Skip to main content

Life: survival versus reproduction

1.       Life is often thought of and analysed from the viewpoint of the individual organism. In a previous post (The Apparent Complexity in Life’s Evolution and Its Explanation ), I suggested defining life as a process rather than an organism, therefore clarifying tricky areas such as viruses and their status of being alive or not, and other life products that may be alive in some situations that are very conditional e.g. seeds.

In attempting to explain life from the viewpoint of the individual organism, the basic function of life appears to be survival of the organism. There have been plenty of discussions over the fundamental unit of life in the context of evolution, that have suggested various “vehicles” of life information including genes themselves, species, populations (Jablonka and Lamb, 2006), etc.

The issue of course with this viewpoint is that organisms always die. Life clearly has no interest whatsoever in the actual survival of any given organism into infinity by itself. Indeed, the same can easily be extended to species. Life has thrived not through survival of any given individual organism or species at all, and instead, through survival of life processes spanning countless individual organisms and species. This entire show has been sponsored by reproduction.

2.       Reproduction in the context of life is better or easier than plain survival – but what is it better at?
It is better at providing the opportunity for adaptation. Life cannot exist in a vacuum, and if life is to be a complement of non-life, of the environment, it must be able to change, to update, through time and space as the universe is doing.
The directionality of time explains why reproduction makes more sense than mere survival ad infinitum. Each cycle, each generation, is a change. And starting to change from square one, developmentally speaking, is far more straightforward than starting to change from square 47. Getting babies and children to learn slightly differently, or gain some new abilities that are new, is easier than getting a mature, further down the line organism to do the same.
After all, adults will have always been selected for as babies for their ability to be adapted to their present, but not the unknown future. The only way, apparently, to greet the future, the unknown pressures, is to renew the organism, or indeed the genome, via reproduction.

3.       Sexual reproduction has often been discussed as the great enabler of diversification, mutation, evolution. What about asexual reproduction? What is the point in reproducing oneself if the result is merely clones all over again? Why make them rather than simply maintain the already existing organisms?

It isn't just the diversification offered by sexual reproduction that enables life through reproduction; it is also merely the process of repeating a developmental pathway, be it a different one or the exact same one all over again, as it is in asexual reproduction.

Cycling life, which is defined as certain processes distinct from non-life, has been much easier, more environmentally or energetically amenable than producing and maintaining individual organisms themselves ad infinitum. This matter comes into sharp focus when discussing ageing, death and the role of life’s evolution in shaping organisms, reproduction, as well as potential directions to be taken by civilizations to offset these evolved truths in an attempt to break them and move forward into something else, away from past directions.

4.       The point at which we will be able to offset the reliance of life on reproduction in its original, or current, sense, is the point at which we are able to enact changes, adaptations, of mature organisms, that are at least as efficient as "natural" changes that occur in reproduction. 

This could be things like manipulating the genome, developmental paths, tissues and functions, etc. 

This obviously is a grand challenge. 

After all... Life hasn't been doing nothing all this time. Or indeed, time hasn't been doing nothing all this life. 


Reference

E. Jablonka and M. Lamb (2006), Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life, MIT Press, ISBN 978-0262600699

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

By-products of Evolution - why not everything has a purpose

Last time we looked at how certain major adaptations such as hair loss have enabled humans to survive over the millennia in different conditions, and when faced with competition from other species. Not everything about the human body has a specific purpose, though, in the sense that we expect it to. One example of such thing is the philtrum - that little channel leading from the base of your nose to the upper lip. Recent research suggests that this development dates back millions of years, and has been inherited from fish. Apparently, when human embryos develop their face in the womb, all parts of the forehead, mouth, etc come together and fuse where the philtrum is located.


Some adaptations, on the other hand, are no longer relevant not because of their nature, but because the environmental selection pressure for which they evolved has disappeared. For example, an East Asian's typical eyelid shape evolved as a result of higher light intensities in that area of the world, yet the …

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different).

As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it comes …

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it?



The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?".

Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about?


CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan, which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why:

1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely known in the ant…