportation system.
🔬 What's Already Established?
Graphene: Real, extremely strong at microscopic scales, lightweight and capable of remarkable electrical performance.
Sonoluminescence: Real. Acoustic energy can drive violent microscopic bubble collapse and produce brief flashes of light.
Graphene fibers: Also real. Researchers already manufacture macroscopic graphene-based fibers and yarns, although their properties remain far below those of a single flawless graphene crystal.
Space elevators: Serious theoretical engineering concepts. The fundamental problem has always been finding a cable material with sufficient strength-to-weight performance while also manufacturing that material at enormous scale and with extraordinarily few defects.
🧪 What's My Speculative Part?
The big unanswered question is whether my proposed combination of acoustic concentration, electromagnetic energy and controlled carbon chemistry could actually produce the required carbon-carbon bonding.
Simply pressing graphene flakes together and passing electrical current through them would not automatically weld them into flawless graphene.
That's the experiment.
Can acoustic energy create the necessary local conditions?
Can electromagnetic energy assist bonding?
Can the process be moved continuously so that instead of isolated flakes we manufacture a long, highly ordered carbon structure?
If the answer is no, we've learned something.
But if the answer is yes, don't start by building a 44,000-mile space elevator.
Make one centimeter.
Then make a meter.
Measure its tensile strength.
Measure its electrical resistance.
Find the defects.
Make it better.
Then make a kilometer.
Because if humanity ever learns how to manufacture extremely long carbon structures approaching graphene's theoretical strength, we won't merely have invented a new kind of wire.
We may have invented the material that opens the road to space.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is the Mad Scientist Supreme, signing out.

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Mad Scientist Debrief, talking today about space debris.
This comes from Science, 13 August 2026, page 642, discussing the danger that planned satellite constellations could contribute to runaway orbital debris.
We are putting more and more satellites into orbit, and they are not all traveling in the same direction. Some follow near-equatorial orbits. Others travel at steep inclinations. Some use polar orbits. They cross one another's paths at tremendous relative speeds.
Eventually, something is going to hit something else.
When two satellites collide, they don't simply become two broken satellites. They can produce thousands of fragments traveling in new directions and new orbits. Some fragments will fall into the atmosphere and burn up. Others can remain in orbit for years or decades.
Then one fragment hits another satellite.
That satellite breaks apart.
Now there are even more fragments.
This is the Kessler Syndrome, or collisional cascading. NASA has been studying this problem for decades. Its modeling has found something particularly disturbing: in important portions of low Earth orbit, collisions among objects already there could continue increasing the debris population even if humanity stopped launching new spacecraft. �
Orbital Debris Program Office +1
That means prevention alone may eventually not be enough.
🧹 We Need Garbage Trucks in Space
Years ago, science fiction imagined crews whose job was collecting abandoned satellites, rocket stages, and other orbital junk.
We may actually need them.
Instead of waiting until an uncontrolled cascade occurs, build spacecraft specifically designed to rendezvous with dead satellites and spent rocket stages, capture them, and either bring them down or push them into trajectories where atmospheric drag will eventually destroy them.
Interestingly, NASA's modeling suggests we don't necessarily have to remove everything. For long-term stabilization, targeting only a handful of the largest, highest-collision-risk objects each year could make an important difference. One NASA analysis found that removing roughly five such objects annually could stabilize the long-term LEO debris environment. �
Orbital Debris Program Office +1
That's a much more manageable problem than trying to vacuum millions of tiny fragments out of space.
The principle is simple:
Spend money cleaning up space now, or potentially spend enormously more dealing with the consequences later.
📡 Civilization Is Becoming Dependent on Orbit
Satellites aren't just scientific toys anymore.
They provide communications, navigation, weather forecasting, Earth observation, disaster response, military capabilities, and increasingly direct communications with ordinary consumer devices.
Imagine allowing terrestrial communications infrastructure to disappear because satellite communications became cheaper and better. Then imagine a major orbital collision cascade knocking out a substantial portion of that satellite network.
We could suddenly discover that the supposedly obsolete backup infrastructure wasn't so obsolete after all.
Every major technological transition needs some overlap.
The Pony Express kept carrying messages while telegraph infrastructure expanded. Telegraph continued while telephone networks developed. Ground communications should remain resilient while satellite communications become more important.
And satellites themselves need protection while whatever comes next is being developed.
⚛️ One Important Correction: Quantum Communication
This is where my speculation runs ahead of today's science.
Quantum communication is fascinating, and quantum networks could eventually provide extraordinarily secure communications. But quantum entanglement, according to established physics, does not currently allow a telephone to transmit ordinary information instantaneously to another entangled telephone without a conventional communications channel.
So we cannot presently put two quantum chips in two phones and use entanglement alone to make an instantaneous call through the Earth or from a submerged submarine.
Maybe some future discovery changes that. Maybe the next communications revolution comes from something entirely different.
But we shouldn't bet civilization on technology that doesn't exist yet.
🚀 Maintain the Bridge Until We Build the Next One
That's really my point.
Humanity builds one communications system and eventually replaces it with something better. But until the replacement actually works, we have to maintain what we've already built.
Today, that increasingly means protecting Earth's orbital environment.
We should improve satellite tracking. We should design spacecraft that reliably dispose of themselves. We should prevent unnecessary explosions and collisions. And we should seriously invest in active removal of the largest abandoned objects before they become thousands of smaller objects.
NASA itself describes active debris removal as an important long-term approach to protecting heavily used orbital regions. �
Orbital Debris Program Office
Space isn't an infinite garbage dump.
It's infrastructure.
And just like roads, bridges, power lines, and communications networks, somebody eventually has to maintain it.
Clean up the road to space while the road is still usable.
Thank you very much for listening. This is the Mad Scientist Debrief, signing out.

