EARLY TO RISE: Very few people can get by on six hours of sleep, but some of those who can might just be sleeping more efficiently than everyone else... thanks to a genetic mutation.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/JHORROCKS
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
For something so essential and basic, sleep has turned out to be a complicated biological nightmare for scientists. Certain genes, such as CLOCK and BMAL1, have been pegged for their roles in the body's circadian rhythm, but the full cast of characters involved in moderating the process of sleep remains fuzzy.
But thanks to a mother and daughter who share a rare genetic mutation—and who routinely need just six hours of sleep a night—researchers have recently taken a step forward in the journey to unravel the tangled genetic web of sleep.
The new study, published online today in Science, reports the discovery of a genetic mutation on the gene DEC2 that appears to allow the mother–daughter pair of "short sleepers"—and a handful of transgenic mice—to truly need less sleep.
"We know sleep is necessary for survival," says co-author Ying-Hui Fu, a professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco. But, "we don't know anything about how it's regulated," she adds.
Sleep requirements seem to follow a typical curve in the general population, with most people needing between seven and eight hours nightly. Only about 5 percent of the population can get by just fine on six hours of sleep, notes Fu.
"In normal sleepers, if you reduce their duration to six hours, after a few days you will see some negative impact," explains Mehdi Tafti, an associate professor at the Center for Integrative Genomics at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, who wrote the accompanying perspectives piece and wasn't involved in the study. "And no one should sleep-deprive him or herself."
Despite only getting an average of 6.25 hours of sleep a night in the study, both the 17-year-old daughter and the mother in her late 40s seemed to be perfectly healthy and well-rested, Fu notes. "They feel just fine," she says. Unlike the rest of their family members (who needed an average of about eight hours of slumber), they had a mutation on the DEC2 transcription facilitator, which is involved in the circadian clock, among other functions. But was this the sole cause of the curtailed sleep needs?
To further investigate the gene and its impact on the body, the researchers studied transgenic mice with the introduced mutation. These experimental animals experienced a daily activity period about 1.2 hours longer than their nonmutant compatriots. Removing Dec2 in mice, however, did not generate the same wakefulness, and instead the genetic knockout mice actually slept a little bit more.
See what we're tweeting about
41 Comments
Add CommentSort of seems like these researchers are leaning toward the idea that people who require a full night's sleep are somehow deficient. This is one of those cases where a person should take special care not to mistake a capacity for a desire. I personally can survive on 6 hours of sleep per day indefinitely. Doesn't mean that I enjoy it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, I don't trust anybody that wants to genetically modify entire populations. For one, there is no credible reason to assume these guys have anticipated every possible result of such tampering. The human body and all of its functions are far too complex and intertwined to give anybody reason to feel confident about tweaking its blueprints.
That isn't even mentioning the sheer cultural arrogance involved. While I respect the pursuit of any knowledge, pursuing 'fixes' for physiological shortcomings (whether real or imagined) in this manner has definite sociological ramifications.
For instance, it could be a very small step from genetically increasing our sleep efficiency to the point where sleeping for a full 8 hours a day will be branded as a crime against productive society.
Man I'd LOVE to be ABLE to sleep 8 hours at a time. I have gone about 6-7 hours or so for several years now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI physically can't sleep that long. I wake up rather I want to or not, but I don't think this is a good thing for me. I do feel tired but I can't seem to do anything about it.
@galaxy_man, did we read the same article or are you just off your meds!? Where did the author say that people who sleep a standard night’s sleep are deficient? He said the genetic mutation seems to make people sleep more efficiently. That’s it. And no where did he say he wanted to genetically modify entire populations! He said that this discovery may lead to treatments for sleep disorders or simply help people sleep more efficiently. As a person with chronic insomnia I look forward to discoveries like this that may, some day, help me get a good night’s rest. This is great news! Of course if you are suffering from paranoid delusions and the words on the page lose their meaning and instead become an ominous threat of Huxlian proportions then I can see why you might want to cover your head in tinfoil and hide in the fruit-seller…or maybe just get back on your anti-psychotic drugs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“For instance, it could be a very small step from genetically increasing our sleep efficiency to the point where sleeping for a full 8 hours a day will be branded as a crime against productive society.” Sure, I can see how that would be a small step. One day you’re enjoying a nice weekend sleep-in and the next, hard jail time or worse, summary execution, for hitting the snooze button. In fact, just owning an alarm clock with a snooze button could have you sent to gitmo!
