This site is currently being edited.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Urban Organism
Introduction: At the root of the definition of life there exists theoretical flexibility not popularly acknowledged in the teaching of evolutionary theory. The idea that cities are living organisms may be a foreign thought, yet the growth patterns of cities are strikingly similar to patterns exhibited in conventionally living organisms. Useful biological and economic implications emerge about the nature of human civilisation when one adopts the correct perspective of scale and relative time, observes human nature in its entirety (e.g. via satellite imagery) and puts aside the impossible notion that "human nature" is somehow unnatural, special or good/bad. It is possible for human civilization to philosophically reconnect with its natural and evolutionary history. Herein may lie the answers to fundamental questions such as, who are we? why are we here?
Chapter 1 - Life
If you were asked to define life, how would you respond? Dictionary.com defines life as, “the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.”
As the origin of life is conceptualized in evolutionary theory, non-living matter begot living matter. Put another way, organisms exist in a family tree, sharing a common ancestor who had no ancestors of its own. The original organism is the most primitive organism that ever lived. Perhaps an amoeba, it was nearly unworthy of the term ancestor or organism and barely alive relative to what we perceive as living. However, from this species all organisms in our family tree originate.
What is ironic about the way the original organism is conceptualised is that it was apparently hocused-pocussed into existence. Life suddenly existed, absent of a biological history. There is a surprisingly Creationist suggestion at the origin of evolutionary theory.
Does the idea of an organism with no ancestors hinder your ability to imagine it? As someone who fully accepts evolutionary theory, it certainly does mine. Since the time that I was an undergraduate biology student at the University of California, Berkeley, I have pondered this theoretical life/no-life moment.
What’s living: For our purposes, let’s say that the fundamental part of anything is the atom. All matter is comprised of atoms. What is the difference between Carbon atoms in a rock, in the human body or in the original organism? The difference is the system in which the atom is a part and how it reacts to other atoms through time.
Popular thinking would suggest that a single atom is not a living organism. Yet all living organisms are collections of supposedly non-living particles. System is core to the meaning of life and I suggest that the theoretical original organism represents the point at which a pre-existing and evolving system becomes interesting in the context of biology.
As such, the definition of life is exclusively applied to a tree of life in which humans and the so-called original organism reside; however, this tree does not comprise all dimensions of life. Furthermore, this tree does not represent the full spectrum of relevant biological subjects.
In truth, the definition of life is flexible. For instance, relative to the above mentioned definition could a city be a living organism? I pose that the answer is yes. When one adopts a systemic view of life, life becomes something more universal.
This paper is about observing and exploring life from a different perspective. The primary focus is on cities. I believe that biological science and evolutionary biology are great tools. I do not intend to undermine or subtract from their utility. On the contrary, I believe these tools are versatile and can be applied to a fundamental element of contemporary human existence.
As the origin of life is conceptualized in evolutionary theory, non-living matter begot living matter. Put another way, organisms exist in a family tree, sharing a common ancestor who had no ancestors of its own. The original organism is the most primitive organism that ever lived. Perhaps an amoeba, it was nearly unworthy of the term ancestor or organism and barely alive relative to what we perceive as living. However, from this species all organisms in our family tree originate.
What is ironic about the way the original organism is conceptualised is that it was apparently hocused-pocussed into existence. Life suddenly existed, absent of a biological history. There is a surprisingly Creationist suggestion at the origin of evolutionary theory.
Does the idea of an organism with no ancestors hinder your ability to imagine it? As someone who fully accepts evolutionary theory, it certainly does mine. Since the time that I was an undergraduate biology student at the University of California, Berkeley, I have pondered this theoretical life/no-life moment.
What’s living: For our purposes, let’s say that the fundamental part of anything is the atom. All matter is comprised of atoms. What is the difference between Carbon atoms in a rock, in the human body or in the original organism? The difference is the system in which the atom is a part and how it reacts to other atoms through time.
Popular thinking would suggest that a single atom is not a living organism. Yet all living organisms are collections of supposedly non-living particles. System is core to the meaning of life and I suggest that the theoretical original organism represents the point at which a pre-existing and evolving system becomes interesting in the context of biology.
As such, the definition of life is exclusively applied to a tree of life in which humans and the so-called original organism reside; however, this tree does not comprise all dimensions of life. Furthermore, this tree does not represent the full spectrum of relevant biological subjects.
In truth, the definition of life is flexible. For instance, relative to the above mentioned definition could a city be a living organism? I pose that the answer is yes. When one adopts a systemic view of life, life becomes something more universal.
This paper is about observing and exploring life from a different perspective. The primary focus is on cities. I believe that biological science and evolutionary biology are great tools. I do not intend to undermine or subtract from their utility. On the contrary, I believe these tools are versatile and can be applied to a fundamental element of contemporary human existence.