Send us Fan Mail

 Tuberculosis — Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This is the obvious one for your story. WHO estimates about 10.7 million people developed TB and 1.23 million died from it in 2024. It remains the world's leading cause of death from a single infectious agent. Drug-resistant TB makes it especially interesting for your proposed bacteriophage research. 

 Bacterial pneumonia — especially Streptococcus pneumoniae, but also Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, etc. Rather than one bacterium, pneumonia is a syndrome caused by several organisms. Bacterial lower-respiratory infections are enormous killers. S. pneumoniae alone was associated with roughly 829,000 deaths in the major Global Burden of Disease analysis, most through lower-respiratory infection. 
 
 Staphylococcal infections — Staphylococcus aureus, including MRSA. This one is surprisingly important. The large Lancet analysis estimated S. aureus was associated with about 1.1 million deaths in 2019, making it the deadliest of the 33 bacterial pathogens examined. It causes bloodstream infections, pneumonia, wound infections, surgical infections and sepsis. MRSA adds the antibiotic-resistance problem. 

 Serious E. coli infections. Most E. coli living in our intestines are harmless, but pathogenic strains can cause diarrheal disease, urinary infections, kidney infections, abdominal infections and bloodstream infections. The Lancet analysis associated E. coli with about 950,000 deaths worldwide in 2019. 

 Klebsiella infections — Klebsiella pneumoniae. This is particularly attractive for your storyline because some strains have become extremely resistant to antibiotics. It causes pneumonia, bloodstream infections, urinary infections and serious hospital-acquired infections. The same global analysis associated it with about 790,000 deaths in 2019.

