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 I was a 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 interested 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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment