Chapter
7
Beneath
And Beyond
If you
were to measure every individual life form on Earth and take an average of their
size, you would end up with something invisible to the naked eye, such is the
domination of microbes in this world. That said, the range of sizes that known
life forms take is truly impressive. This inevitably begs the question: “Is
there anything else?” As far as we know, probably not – certainly not that
you could count as an individual organism. But there is more: you just
have to broaden your horizons a little.
Beneath
Despite
the complex and often fragile nature of our relationships with other organisms,
some humans want to rewrite life and break the evolutionary monotony they see as
being a barrier to “progress”. Individual genes occupy a space beneath even
that of the diminutive virus. What is so special about genes is not that they
are life itself, but they allow life to happen. They are the magical molecular
ingredients that define what an organism will become: its physical makeup, its
mind, its potential as a survivor. Modifying them – moving genes from one
organism to another – is like a complete, and possibly malevolent, stranger
swapping an ingredient in your favourite cake recipe for something you would
never expect to find in cake. The cake may taste better, but it may also poison
you.
It may
seem as though these changes are being made to fulfil some altruistic desire to
do good – increasing crop yields, building in resistance to insects, curing
human diseases – but I am not alone in having deep suspicions. As I said
earlier, the companies using, and making the money out of these ventures,
won’t accept liability for the potential failings of their products. The
largest of the corporations involved in genetic modification are also keen to
patent their “inventions” as though it is possible to own life[i],
like the nineteenth century slave traders who claimed to own their cargoes of
imprisoned humanity.
Overriding
all of this is that genetic modification is big business:
Shares of
the St. Louis-based agri-biotech giant [Monsanto] skyrocketed last week when the
company announced it nearly tripled its fiscal first quarter earnings, which
rose from $90 million in 2006 to $256 million. Sales for the period rose 36% to
$2.1 billion.
The
stunning results are largely due to sales of Monsanto’s genetically modified
seeds, which have been engineered to repel pests and be immune to herbicides.[ii]
Whatever
the history of genetic modification, experimenting with the stuff of life is not
something that should be guided by profit. Nor must such tinkering be motivated
by politics: governments trying to show that they are supporters of business, or
of scientific progress. Science does not have any political leanings, nor does
it judge whether one development or another constitutes “progress”; it is
simply a set of tools and methods for showing whether something is physically
true or not. Science does not have all the answers, not least because not all
questions can be couched in scientific terms. It is most certainly true, though,
that the misuse of science does cause problems.
You
may be familiar with the deep controversy that arises wherever genetic
modification rears its head, but this may be as nothing compared to the
controversy that threatens to envelop the use of Synthetic Biology. Here is a
definition; see how you feel about it.
Synthetic Biology is:
a) The design and construction of new
biological parts, devices, and systems, and
b) The re-design of existing, natural biological systems for useful
purposes.[iii]
Some
futuristic pipe dream, you may think. Think again: synthetic biology is real and
it is being created at a university, government or corporate research laboratory
near you. At this level of work biology, technology and chemistry fuse to
provide the means to create the building blocks of life from scratch or make
modifications to living things that would have been impossible 20 years ago. A
glance at one web site[iv],
used by many researchers as a hub for information, reveals a host of tools,
methods, protocols and systems that would be far more at home in a computer
programmer’s library; and essentially, that’s what it is – a library of
tools for reprogramming life. Fancy a new strain of E. Coli, yeasts with
artificial chromosomes or perhaps a faster growing mouse cell? You can find
instructions for creating these right now, on the Internet. Downloading such
“recipes” from the web is perfectly legal, yet were the same web site to
host information assisting conventional “terrorist”[v]
activities like taking out an electrical grid infrastructure, it would almost
certainly be shut down.