 An important sixth candidate is Pseudomonas aeruginosa, particularly for hospital patients, burns, wounds, ventilators and people with weakened immune systems. It was associated with roughly 559,000 deaths in that analysis. 
Hello people, this is the Mad Scientist Green, talking today about bacterial infections. Now, we all get infected by bacteria, but some bacteria is more deadly than others. Tuberculosis, very deadly, and becoming antibiotic resistant. Pneumonia, Staphylococcus, strep throat, E. coli, and Klebsiella,
 Well, we need to get away from antibiotics. And one way to do that is using the Tree of Life Project. Now, the Tree of Life Project, they are researching all life and genetically analyzing it to see what it's closest related to. And we also have viruses, which are not technically alive, but they're analyzing them too. And certain viruses affect certain animals. There are certain types of virus that only affect bats. And every time it replicates, a few of those viruses are mutating. And they have a chance, a very, very small chance, but a chance that they have mutated so they will affect a human or a mouse or a cow. Bird flu, same way. Affects birds, only a certain type of birds. But then as birds, you know, meet other birds and it spreads, there's a very small chance it'll go to a new species. So something that only affects crows might jump over to affect geese. Well, if you grow a bunch of bacteria, let's say tuberculosis bacteria in a bat, and you can't find any virus that attacks that, but you find a virus that attacks a bacteria that's similar to or very closely related to tuberculosis. Grow tuberculosis and that other bacteria in one bat. So they're co-mingling. And then infect it with that virus. That virus will attack the one it's supposed to attack, and tuberculosis will be unaffected, most of the time. But you keep doing this generation after generation. And eventually, the virus will mutate so it will attack tuberculosis. And you breed it again and again and get the ones that attack it the best. Make it extremely virulent against tuberculosis. And then simply spray that in the air around somebody with tuberculosis. They breathe that in, it affects their tuberculosis, and they're cured. And we can go around curing the world of tuberculosis. Well, strep throat, if you don't have the antibiotics to kill that, it can kill you. Well, we do the same thing again. Find the virus that attacks bacteria that's closest to that. Brew those two or three or four bacterias together. And eventually, the virus will change to attack strep throat and attack the other things. All those other bacteria that kill us. We can kill them by breeding the correct viruses that will only affect those bacteria. Now, it's a hit or miss thing. I realize that. Now, they specifically alter a virus to attack us that only affected bats. Well, if we don't specifically alter this, it's going to take a lot longer for it to happen. You're going to have to have a much larger sample size, etc. But it will be natural. And I don't want to affect viruses or change viruses to affect us. I want it to affect the things that affect us. We can, your bacteria on your teeth that cause cavities. We might be able to get a virus that kills bacteria that causes tooth decay. So, we end up with no tooth decay without having to go through other steps. We end up with not having to floss or brush your teeth as often. Yes, for fresh minty breath and fresh breath, it would be a good idea to floss and brush your teeth. But to prevent cavities, that won't be a problem anymore if we can invent, or if we can breed bacteria and breed the viruses that attack those bacteria. The viruses will naturally change given the right environments. We don't have to go in there with a set of tweezers, change the viruses. And if you intentionally genetically modify an organism, you've got to get government approval for that. But if you're just growing bacteria in a bat, and it happens to be affected by a virus, that's legal. So, let's do things that are legal and make viruses attack those things that attack us. All right, that's my little speech for today, and I encourage people to go out there and actually do this, get the money together to do this. Thank you very much for listening. This is the Mad Scientist Green, signing out.
.