2A. Life = Systems in motion:
A systemic definition of life connects the origin of life with the origin of the Universe because ultimately anything that exists is part of a system in motion. Therefore, every thing contains life. Such a definition is founded upon the original process that created life as we commonly know it; the Big Bang. Furthermore, this definition assumes the existence of matter. For where there is matter, there is gravity. Where there is gravity, there is motion. Where there is motion, there is imbalance, and where there is imbalance, there is time.
I expect that some will argue that the above definition (life = systems in motion) is too simplistic and general. However, I believe it is fitting that a term at the foundation of an entire field (biology) is broad. Furthermore, despite being short, this definition is comprised of a potent set of words. There exists inherent physical complexity to terms like “system” and “motion.”
According to the systemic definition of life, within all physical matter there exists life. Certainly, by this definition a lot of things defined as alive have little utility to contemporary biologists, but let us foster a more accurate perspective of what life actually is. Instead of the view that life was non-existent at one time and then existent at another, life is systems of motion that evolve through time.
In order to understand how a rock is alive in the same way a cat is, one must adopt the correct perspective of scale and relative time. Furthermore, see things for what they are. A friend once asked me, “So are you saying a car is alive?” I answered, “The personified car is not alive, but each and every part of the car is made up of atoms which are as “alive” as the atoms in your body. Given relative time, and from the correct perspective of scale, the life of that matter as a system in motion can be observed.”
This argument is important because scientific query is founded upon philosophy. A systemic view of life respects the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. They are in turn combined into a working tool that is applicable beyond established biology. In other words, the methodologies used within these disciplines can be applied to systems not traditionally considered alive.
Matter = gravity = motion = imbalance = time
I expect that some will argue that the above definition (life = systems in motion) is too simplistic and general. However, I believe it is fitting that a term at the foundation of an entire field (biology) is broad. Furthermore, despite being short, this definition is comprised of a potent set of words. There exists inherent physical complexity to terms like “system” and “motion.”
According to the systemic definition of life, within all physical matter there exists life. Certainly, by this definition a lot of things defined as alive have little utility to contemporary biologists, but let us foster a more accurate perspective of what life actually is. Instead of the view that life was non-existent at one time and then existent at another, life is systems of motion that evolve through time.
In order to understand how a rock is alive in the same way a cat is, one must adopt the correct perspective of scale and relative time. Furthermore, see things for what they are. A friend once asked me, “So are you saying a car is alive?” I answered, “The personified car is not alive, but each and every part of the car is made up of atoms which are as “alive” as the atoms in your body. Given relative time, and from the correct perspective of scale, the life of that matter as a system in motion can be observed.”
This argument is important because scientific query is founded upon philosophy. A systemic view of life respects the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. They are in turn combined into a working tool that is applicable beyond established biology. In other words, the methodologies used within these disciplines can be applied to systems not traditionally considered alive.
2B. Which life:
By the systemic definition of life, one organism is alive in more than one way. For example, a tree is alive in its own right, but can also be part of a larger living organism, a forest. The same goes for microorganisms in our bodies and cells grouped in various arrangements to form tissues within organisms. A discussion of what is living depends on perspective. Let us apply the idea of systems within systems to human beings. Not only is the human body alive, but so too is the system to which most human bodies belong: cities, urban sprawls.
I pose that cities are living organisms subject to biological examination and a myriad of cross disciplinary applications. Some scientists raise objections to the vocabulary I am using and interpret my argument as rhetorical; “the word ‘organism’ carries too much baggage. A city should be called a living system.” I understand where this objection comes from and would like to avoid arguments with those who adhere to “baggage,” but accuracy cannot be forsaken for tranquility. Both terms “living system” and “organism” are accurate.
I pose that cities are living organisms subject to biological examination and a myriad of cross disciplinary applications. Some scientists raise objections to the vocabulary I am using and interpret my argument as rhetorical; “the word ‘organism’ carries too much baggage. A city should be called a living system.” I understand where this objection comes from and would like to avoid arguments with those who adhere to “baggage,” but accuracy cannot be forsaken for tranquility. Both terms “living system” and “organism” are accurate.
2C. Seeing is believing:
To conceptualize cities as alive, observe their entirety.
TOKYO
MONTREAL
LAS VEGAS
CHICAGO
LONDON
SAO PAULO
In the above pictures we see the sprawling urban organism for what it is; the physical manifestation of human civilization. I could use pictures of any city as they are all visible at night and from space. Perhaps you have already seen similar photos or you’ve found yourself glued to the window on an airplane. To say these images and observations are interesting is an understatement. They are captivating .
Observations of urban sprawls remind us that Nature is repetitive. Some things observed zooming in bear resemblance to things observed zooming out. For instance, cities look like microorganisms. We may criticize human civilization by saying we humans are a virus. Perhaps there is truth in this observation. When we take away the negative value judgment, is there something to learn from the way civilization operates as a living organism? Instead of denying, rejecting, or challenging our nature because we associate negative emotions with viruses, perhaps we can see civilization for what it actually is; an organism with a purpose no better or worse than any other.