I sure do hope that no-one has ever made the mistake of selling you a firearm because any day now I can see you raining hellfire on those dark agents that have so long been conspiring against you…
I would LOVE to be able to sleep more efficiently, 8 hours is just too long in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisanother thing i would love to be able to do is fall asleep after dark. I could be exhausted, but as soon as it gets dark i am wide awake and it will take 1.5-2 hours to fall asleep, or i could wait for sunrise and fall asleep in 30-45 min, but that is usually too late
"Fu says helping people sleep a little less while maintaining their health and well-being is her ultimate dream."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiraffes only sleep 20 minutes a day. What we need is a workforce of Giraffes.
I admit the article did intimate, albeit in a more subliminal way, that getting less sleep (and deeper, more high-quality sleep) would be preferred to getting eight hours... I mean, wouldn't you want a longer life by 8.3 years (two extra hours of awake time roughly calculated for 100 years of life)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admit the article did intimate, albeit in a more subliminal way, that getting less sleep (and deeper, more high-quality sleep) would be preferred to getting eight hours... I mean, wouldn't you want a longer life by 8.3 years (two extra hours of awake time roughly calculated for 100 years of life)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, there's a thing called 'reading between the lines'. You might want to look into it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, if you were to take a close look at the character of the culture we live in, the things I talk about become much less shocking. Let me spell it out just so there's no confusion. Our current culture has several basic tenets:
a) expanding one's personal property is the ultimate purpose of life; therefore one must do everything in their power to accumulate as much as possible
b) work is more important than personal (or family) time
c) it takes too long to solve problems, so cure symptoms instead
The true problem is that the majority of people here are not given the time they need to get proper rest. There is too much work that needs to be done, and work is more valuable than personal well-being. Then here come some researchers who discovered a way to potentially eliminate our need for a full night's sleep. Hooray! Now we can spend our time doing more work without having to bother with some troublesome demands of physiology. That's what scares me, Rob. Positive reinforcement of some very flawed values.
Also, in reference to the line you quoted, I was being metaphorical. Of COURSE nobody's going to be thrown in jail for sleep! More likely they will be criticized for the perception that they are lazy and unwilling to put their due work into a day. Tell me you can look at the lives people lead in Corporate America and not see that coming.
@galaxy_man, making stuff up is not “reading between the lines”. There is nothing in this article to justify your comments. Nowhere in the article did it even imply that the hours saved by sleeping less should be used to work more. The author simply studied a unique phenomenon in which two related people seemed to get by with less sleep than the general population. Because they are related, the implication was that there may be a genetic component to it. Finally, as with all scientific papers, the author closed by speculating on practical applications. All the rest came from your own personal psychological baggage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, why should we want to sleep more? The reason we sleep is to get the rest we need. If we could get by with less sleep or even without sleep and still feel rested, what’s the problem with that? We would then have more time to dedicate to our friends and families which seems to be what you want. I think it sucks that a 1/4 to a 1/3 of my life is lost to sleep. Life is short enough.
And do you not get the fact that there are people with sleeping disorders that can benefit from this? Are you so wrapped up in your own paranoia that you can only imagine how this would affect you? Seriously, you have a problem. Look up "confirmation bias" but better yet, see a doctor…oh ya, I forgot, the doctor’s are all out to enslave you.
Next you’re going to complain that curing cancer is a conspiracy to prevent people from retiring early.
�
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to sleep once ago, but now i like to ealry rise in the morning , because i find when you ealry rise and time is become more and more to you .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou can get the time to do other things
I get you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not to thrilled with the "an opportunity to start looking into the pathways and whether we can modify that in the future." philosophy in genetic research.
I'm completely supportive of genetic research, to make that perfectly clear, but to alter these complex cycles for what will ultimately turn out to be someone else's profit on our productive availability, puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Give me eight hous sleep over a ten hour work day.
Nowhere in the article did it even imply that the hours saved by sleeping less should be used to work more.--------
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're absolutely correct, no one is telling anybody to work more.
No one told women in the sixties to fill their day with more tasks when new "time saving" appliances were introduced to the market either, yet there you are.
Ask your wife if she sits on her ass all day.
Better yet, tell her to get off her ass, you just bought her a new vacuum. lol. Go ahead, I double dog dare you.
My point is clear, though. More free time=less free time.
