The drunken crew of the spaceship Earth
Reflections on the book Biocivilizations by Predrag Slijepčević
In Biocivilizations – A new look at the science of life (Chelsea Green 2023), Dr Predrag Slijepčević, a lecturer in Life Sciences at Brunel University, takes on two very BIG themes at the same time.
1. What is life, and what drives the evolution of life of all forms?
2. What is the role of humanity in this play, are unique, and if so how?
It would of course be totally unrealistic to expect even the most intelligent and knowledgeable mind to be able to give complete answers to these very big questions and Slijepčević must be honoured for even giving it a good try.
Let’s start with the first theme, even if I find it the weaker part of the book (or that I didn’t understand his points well enough).
Neo-Darwinism or the “modern evolutionary synthesis”, is the term used to describe the merging of Darwin and Wallace’s theories of natural selection with genetics and in particular with the view that the genes or DNA are the units of evolution and therefore all evolution can be reduced to changes in genes and their survival. This view reduces life to a single unit which can be discussed in mechanistic and mathematic, reductionist terms, fully in line with Descarte’s view of (non-human) life as a machinery. Slijepčević doesn’ deny that Neo-Darwinism can have considerable explanatory value when discussing the reproduction and development of plants and animals. But he points out that Neo-Darwinism has much less value when applied to the forms of life that preceded plants and animals, microbes. As they are the origin of life and existed long before plants and animals, the root of life and the mechanisms of life must be found there. In the second last chapter he states that:
“If there is a single principle that can explain all forms of life, it is not the principle that reduces organisms to genes. Instead it is an integrating principle....This principle is symbiosis, or living together.”
An example of the relevance of this is that in the development of eukaryotes (all forms of life apart from bacteria and archaea, including plants and animals) genes played no major role. Instead it was the symbiosis of bacteria and archaea that created wholly new life forms. Organisms themselves also influence genes in a multitude of ways. Neo-Darwinism fails to explain how humans use genetic engineering or how we organise society and there is no plausible “genetic” explanation for why rich people of today have so few progenies (these are my own reflections, not Slijepčević´).
There are indeed a number of other researchers that questions the hegemony of Neo-Darwinism. They are loosely gathering on the platform The Third Way trying to form an alternative both the Creationism and Neo-Darwinism. Creationism is rejected because it “brings in an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process” and “Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications”. Still, I find that Slijepčević´ discussion about alternatives to Neo-Darwinism lacks focus.
Also for the question of what Life is there are too many different principles and perspectives introduced in Biocivilization. In some places life is “mind” in others it is “a process of permanent change – the Heractlitean river Gaia* striving into the territory of the unknown”. Having said that, it is still makes an interesting read.
*
Let’s turn to the other questions which are about “us”. Slijepčević calls for a more humble view of Homo sapiens. More than 99.99 percent of life on Earth has existed without humanity, and life will continue without humans long into the future. But not only humans will disappear; all species except bacteria will become extinct and replaced by new forms, at least that is what happened until now. From the perspective of sustainability and resilience, bacteria are certainly superior to humans and have made much bigger impact to the planet than humans. One can even regard the more complex life forms as just collections of microbes. Even if humans travel to Mars our main task might being a vector for spreading bacteria to new planets.
According to Slijepčević, civilizations have been developed by many other species before us:
“Human civilization is the tip of the iceberg; all forms of civilized behaviour, from art to medicine to engineering, can be identified in cultures developed by other species.”
He shows how bacteria, amoebas, plants, insects, birds, whales, elephants and countless other species not only preceded human beings but also mastered the skills of civilization; communication, engineering, agriculture, science, art and medicine. That “art” is apparent in nature is quite obvious to anybody. Of course, you can – mostly at least – find some natural or rational explanation to why the white-spotted puffer fish makes his elaborated sand sculptures or why the Manakins dance. But then we can also find some explanation for most human artworks as well. When it comes to science, Slijepčević, use the Blob, a single cell organisms, Physarum polycephalum that creates large colonies, slime, visible for the eye, as the showcase. The Blob can learn from experience and can chose the food with the best nutritional composition when presented with alternatives.