Proponents
of cutting-edge biological research often use the “greater good” argument to
justify work that would, in isolation, seem abhorrent to anyone concerned about
genetic modification or other processes that alter the nature of life. This idea
that there is a necessary level of sacrifice – be that in terms of human life,
that of other animals or maybe some long-held belief – required in order to
achieve a greater good, is not new. The British philosophers Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill developed a concept known as Utilitarianism, which essentially
means “the greatest good for the greatest number”. In fact, this is a gross
oversimplification of something, on the back of which so many false claims have
been made. What Mill actually wrote in his book was:
The
utilitarian morality does recognise in human beings the power of sacrificing
their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that
the sacrifice is itself a good. A sacrifice which does not increase, or tend to
increase, the sum total of happiness, it considers as wasted.[vi]
Essentially,
any sacrifice made must be voluntary, and that sacrifice is only worthwhile if
it increases the sum total of happiness, or good. By co-opting this idea in
order to justify the cloning of embryos as a cure for wasting diseases, or open
skull experimentation on the brains of primates to discover the causes of
Alzheimer’s, the supporters of these methods seem to have ignored the need for
such sacrifice to be voluntary. When considering the potential risks that arise
from creating self-replicating artificial life, or manipulating life in such a
way that its traits can be passed on to future generations, the sacrifice to be
considered is one of global proportions. An editorial in The Economist from 2006
puts this succinctly: “No technology is risk free, but synthetic biology has
the twist that its mistakes can breed. Today the risks are not great.
Nevertheless, as knowledge increases, so will the risk that something truly
nasty might be unleashed.”[vii]
It
seems to me that the “greater good” that is so glibly spoken of by
enthusiastic politicians and embedded scientific journalists, is utterly
eclipsed by a Greatest Good: the need to protect the future from the actions of
the present.
Beyond
Whatever
scale we examine life at, each individual organism is just one component of a
far greater mass: the bees in their hives and swarms, the cod in their shoals,
the trees in their forests. Yet, even the greatest collections of individuals
are still only parts of the thing that binds all life together in an infinitely
complex dance of birth, survival, change and death. That which some call Gaia,
Mother Nature or Creation may just be a vast ecosystem, but it transcends all
chance of description or scientific analysis – sometimes all we can do is look
on in awe. Humility is not a weakness:
You must,
in studying Nature, always consider both each single thing and the whole:
nothing is inside and nothing is outside, for what is within is without. Rejoice
in the true illusion, in the serious game: no living thing is a unity, it is
always manifold.[viii]
On
July 4, 2005 the space probe Deep Impact completed its mission successfully.
Launched in January 2005 the spacecraft containing the sacrificial probe made a
beeline for the comet Tempel 1, describing a curved trajectory, which placed it
in the path of the comet orbiting the sun between Mars and Earth. On approach
the larger “fly-by” craft released Deep Impact, which plunged into the
surface of Tempel 1, causing “a brilliant and rapid release of dust that
momentarily saturated the cameras onboard the [larger] spacecraft.”[ix].
The impact crater was the size of a house, and the strength of the collision was
sufficient to allow the deeper layers of the comet to be released into space for
analysis by the fly-by craft. The mission was hailed a tremendous success by
NASA, and widely recognised as a great achievement in the annals of space
exploration.
What
right do we have to affect a stellar object in this way? Which celestial judge
issued humanity with the warrant by which we would be allowed to take chunks out
of unearthly bodies? And how can we know that there was no life form on this
comet – a life form we could not have detected prior to impact, and certainly
not one that we have the moral right to kill. Humans have barely unlocked the
first set of gates on the path to discovering all that the Earth has to offer;
yet “civilised” humans are now taking the devil-may-care attitude that has
damaged so much, to the stars, into a place where the ideas of sustainability
and balance lose their comfortable meaning.
Carl
Sagan, the luminary cosmologist and philosopher once wrote: “There are worlds
on which life has never arisen. There are worlds that have been charred and
ruined by cosmic catastrophes. We are fortunate: we are alive; we are powerful;
the welfare of our civilization and our species is in our hands.”[x]
He could have also added that, with such enormous power and the ability to both
create and destroy, we have a moral duty not only to curtail our destruction of
the Earth, but also to ensure that, as we move beyond the confines of this
planet we do not lose sight of that responsibility. Industrial Civilization
makes the assumption that life on other planets, in other galaxies, will only be
“advanced” if it can communicate with us; but surely the truly advanced
society is one that, above all, has attained equilibrium with its own
environment. Technology is no measure of advancement; it is simply a tool that
may be used by life for good or ill.