@ galaxy_man: I agree with you - you certainly aren't "making stuff up".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ robert:
From the actual lines of the article:
"...or just help regular people get by with less sleep. "
and
"Fu says helping people sleep a little less while maintaining their health and well-being is her ultimate dream."
Between the lines:
Does this not confirm anything? Why do you think people would want/need to sleep less? More free time, which will eventually be filled with work anyway, seeing as everyone will have it.
Debate on how much sleep is necessary continues, but it is probably safe to say that young children need at least 8 hours of sleep a day while adults should get more than 6. Certainly, these numbers are not fixed and there are cases where some do fine with only a few hours while others do not. The bottom line is that our brains need sleep, deep sleep, and REM to function efficiently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Paul Nussbaum
I am currently working as pastry chef at night. I work 5 days/per week. I thought that, i should spend 6-8hours for sleeping. Otherwise i won't concentrate when i work and even hard work . I used to try 3hours for my sleeping. The result i have was exhausted and still spread through tomorrow. That's why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am currently working as pastry chef at night. I work 5 days/per week. I thought that, i should spend 6-8hours for sleeping. Otherwise i won't concentrate when i work and even hard work . I used to try 3hours for my sleeping. The result i have was exhausted and still spread through tomorrow. That's why.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been typically getting 5-6 hours of sleep during the week nights. On the weekends, I manage only 6-7 hours at night. I wake up without an alarm and once I am awake, I cannot fall back to sleep and instead lay there eye wide open and restless until I get out and get moving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do take a 30- 1 hour nap during the day once I get home from work. I am sure that the nap is what is throwing off my night time sleep cycle.
i sleep 5 hours each night and take 1 hour nap next noon i feel perfectly healthy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinteresting article. I am one of those people that only need about 6-61/2 hrs. of sleep a night. 6 hrs for me is like everyone elses 8 hrs. I can, and usually go to bed very late and can wake up fairly early (6 am). In fact if I actually sleep "late" or past 9 or 10am I get a severe headache. Studying how these genes could help others with sleep disorders and/or simply giving an insight into how those who only sleep 6hrs or less have a better REM sleep than most, could lead to better and healthy sleeping for everyone who suffers with problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny scientific achievement is based on debate when it is presented, but only the time can tell the right or wrong, even worthful or rubbish! Standing on this point, they are, before the right time, both reasonably to put commend and criticism on such a discovery. Critically treat it is the best attitude!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@coolmoss, what people choose to do with their time is their business. I personally enjoy my work so I am not looking to shorten my work week. I would rather spend a day at the office than a weekend cleaning my house and maintaining my yard. Certainly, labour saving devices have permitted people to fill their time with other tasks. Did you expect people to "sit on their ass all day?" Is that how you define free time? I would define it as the time in which you have total discretion to do as you please. If you choose to work or play or "sit on your ass," its your decision. "More free time=less free time" is one of the stupidest comments Ive heard yet. Why dont you get off your ass and get yourself an education?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@dewert, again, nothing in what you posted even mentions work. How can the quote, helping people sleep a little less while maintaining their health and well-being is her ultimate dream be interpreted as anything but a noble aspiration? It is only you and your paranoid cadre that are saying that the only application of more free time is more work. Maybe it is you we need to fear. And what prevents people from spending that free time with friends and family? Is there a law? Do police or soldiers come into your house and drag you to work camps? If people chose to work more because they want to fill their house with more crap that is their CHOISE.
What a bunch of selfish, paranoid people who would hold up progress towards medical breakthroughs because of completely unsubstantiated fears of how, in some Orwelian world of the future, it could be used against them. Science and technology should always be viewed with a critical eye; but cynicism and paranoia are not critical thinking. They are lazy thinking that substitutes intellectual process with emotional, knee-jerk reactions.
It`s a fact of nature that most mutations are not beneficial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this mutation really provides more efficient sleep, why is it then that human beings that have evolved over millions of years to sleep so many hours a day would be doing it inefficiently.
If the mutation was beneficial then it would be selected for, and if it was selected for then there would be more than just two individuals with the mutation.
I think it`s more likely that they sacrifice some of the benefits of sleep by getting it done faster.
Obviously this mutation does control sleep patterns and the individuals that have it are able to function without the extra hours, but I think it would be a bit much to conclude anything else about the effect in humans given that the test sample consist of two people.