Even cities, the essence of civilisation and the origin of the word itself, is not a human invention. Humble bacteria created the equivalent of cities and connected them with information highways, bringing our planet to life three thousand million years ago (this refers to biofilms). Ants and termites also create city-like structures as impressive as ours, if one take their size into account.
The main purpose of Slijepčević´ book is to confront assumptions of human omnipotence and supremacy; “there are no privileged species in the Gaian democracy”. The notions of Anthropcene or “planetary stewardship”** reeks of hubris and make us believe we are in control, while “the real captain on spaceship Earth is Gaia. Humans are like a group of drunken sailors who have decided to rebel against the captain”. A “transformation – from a self-centred and naïve young species into a mature, desegregated species that is aligned with its surroundings – is the only true prospect for us to save ourselves, and the living planet, from our own violence.”
I believe this is a noble cause, and I have no objections to a more modest view of our species. Slijepčević is also not the first one to call for that, many before have done so (myself included). It can be found in the world views of many indigenous people. Aldo Leopold wrote in the essay Land Ethic (in Sand County almanac 1949) “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect”. Arne Naess writes 1974 in Økologi, samfunn og livsstil: Utkast til en økosofi (Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy) about “a classless society within the whole biosphere, a democracy where we speak about rights not only for humans, but also for animals, plants and minerals”.
Is it necessary to upgrade our view of other species to be “equal” to humans for reaching this insight? Each species, including humans, is unique, but unique in its own way. Humans are not “better” than bacteria or grasshoppers. As things stand now we are probably less well adapted to our environment than they are and therefore “worse”. But in the end, these are subjective judgements with little relevance.
And while human supremacy is a dangerous notion, it is nothing strange that we are most sympathetic to our own species, and within our species to our next of kin. Other species do the same. A difference is, of course, that through the development of human civilizations, farming (an advanced example of the principle of symbiosis) and a fossil fuel technology we have become a very mighty species with the power to wreak havoc with many parts of the earth system,
Here we get into trouble. It is because we are too many and extract too many resources from the rest of nature that “we” make all this damage. If we believe that humans have a responsibility not to destroy the livelihood of other species because we are not exceptional or more important than other species, at the same time we assign a higher degree of responsibility and agency to ourselves, reinforcing human exceptionalism. When we state that all species have a right to live or note that some species have cognitive abilities similar to ours and others have not, we already step into the shoes of Gods having the right to judge the merits of other species or their right to exist.
Being a very practical man engaged in gardening, farming, fishing, livestock and forestry, I also wonder how the insights that we are not unique or better than other species are actionable; what does it mean when I farm, fish or log or when I eat?
And even more: what does it mean for humanity at large. In the end, there is nothing wrong with one person killing or tilling; it is when 8 billion do the same that we mess things up, including our own future. In a recent article in PNAS Brian Sloan Wilson and colleagues conclude that “Nearly everything that is pathological at higher scales can be traced to behaviors that are prosocial at smaller scales”. Well, that is the topic of another article.
*
Notes
Slijepčević uses scientific terms which are not easily understood as well as many references to philosophy and literature, which makes the reading challenging even for a lay person that consider himself to be fairly well educated. The reader may therefore excuse any misunderstanding from my side.
* People may use Gaia in many different ways. Slijepčević´ use is built around homeorhesis and autopoiesis, a dynamic self-creating and self-regulating process, keeping stability while still allowing for creativity and development. Sometimes he use language that ascribes purpose, agency and “mind” to Gaia. Sometimes “Gaia” and “life” seem to be the same. I am not convinced that Gaia is a useful metaphor at all.
** I am also guilty of having used the terminology of planetary stewardship in my book Garden Earth, even the title itself alludes to this.