Locusts 'high' on Serotonin

The cure for the anti social lurkers among us.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7858996.stm


~Kat

i totally read this article yesterday..
crazy

So I just have to tickle your hind legs to get you to swarm with the rest of us, eh??

Okeedokie :D

Cool article. That is crazy, but fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LadyOhh

So I just have to tickle your hind legs to get you to swarm with the rest of us, eh??

Okeedokie :D

---

:rofl:

You know what's really fascinating? Well, to me anyway, is that we humans, mammals, are producing and getting high of the same thing that locusts, insects, do.

Now that is truly weird.

It makes you think how many other animals are stimulated by this chemical?

serotonin is a neurotransmitter. It should have an effect on anything with a brain or digestive system.

It should not be viable to consume it. Most things that are consumed are broken down into their basic parts and the energy derived is used to drive the building of new proteins, etc. (which is why eating brains doesn't make you smarter, and eating jellyfish doesn't make you glow)

...Maybe that's just for protein and some chemicals remain intact or promote the production of chemicals similar to themselves.

hoonoes.

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

You know what's really fascinating? Well, to me anyway, is that we humans, mammals, are producing and getting high of the same thing that locusts, insects, do.

Now that is truly weird.

---

To me it doesn't seem that strange. The brain surely formed before the divergence of arthropoda and animalia (or their predecessors), and it doesn't seem surprising that one of the most important neurotransmitters known was part of that system so long ago when the brain was new technology.

As long as serotonin does its job effectively and the brain is a sensitive organ that does not easily tolerate changes to its machinery, the underlying mechanisms by which it works should remain unchanged... indefinitely.

right? **boggles**

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morphie

To me it doesn't seem that strange. The brain surely formed before the divergence of arthropoda and animalia (or their predecessors), and it doesn't seem surprising that one of the most important neurotransmitters known was part of that system so long ago when the brain was new technology.

As long as serotonin does its job effectively and the brain is a sensitive organ that does not easily tolerate changes to its machinery, the underlying mechanisms by which it works should remain unchanged... indefinitely.

right? **boggles**

---

No, I'm hip to that.

The weird thing is looking at that six legged creature, antenna wiggling, abdomen throbbing, multifaceted eyes, tarsic toes and all that makes a bug (I know they're not true bugs) a bug and then looking at us, two legged though four limbed, two eyed, non-antennaed, abdomen lacking (in the sence of three distinct body segments aligned as a locust's are) and I am just amazed that our brains function similarly to any outside influence.

It's pretty neat when you stop and think about it but doggone weird too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

It's pretty neat when you stop and think about it but doggone weird too.

---

:)

Do locust swarms have positive influences on certain environments?

If this is, truly, a way to control them, won't that (negatively) impact the native ecosystems too (if they in truth depend upon them, which I guess is very likely)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Do locust swarms have positive influences on certain environments?

If this is, truly, a way to control them, won't that (negatively) impact the native ecosystems too (if they in truth depend upon them, which I guess is very likely)?

---

I think I've seen some discovery channel special about locusts or pests or something. If I am remembering correctly, they provide a surplus of food for birds at certain times, maybe during migration or breeding time or something.
It could become a counter-productive strategy, if we limit the swarming of locusts, which will limit the population of birds that prey upon the locusts... maybe causing an even larger population of locusts.

I'm sure things like that will be thought out before initiating any attempting to control the populations. Nature is a very sensitive thing, in regards to controlling it, we have been selfish in the past and thought of preserving humanity before preserving the entire environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ev477

I'm sure things like that will be thought out before initiating any attempting to control the populations. Nature is a very sensitive thing, in regards to controlling it, we have been selfish in the past and thought of preserving humanity before preserving the entire environment.

---

Did you mean to say you HOPED things like that would be thought out? Because with man's prior record with rabbits and toads and rats and cats we're not exactly batting a thousand here. At least not in a good way.

I probably should hope for that kind of thing to be thought out. The human population as a whole may not learn from it's past failures as the individual person would, like you are suggesting.

I just assumed that because of said problems, we will be more careful about such matters in the future... it's probably just wishful thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

Did you mean to say you HOPED things like that would be thought out? Because with man's prior record with rabbits and toads and rats and cats we're not exactly batting a thousand here. At least not in a good way.

---

(your words inspired another tangent - sorry)

Live and learn. Man's not, like, out to destroy the balance of ecosystems or anything, he just sometimes doesn't realize the impact of certain things on the environment, or sadly sometimes just doesn't care.

Take fishing: We thought, oh hey, it's cool. To maintain a stable population we can just put a size restriction on the fish you catch. If it's too young, you throw it back and give it a few years to breed, pass on its genes and THEN you can have it (only take larger fish). The evolutionary impact of this was not obvious to people at the time, but it makes total sense: the fish who became fertile at a smaller size lasted longer than the bigger ones, and thereby almost completely replaced the population. Now, large fish can only rarely be found at all because the vast majority of the population is maturing "too early", inhibiting their growth, and thereby reducing the size of almost the ENTIRE species (the exact species this anecdote represents, i've forgotten, but I know it applies to at least one).

The great thing about life is it isn't easily stopped. Catastrophes have befallen (or crashed into) the earth many times over the course of history, sometimes wiping out the vast majority of life on board, and yet it soldiers on. The more man does this kind of thing, the more he can learn, so long as he is paying attention. The consequences of big mistakes are the loss of entire species (which almost everyone can agree is a tragedy), but I think biodiversity itself is not easily controlled or done away with. Perhaps it is only as frail as our planet...

*hugs a tree*