@CogitoErgoSum, One hypothesis has it that we sleep at night because our poor night vision prevents us from being able to do much; so sleeping is probably the best use of that time. As a result, there would be no pressure to sleep less. In fact, there would likely be pressure to keep us from waking too early as we might do nothing more than make noise and attract predators. Modern life is very different from the life in which most of our traits evolved. It is very short sighted to assume that any trait that differs from the norm must be detrimental otherwise it would have evolved in us earlier. Remember, evolution is about adaptation not about "betterment". What might be "better" in one environment may be detrimental in another. Finally, the article clearly states that there is, "a long road still ahead before scientists solidly understand sleep" so I don’t think the author is jumping to any conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI didn't mean to imply anything about the author of this article, I only meant to point out that to "need less sleep" is different from sleeping more efficiently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn evolutionary adaptation and an organism's fitness, I only assumed that it would be beneficial for animals to have more time on their hands.
However, I do see your point about the advantages of staying innactive through the night and it is possible that this prevented selection for more efficient sleepers.
Mr schmidt, Why the attacks on other comments? Iv'e seen nothing in your argument that has any more, . . . or less merit than theirs. It seems as though you are the paranoid, looking for somebody to step on to make your own musings seem more substantial. Give it a rest. Open your eyes to whatever truth presents itself for you, without feeling the need to belittle other peoples posts. There are many levels, your potential is shrouded by your fear of not being number one. I assure you that you provide no greater or less competition than those you abuse in your tirades. Relax.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@sleekmason, "Why the attacks on other comments?" Do you think people have a right to make idiotic comments without being called on it? The author has shared their work on an important scientific discovery with us and these ill informed, myopic individuals have tried to taint it with conspiracy theories and baseless accusations. Why do you defend their right to make idiotic statements while attacking my right to defend the author? Is their right to freedom of speech any greater than mine? When people offer intelligent arguments I am glad to join the discussion in a civil and respectful way. When people make baseless accusations and inflammatory comments then they don't deserve respect, they need to be called on it. If you don't agree with that then why did you feel the need to "belittle" me based on my comments? By the way, I don't get your statement that I am paranoid or afraid of not being number one. How does attacking the most idiotic comment make me number one? If I wanted to be number one I would argue against the most intelligent and well presented comment, which in this case, is the article itself. "you are the paranoid, looking for somebody to step on to make your own musings seem more substantial" would not make me paranoid, it would make me "mean spirited" or "ego centric".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am passionate about this because this work, scientific work, matters. This isn't just some esoteric philosophical discussion. In this century, more than any other in history, scientific discoveries will inform public policy and impact our lives in ways we can't even imagine. The ethical issues they present us with will be very challenging. As democratic societies we not only have the right to choose how we move ahead, we have the responsibility to make these decisions in an informed and rational manner. Religion and America's seeming hatred and distrust of intellectual pursuits have made the US almost incapable of addressing these issues in a constructive way. It is time for people to know that it is not noble to be irrational. It is caustic to society.
@CogitoErgoSum I am not referring to you when I refer to idiotic comments. You had valid questions. It is the earlier posters I'm referring to.
You are absolutely correct in checking B.S as soon as it surfaces. I share your concern regarding inaccurate information being spread so easily for public consumption. I also find that numerous publications online, and general media content on our homepages and such subtley guide the population as a whole. Scare tactics, ridicule of non conforming opinion by supposed "non-biased" news media, propagation of mis/dis-information, and outright deception "for our own good", runs rampant throughout. Religion is only one monster at this level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause these abuses exist in spite of official assertions to the contrary, many people react without cause on any topic beyond the scope of their current understanding, believing without confirmation of truth, that another abuse is in progress. Separating the implications percieved turns into an all or nothing endeavor for most.
I am a firm believer in calling bu*l S*it where I see it, and have very recently corrected two individuals in the same manner as you. What I have found upon reflection is that when confronted in this manner; Individuals spreading B.s. with intent, will go to great lengths to maintain that integrity, and individuals who maintain their 'dull tool' status only become further ostracized by their obstreperous behavior, and more of a nuisance to seekers of information. So, while I can't dispel their fear with my corrections, I can bring a small amount of truth and order to their lives by treating them with kindness, and also offer them a glimmer of hope. This in turn changes how they present their concerns as well. When I apply labels to their thinking, I have mitigated my own argument.
End result? When reading through comments, I am much more likely to continue my research if I run into the "friendly school teacher type" rather than the "mean spirited disciplinarian" I tend to close tabs when I run into the latter.