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Mad Scientist, talking today about food production—and how we're going to keep producing food when water becomes harder to get.
This comes from Science Magazine, March 26, 2026, page 1312, in an article provocatively titled “Playing Dead.”
There are plants capable of an extraordinary survival trick.
During a severe drought, they can dry out so completely that, to our eyes, they look dead. Leaves shrivel. Growth stops. Their metabolism drops dramatically.
Then the rain comes.
And they wake back up.
Scientists call this desiccation tolerance, and plants capable of extreme versions are sometimes called resurrection plants.
Now here's my question:
Why shouldn't our food crops be able to do something similar?
Take wheat. Wheat is fundamentally a domesticated grass. Somewhere among wheat's relatives and other grasses are genes and biological mechanisms that allow plants to survive conditions our modern crops cannot.
If we can identify those mechanisms and introduce useful drought-survival traits into agricultural varieties through breeding or biotechnology, a drought wouldn't necessarily mean losing the entire crop.
Production would certainly decline. You can't manufacture grain without water. But there's a tremendous difference between producing less this year and losing the plants completely and starting over.
And we're going to need every advantage we can get.
💧 Underneath much of the central United States lies the High Plains Aquifer, commonly associated with the Ogallala Aquifer. For decades, farmers have pumped groundwater from it to irrigate some of America's most productive agricultural land.
The problem is simple arithmetic.
In heavily pumped regions, we're removing groundwater faster than nature replaces it.
Farmers respond by drilling deeper. But eventually you reach formations where economically useful groundwater simply isn't available. Some agricultural areas have already experienced substantial declines.
That doesn't mean America's heartland suddenly turns into a desert tomorrow. Conditions vary tremendously across the aquifer. But it does mean that agriculture in some regions will have to change.
So let's attack the problem from several directions.
🌱 First: drought-surviving crops.
Develop wheat, corn and other staples capable of surviving much longer periods without water. Combine that with perennial varieties whose living root systems remain in the soil year after year. Deep roots could reach water unavailable to shallow-rooted crops while protecting soil against erosion.
🏠 Second: move appropriate crops indoors.
We're already growing vegetables through hydroponics, vertical farms and controlled-environment agriculture. Lettuce, herbs, tomatoes and other high-value crops can be produced with carefully controlled amounts of water.
We're not going to replace the Great Plains wheat crop with a few towers in somebody's basement. Grain requires enormous acreage, and indoor lighting consumes energy.
But not everything needs to be grain.
Potatoes and other high-yield crops can provide tremendous amounts of food energy per acre. Different agricultural systems can complement one another instead of trying to make one technology grow everything.
🤖 Third: automate the labor.
This is where robotics becomes extremely interesting.
Imagine a household or small farm with a general-purpose robot capable of watering plants, checking for pests, pruning, harvesting vegetables, tending potatoes, moving containers and maintaining equipment.
Teach the machine a task once, and increasingly sophisticated software could allow that knowledge to be reused.
The economics of small-scale agriculture suddenly change.
Tasks that aren't economical when a person must spend hours performing them may become practical when a machine can work, recharge and return to work.
And when it isn't tending the garden?
Wash the dishes. Fold the laundry. Clean the house. Prepare dinner.
That means automation doesn't merely replace agricultural labor. It could free human time while making highly managed, small-scale food production practical again.
🌎 That's the future I want to see.
Don't wait until an aquifer is exhausted and announce that agriculture is impossible.
Develop crops that tolerate drought.
Develop perennial grains with deeper, permanent roots.
Use controlled-environment agriculture where it makes economic sense.
Recycle water.
And use robotics to eliminate the labor bottleneck.
We're not going to stop droughts.
But human beings have spent thousands of years modifying agriculture to survive whatever nature throws at us.
Let's keep doing it.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is the Mad Scientist, signing out.
🔬 Science & Keywords
Science Magazine, March 26, 2026, p. 1312 • desiccation tolerance • resurrection plants • drought resistance • High Plains/Ogallala Aquifer • groundwater depletion • perennial grains • controlled-environment agriculture • hydroponics • vertical farming • agricultural robotics • food security
🧪 Where the Science Stands
Well established: Extreme desiccation tolerance exists in some plants; groundwater depletion is a serious problem in portions of the High Plains Aquifer; perennial root systems can offer soil and water-management advantages; and controlled-environment agriculture can dramatically increase control over water use.
Promising but developing: Transferring extreme drought-survival characteristics into major crops while maintaining high yields, expanding perennial grain agriculture, and using increasingly autonomous robots for diverse agricultural tasks.
The goal: Not one miracle technology, but an agricultural system resilient enough that when one resource becomes scarce, we have several other ways to keep America—and ultimately the world—fed.