If we
choose to search only for life that we consider “advanced” by our own
measure then we are potentially ignoring the majority of life elsewhere. The
Earth may be all that we are certain of that contains life, but that does not
mean we should not respect that which lies beyond it: we have so far made a
pretty bad job of looking after our own home. Should we be entrusted with the
care of anyone else’s?
Bringing
It All Together
So there
you have it: from the very smallest organism that might just qualify as life, to
the very largest that has ever been, we have seen the richness and complexity of
life operating across a vast range of scales, all of them within the thin
envelope of atmosphere and ocean that provides a home for every living thing on
Earth.
The
tales you have read which move from virus to bacteria, nematode to bee, cod to
spruce, exclude many other life forms that have so many stories to tell; but
even with these inevitable gaps one thing is clear. At every scale we have
looked at, humans are tied up in the tale – both as cause and effect, often
the perpetrator of the ills that have befallen the life form, and always the
victim. As you will see in Part Two, nothing is so dependent upon other forms of
life as humans, the ultimate consumers. Everything we do has the potential to
disrupt something, knock it off balance as we negotiate the finest of lines;
yet, that line we are repeatedly stepping over, with our battery farms, our
bulldozers, our trawlers and our relentless production of climate changing
gases; seems to be getting narrower.
If an organism exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment, a natural
mechanism takes charge to ensure that the environment doesn’t collapse
entirely. Food, the essential ingredient for sustaining life and allowing it to
expand, develop and evolve, becomes scarce. This is not intelligence as we would
normally understand it, it is just something that takes place because the
natural resources of that environment are finite – the environment can supply
no more.
As
food becomes scarce the organism contracts in terms of its distribution over
space, the number of individuals in a certain area, or both. This allows the
food source to be naturally replenished in such a way that the life form, if
enough time is allowed, can once again thrive. As the organism once more expands
its distribution and increases its density the food source will again start to
run out. Unless a balance is achieved between the food source and the
organism’s consumption of that food then this process will continually take
place, like a tide of plenty washing over the space that the organism occupies,
and then receding, time and time again.
The
steady state between natural food production and consumption is known as
sustainability, and it applies to all resources being used by all life forms. If
the organism refuses or fails to contract in the face of diminishing resources
then the environment will reach a level of scarcity from which it may not be
able to return in that organism’s lifetime. Nature doesn’t pull any punches
– an organism that refuses to play the sustainability game will always lose.
Nature will eventually recover.
Whether
humanity will, is another matter.
References
[i] GM Freeze, “Independent assessment of the implications of patents on genetic resources”, http://www.gmfreeze.org/page.asp?id=233&iType=1081 (accessed 22 February, 2008)
[ii] Money Morning, “Monsanto Reaps Huge Rewards From Its Blossoming Seed Business”, http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/01/07/monsanto-reaps-huge-rewards-from-its-blossoming-seed-business/ (accessed 22 February, 2008)
[iii] Definition from http://syntheticbiology.org/ (accessed 22 February, 2008)
[iv] OpenWetWare, http://openwetware.org/wiki/Materials (accessed 23 February, 2008)
[v] Terrorism is in the eye of the target. The word has been ridiculously misused in recent years, such that you can be branded a terrorist in both the USA and the UK simply for suggesting that suicide bombers may sometimes have just motivation for acting as they do. “Terrorism” has become a classic propaganda word, in the same sense that “Communism” was a propaganda word during the McCarthy era (USA from the mid-1950s until the late 1960s): it instils fear, thus allowing for greater control over those who are persuaded to be afraid.
[vi] John Stuart Mill, “Utilitarianism : Second Edition”, Hackett, 2001.
[vii] “Synthetic Life”, The Economist, 2006, http://web.rollins.edu/~tlairson/tech/synlife5.html (accessed 23 February, 2008)
[viii] J.W. von Goethe, “Epirrhema”, from “Goethe : Selected Verse”, translated by David Luke, Penguin, 1964.
[ix] Deep Impact post-encounter factsheet, NASA, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/deepimpact/mission/factsheet-postencounter.pdf (accessed 23 February, 2008)
[x] Carl Sagan, “Cosmos”, MacDonald, 1981.