TOKYO
MONTREAL
LAS VEGAS
CHICAGO
LONDON
SAO PAULO
In the above pictures we see the sprawling urban organism for what it is; the physical manifestation of human civilization. I could use pictures of any city as they are all visible at night and from space. Perhaps you have already seen similar photos or you’ve found yourself glued to the window on an airplane. To say these images and observations are interesting is an understatement. They are captivating .
Observations of urban sprawls remind us that Nature is repetitive. Some things observed zooming in bear resemblance to things observed zooming out. For instance, cities look like microorganisms. We may criticize human civilization by saying we humans are a virus. Perhaps there is truth in this observation. When we take away the negative value judgment, is there something to learn from the way civilization operates as a living organism? Instead of denying, rejecting, or challenging our nature because we associate negative emotions with viruses, perhaps we can see civilization for what it actually is; an organism with a purpose no better or worse than any other.
2D. Conscious removal:
It is important that one consciously attempt to set aside their identity when pondering the urban organism. Forget what you know and how you feel about “the world.” Pretend you’re looking into a microscope or at a different planet. What then? If NASA showed us photos of a planet emitting light visible from space, how would we go about understanding what we saw?
To assess human civilization or labor to understand our role on the planet, human civilization must remain connected to its evolutionary and biological history. Human nature and nature are the same. Thus, “cities are living organisms” is not rhetorical, but an observation of human existence and purpose.
To assess human civilization or labor to understand our role on the planet, human civilization must remain connected to its evolutionary and biological history. Human nature and nature are the same. Thus, “cities are living organisms” is not rhetorical, but an observation of human existence and purpose.
3. A ROSE SEED:
Ultimately physics, chemistry, biology, and evolutionary theory describe the same thing (physical reality) in different ways. I combine these perspectives to create a lens from which to view life on this planet. In many ways, we can liken life on Earth to a rose seed. If we knew nothing of roses or plants, and someone placed a rose seed in our hand, what would we guess about the seed? How could we understand what can come of that seed given time and circumstance? In a human-centric way, I suggest that civilization is coded in the “DNA” of Earth just as petal color is coded in the DNA of a rose seed.
While life and physical realty appear to be of a random nature, this is hardly so. The entire Universe is subject to physical laws. The word random is a useful way to describe something that is extremely complex but in truth nothing is random. If something is “random,” this supposes that there is no physical explanation for its existence. The truth is, if we had all of the facts we could explain and predict everything. At the same time, we must acknowledge the limitation of the human brain. While the facts exist, they cannot be measured by people because there are infinite variables relative to the human brain at any given moment. The word random is less a reflection of reality and more an acknowledgement of cognitive limitation.
I meet a lot of people who have a problem with this idea, “So you don’t believe in free will?” My answer, “I believe in experienced free will. That is all my brain needs.” In reality I know that everything that has happened can be explained and everything that will happen can be predicted if I have all the facts, as some may need to hear it, if I had the mind of “God.”
The idea that choice does not exist is not news. Literature pertaining to Life History Theory represents an already established base within biology where it has been demonstrated that genetic and environmental circumstances set the stage for who we will be. The implication is that our future depends on the past. As it should! If not, we would be no different from something that is random; without explanation.
This relates to cities in that they are natural biological phenomenon, not random combinations of human circumstances. Cities are part of the “DNA” of life on this planet. Thus there exists the potential to biologically analyze them as we do other organisms and systems. In the example of a rose seed, while we cannot guarantee the seed in our hand will become a flowering plant, general knowledge of these plants is of great utility to gardeners. An understanding of something’s nature helps us explain its past, understand its present and prepare for its future.
While life and physical realty appear to be of a random nature, this is hardly so. The entire Universe is subject to physical laws. The word random is a useful way to describe something that is extremely complex but in truth nothing is random. If something is “random,” this supposes that there is no physical explanation for its existence. The truth is, if we had all of the facts we could explain and predict everything. At the same time, we must acknowledge the limitation of the human brain. While the facts exist, they cannot be measured by people because there are infinite variables relative to the human brain at any given moment. The word random is less a reflection of reality and more an acknowledgement of cognitive limitation.
I meet a lot of people who have a problem with this idea, “So you don’t believe in free will?” My answer, “I believe in experienced free will. That is all my brain needs.” In reality I know that everything that has happened can be explained and everything that will happen can be predicted if I have all the facts, as some may need to hear it, if I had the mind of “God.”
The idea that choice does not exist is not news. Literature pertaining to Life History Theory represents an already established base within biology where it has been demonstrated that genetic and environmental circumstances set the stage for who we will be. The implication is that our future depends on the past. As it should! If not, we would be no different from something that is random; without explanation.
This relates to cities in that they are natural biological phenomenon, not random combinations of human circumstances. Cities are part of the “DNA” of life on this planet. Thus there exists the potential to biologically analyze them as we do other organisms and systems. In the example of a rose seed, while we cannot guarantee the seed in our hand will become a flowering plant, general knowledge of these plants is of great utility to gardeners. An understanding of something’s nature helps us explain its past, understand its present and prepare for its future.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