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Mad Scientist Supreme, talking today about cancer.
Well, communicable cancer.
Normally, you cannot catch cancer from another person. If living cancer cells from somebody else somehow enter your body, your immune system recognizes them as foreign and destroys them. But nature, being nature, occasionally finds ways around the rules.
The most famous example is the Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease.
Tasmanian devils bite each other frequently, particularly during mating and territorial fights. During those bites, living cancer cells can physically transfer from one animal to another. Instead of the new devil's immune system immediately destroying those foreign cells, the tumor has evolved mechanisms that help it escape immune recognition.
That means something extraordinary has happened: the cancer itself has effectively become a transmissible biological lineage.
It isn't simply one Tasmanian devil developing cancer and then another developing the same kind independently. Cancer cells descended from an original animal are now surviving and reproducing inside other animals. In evolutionary terms, the cancer has become something resembling a cellular parasite.
And Tasmanian devils aren't alone.
Science has discovered transmissible cancers in dogs and several marine animals, particularly bivalves such as clams and mussels. Researchers have therefore started asking a fascinating question:
How many times has cancer independently evolved the ability to move between individuals?
That brings me to an article in Science, July 23, 2026, page 339, discussing transmissible cancer involving catfish.
If a cancer lineage can survive outside its original host long enough to reach another compatible animal, that creates an ecological problem very different from ordinary cancer. Instead of asking only how cancer develops inside an individual, scientists have to start thinking about cancer almost like an infectious disease.
And that raises an important conservation question.
If a transmissible cancer appears in an isolated population—perhaps a particular lake—how aggressively should we respond?
My instinct is aggressive containment. Before doing anything as drastic as draining or chemically treating a lake, scientists would obviously need to establish how the cancer is transmitted, how widespread it already is, which species are susceptible, and whether intervention would cause more ecological damage than the cancer itself.
But containment deserves serious consideration.
Boats move between lakes. Fishing equipment moves between lakes. Birds move between lakes. Water moves downstream. If viable cancer cells can survive any of those journeys, humans or wildlife could unintentionally help move them.
That doesn't mean we're facing contagious human cancer.
There is an enormous biological barrier between a cancer adapted to a catfish and one capable of surviving inside a human. A transmissible cancer isn't equivalent to a virus such as rabies that can naturally infect numerous mammalian species. There is currently no evidence that one of these fish cancers is evolving toward infecting people.
But that's exactly why transmissible cancers are worth studying.
They give scientists a natural experiment in immune evasion, transplantation biology, cancer evolution and host resistance. Understanding how these cells escape another animal's immune system could even teach us something useful about ordinary human cancers, which also survive partly by finding ways to evade immune attack.
So perhaps the real lesson isn't that we're about to catch cancer from a fish.
It's stranger than that.
A cancer cell begins as part of an animal. Occasionally, evolution produces one capable of escaping that animal, entering another, surviving its immune defenses and continuing its lineage.
At that point, cancer has accomplished something remarkable:
It has become its own evolving population.
And whenever nature invents something that unusual, we should study it carefully, contain it when necessary, and learn everything we possibly can from it.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is the Mad Scientist Supreme, signing out.
🔬 Keywords & References
Science, July 23, 2026, p. 339 • transmissible cancer • Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease • clonal cancer • immune evasion • catfish • bivalve transmissible neoplasia • cancer evolution • wildlife disease • ecological containment

Send us Fan Mail

Hello, people. This is the Mad Scientist Supreme.
Today I'd like to continue the discussion from my previous episode on Converging Worlds.
In that episode, I suggested a speculative idea: if every branching universe in a multiverse requires energy to exist, then perhaps there is a limit to how many branches can be sustained. When that limit is reached, similar universes might merge back together. In my fictional model, this merging could explain phenomena like the Mandela Effect, where groups of people remember historical events differently.
Let's take that idea one step further.
Suppose there are civilizations in other branches of the multiverse. Some would undoubtedly be less technologically advanced than we are, while others might be thousands—or even millions—of years ahead. If one of those advanced civilizations discovered a way to travel between universes through some form of gateway or wormhole technology, they might eventually visit our reality.
Now imagine another possibility.
What if so-called zero-point energy devices actually drew energy from the same underlying fabric that allows alternate realities to exist? If extracting that energy reduced the universe's ability to sustain branching realities, then widespread use of such technology might slowly diminish the multiverse itself.
Under that speculative scenario, advanced civilizations would have every reason to discourage younger civilizations from developing unrestricted zero-point energy. It wouldn't simply be about economics—it would be about preserving the larger structure of reality.
Some people point to stories surrounding mysterious inventors or alleged free-energy devices that disappeared from public view. Programs such as The Why Files have explored many of these claims. While none of these stories constitute scientific proof, they raise interesting questions and make for fascinating thought experiments.
In this fictional framework, resistance to zero-point energy could come from several directions:
Existing industries protecting established energy markets.
Governments concerned about disruptive technologies.
Or, in the most speculative version of the idea, agreements with advanced visitors from other realities who understand consequences we do not.
If energy can move between universes, perhaps matter—or even people—could someday do the same.
Imagine discovering a civilization that solved problems we still struggle with today. Medicine, transportation, computing, energy generation—centuries of progress might already exist somewhere else. A functioning gateway between realities could become the greatest scientific expedition in history.
Is any of this established science?
No.
It is speculative science fiction inspired by concepts from quantum mechanics, cosmology, and discussions surrounding the Many-Worlds Interpretation. But throughout history, imaginative ideas have often inspired scientists to ask better questions and occasionally discover entirely new fields of research.
Whether the multiverse exists or not, asking "What if?" has always been one of humanity's greatest tools for exploration.
Thank you very much for listening.
This is the Mad Scientist Supreme, signing out.
🔬 References
Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Quantum vacuum (zero-point) energy.
Wormholes as theoretical solutions in general relativity.
The Why Files discussions on speculative technologies.
✅ Scientific Background
Zero-point energy is a real concept in quantum physics, referring to the lowest possible energy state of a quantum field.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one of several proposed interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Wormholes are mathematically allowed solutions in Einstein's equations but have never been observed.