I hope you understand and will concider what I am saying. I know it is frustrating . . . . very frustrating, and time consuming for you if you strive for truth and order. Just know that your comments can have great influence on others perceptions. Sorry for my own transgressions towards you. I needed to get your attention, challenge your resolve for a moment. Thank you for your time sir. Best regards.
Well I get by on 6 to 6.5 hours of sleep every night. I am 26 and while I was in high school I tried religiously to get 7 to 8 hours of sleep a night, following a regular waking and sleeping pattern for everyday for three years I felt like crap. Then in 2004 I bought a book that described that its not the amount of time spent sleeping but how well u get through cycles 1-5 , 4 times. I drank water till my bladder was full one night then fell asleep at 8:00pm. After my first cycle ended I woke up at 9:34 to empty my bladder realized my sleep cycle is roughly 90 min times 4=360, divide that 60 gives a very general but accurate target amount of sleep I needed. Getting to the point I’m a 26 year Afro Caribbean male just a average person. I am willing to bet that the majority of the world population is as ignorant to the mechanics of sleep as I was. I believe this article does take in to the account that people do not know HOW TO SLEEP. So if anyone wants to know how I did it I will email you the title of book I read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnolonice@msn.com
Wow, you gotta breath there Robby, try yoga or acupuncture or something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomebody is uptight. I'd recommend sex but it doesn't seem to me that your at home long enough to make it gooooood.
And by the way Bobby baby, I have one.
Ok, so I try to have some fun and some prude gets sensitive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get sanctamonious on me schmidt, I get this article and I'm not accussing the author of sabatoging my work week.
And I'm absolutely right on sixty house wives and time saving appliances. They didn't get all that the adds had promised they would get.
Maybe they dream more. I'm more intrigued by dreaming, which I understand is involved with REM sleep. Sometimes it is like watching a movie, and I suspect it has a similiar function to that of purring in cats; cats not only purr when they are content, but also in pain. This is done as a way to relax or lower their stress/excitement. "Watching" dreams seems to do the same thing, except when the 'unscripted' plot drift into a nightmare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert, there's plenty to be said for the wish to put down meaningless drivel and other bs, but I have a serious question for you:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho named you the most qualified person around to detect and squash it?
You may think you're being reasonable and supportive of whatever's written in the article, but let's be straight up about this. You don't seem to enjoy considering unpleasant implications.
Nobody here is dissing science. If you were paying attention when you read my first post you'd realize that I never opposed it. What I oppose is the inclination to use scientific developments (most notably in genetics) to make people "better". NOBODY has the right to determine that people as a whole need improving, or to decide what treatment is called for. Not you, not me, not the president, not Congress, and not any group of researchers or doctors. No one.
Back to some of my earlier remarks, your obvious unwillingness to consider any negative outcomes to this research disturbs me. I'll tell you why. I had an uncle who in a conversation some years ago mentioned that children should be implanted with tracking devices. His interest was in preventing kidnappings, runaways, children going missing just by becoming lost, etc etc. I countered his argument by suggesting that such a system could ultimately be extended to people of all age groups, and that it could very easily be abused. My uncle was completely unwilling (and as I was told later by others, incapable) to see this potential. He did not realize what he was actually calling for, because he didn't stop to fully think it over.
You remind me of him, Robert, and that worries me.
@galaxy_man, "Who named you the most qualified person around to detect and squash it?" …yet, another indication that you have no understanding of critical thought or the scientific method. These are formal processes that we use to help determine the truth. People are not "ordained" scientists, and given the sole right to determine right and wrong. Anyone can determine this for themselves simply by following these processes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy argument with you is that you follow no process; instead you invent ridiculous scenarios to advance your paranoid world view. If the laws were to change in the US forcing everyone to undergo gene therapy to turn them into willing subjects of the new world order, you would have more to worry about than an extended work day. Every technology can be used in a destructive or negative way. A hammer can be used to murder, medicines can be used to poison. We don't drop everything because of how some lunatic may abuse them, or dream up a way to abuse them for that matter. We are mindful of possible abuses and do our best to mitigate them. Still there are some scenarios that are more likely than others. Your fears are completely unsubstantiated. The same as your fears about the radio chips your uncle spoke about. I am glad that I remind you of him because he sounds like a wise man. Once again you are willing to sacrifice the lives and well being of others in order to "prevent" a completely hypothetical situation; one that has no basis in reality. Your uncle spoke of giving these trackers to children, which could eventually be removed when the children become adults; he did not talk about forcing them on adults. I am sure he saw the potential for abuse but weighed the pros and cons and determined that there was a much greater opportunity for good. Once again, if the government forced chip implants on us we would have a lot more to worry about than the government knowing where we are. "What I oppose is the inclination to use scientific developments (most notably in genetics) to make people 'better'". I am so glad I have that in writing. Please formalize that by writing a do not resuscitate order. Or are you a hypocrite too? After all, the whole purpose of the science of medicine is to make people better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_resuscitate
@coolmoss, you're right, we've been duped! All those advertisements promised us so much but then they just let us down. Everyone wake up! No more labour saving appliances! If you buy the next best thingamajig and get the work done in a fraction of the time, your wife/husband will just get you use the time you saved to paint the bathroom! It's better just to do the work by hand. When your boss gives you a new computer that's twice as fast as the old one he is tricking you. He's not going to let you stare off into space the rest of the day. He's going to want you to do more work! Coolmoss, what can I say but thanks? I would never have known that you can't trust advertising if it weren't for you. Back to the dark-ages for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry sleekmason, these guys don’t deserve a, "friendly school teacher type". They need to be sent back to the first grade.