Send us Fan Mail

What if the universe doesn't just split into countless parallel worlds? What if those worlds sometimes come back together?
In this episode, the Mad Scientist Review explores a speculative variation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The traditional Many-Worlds idea suggests that every quantum event leads to branching realities, producing an enormous—perhaps effectively limitless—number of parallel universes. But the episode asks a different question: Can unlimited branching exist in a universe with finite energy?
The discussion begins with the observation that some physicists have described the vacuum of space as containing an enormous amount of underlying energy. Even so, "enormous" is not the same as infinite. If the universe contains finite mass and energy, could there also be limits on how many independent realities can exist?
From there, the episode introduces the concept of "Merging Worlds Theory." Instead of endlessly branching apart, realities might occasionally converge again. If two nearly identical histories merged, subtle differences could remain in people's memories, offering one imaginative explanation for reports often described as the Mandela Effect—situations where groups of people sincerely remember historical events differently from how they are recorded today.
The conversation also touches on one of the most famous experiments in physics: the double-slit experiment. While the experiment demonstrates that measurement affects the outcomes predicted by quantum mechanics, the exact meaning of "observation" remains the subject of scientific debate. Most physicists interpret the effect as resulting from interactions with measuring equipment or the environment, rather than requiring human consciousness itself to determine reality.
Finally, the episode looks far into the realm of science fiction. If parallel universes exist and could someday become accessible, explorers might encounter civilizations that followed entirely different historical paths—perhaps developing advanced technologies centuries or even millennia ahead of our own. Stories such as ****, along with its television adaptation, illustrate how alternate histories can serve as compelling thought experiments about culture, technology, and human choices.
The episode concludes by encouraging curiosity. Whether or not parallel universes exist, exploring bold ideas can inspire new questions about physics, cosmology, and the nature of reality itself.
🔬 References
The Many-Worlds Interpretation proposed by .
The double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics.
Quantum decoherence research.
Vacuum energy in quantum field theory.
and The Man in the High Castle.
✅ What's Known
The Many-Worlds Interpretation is one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The double-slit experiment demonstrates wave-like quantum behavior and the influence of measurement on experimental outcomes.
Quantum vacuum energy is predicted by quantum field theory, although its relationship to cosmology remains an active area of research.
The Mandela Effect is a documented psychological phenomenon in which groups of people confidently remember events differently from historical records.
⚠️ What's Speculative
There is currently no experimental evidence that parallel universes exist.
The proposed "Merging Worlds Theory" is a speculative philosophical idea rather than an established scientific model.
There is no evidence that the Mandela Effect is caused by merging timelines or alternate realities.
No technology exists that can create portals to parallel universes or retrieve knowledge from alternate histories.
The greatest value of ideas like these may not be in proving they are true, but in encouraging us to ask deeper questions about how the universe works. Throughout history, imaginative thought experiments have often inspired scientific discoveries—even when the original ideas themselves turned out to be incomplete.