What the heck are you talking about? There isn't anything scientific about the debate in these comments. We're not posting data, or figures, or any other forms of measurement. This is a philosophical discussion, and clearly you and I are on totally different pages. Actually we're not even in the same book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the one hand, it must be nice going through life with the kind of unquestioning certainty you display, never suffering from the idea that the people you take direction from can ever be wrong. There's a word for people like that: dogmatics.
If you're wondering (and I doubt you are) about why I treat the concepts in this article with suspicion, I would direct you to read up on some of the more notable events in our history, specifically when groups in power were attempting to improve the masses below them. Such things were done through persecution, violence, and a general environment of fear. I have no reason to believe we've outgrown that. Maybe you do.
Of course, this is mostly for the benefit of anybody else who might be reading. I'm positive you'll find some way to twist my words around in an attempt to make yourself look like the only reasonable person on this thread (despite the fact that you are also the most inflamed). Enjoy yourself.
@galaxy_man, "This is a philosophical discussion," you still have no clue. Logic and critical thought provide the framework for philosophical discussion. Regardless, do you think that because this isn't a scientific paper that you can make baseless accusations and go unchallenged or that you only need to be rational when giving a dissertation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I've already stated, I have no problem with being critical. I just posted a criticism of an article here myself. But there is criticism and then there is ridiculous. Have governments abused power in the past? Yes. Does that mean we should abandon all technology, even life altering medicines because of how a government might abuse them? No. We would have nothing left if we did. But please site a case in which the US government forced people to undergo a medical procedure to make them more productive or forced the general population to work against their will or set standards as to what was a permissible amount of sleep, other than minimums set to ensure people do their jobs safely? How likely is that to happen? And even if it did, do you really think having to work an extra hour a day would be the worst part? You want to stop the development of a potential breakthrough that could benefit many lives not because of a real and present danger, not because of recent events that raise concerns, but simply because you are able to imagine how things can work out badly. Not good enough. We would all be paralysed if we chose not to act whenever there was a potential for a negative outcome. So we take reasonable risks. We are mindful of the dangers and create safeguards against them. But we do not fall into catatonia out of irrational fear. And we don't accuse people of plotting against us just because what they have done could be perverted in a way that may harm us. Assumption of innocence, like logic, is not just a principal academic types are expected to follow.
"I'm positive you'll find some way to twist my words around in an attempt to make yourself look like the only reasonable person on this thread", once again, another ad hominem attack. When you are incapable of attacking the argument, attack the man.
I have gotten by on 5-6 hours of sleep per night for my entire life (61 years). Even after a full day of hard physical exercise I don't sleep more than 6 or 6.5 hours. I have always seen this as an advantage because I have more time than my friends to do the things I like. The only times I ever felt sleep-deprived were in the Navy and working on fishing boats when we occasionally had to get by on 4 hours or less. I would be happy if I could get by on even less sleep without endangering my health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if anyone has looked for a correlation between daily sleep requirements and length of life.
Sleeping between four and six hours a night has been my habit starting sometime during childhood. I'm 73 years old and in very good health. My son is the same way. I have always had an extreme amount of energy and even though that is subsided somewhat as I'm getting older I still seem to have more that other people my age and some younger. Thanks to Dr. Yu for her study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTest
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is this gene? that is, which?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this