|
This is from an earlier discussion, from which I got side-tracked.
It's a worthwhile discussion though, so I will post this response now that I've
been able to finish it.
Dan F. wrote: I think we could add the other
"missing/implied/other
half" aspect that functional types are similarly interdependent and not whole taken alone. My same old autotrophic and heterotrophic dialectic. To be dependent on the existence of something (such as food or
oxygen) in order to continue one's own "system stability" is not quite the same
as being incomplete as a system without something. That argument would be
appropriate for viruses and possibly infectious prions, but doesn't apply to an
organism's dependence on the environment as a source of raw materials. The
difference is that a virus is, arguably, not alive (i.e.; incomplete as an
organism) without a host's living infrastructure for it to use. (I suspect that
viruses evolved after early life began evolving because I tend to agree with
David that early life is unlikely to have involved DNA,e etc.) My
point is that all organisms are "open systems" which require the flow
of material and energy through them to maintain life. They are organized that
way.
DF: I'd go as far as to say that life = organism is
not truly closed
to efficient cause since any organism requires an animated, active other to participate in efficient cause. A coupled cooperative unit with both autotroph and heterotroph on the other hand (but we'd also have to cover the genders if a sexual community) is closed to efficient cause and does not require other animate, active agents to survive long term. This more whole life unit only needs abiotic/physical inputs, energy, matter, etc. Again, being closed to efficient causation is not the same as being
a closed system. Secondly, it seems to me that your "more whole life unit"
is just as dependent on the flow of raw material as any single organism-- except
for one important difference: An ecosystem doesn't have any requirements of its
own. Ecosystemic organization is generated by the nature and
interaction of the organisms inhabiting it. Any requirements that are
present in an ecosystem are likewise generated by the nature of the inhabitants'
requirements. As far as heterotrophs are concerned, the presence and
behavior of autotrophs and their effect on the environment were simply "givens"
like all other aspects of the environment heterotrophs evolved in. It
seems to me that all co-evolution has to be that way, until aspects of
intelligence are brought into evolution. It's the only way it makes any
sense.
As you say, self is complex, has more than one model or representation, even within a single organismic self. It's interesting that gender is an aspect of living systems which
developed along with increasing complexity of life forms. So the species aspect
to "self" that includes gender would be a consequence of that increasing
complexity as well. Needless to say, that explains why there are such a wealth
of combinations and permutations in different organisms, where gender and
reproduction are concerned!
I have recently re-started use of
these quotes to aid my thinking, to distinquish between 1) an organismic self and discrete or particulate/localized life form and 2) a community or ecosystemic self and continuous or extensive/non-localized life form. The key modifier that goes along with the different definitions or models is "sustained" as in long term or open-ended in time. I would argue that a community-based concept of species "self"
(like bees or ants, for example) is not the same thing as an ecosystemic
community of different species-- which I would argue is not a collective
"self" at all.
Sustainability (at least the way I define the word) isn't a
driver in ecosystemic behavior and isn't in living organisms, either, unless we
consider the very recent development of cognitive awareness of the need for
sustainability as a player in human evolution. Sustainability is
not the same thing as life or survival. Sustainability is a time reference, and
depends on context-- whereupon it specifies a quantifiable future (i.e.;
sustainable for how many lifespans? Generations? Which species experience
of time? Sustainability is a practical consideration. It's true that
anticipation embodies an implied future but it's a more subtle thing, like
a qualitative assumption of a predicted future-- which is what (in my
view) generates the survival instinct. Survival is a drive of organisms,
though. There is no survival instinct (or any other kind of instinct) in
an ecosystem. This is why I've said before that all "life" in any
ecosystem is directly a consequence of the living organisms which
inhabit it. An environment with no organisms inhabiting it is not an ecosystem.
It's just a lifeless moonscape or an equally lifeless volcanic wasteland; we
could only refer to such places as "environments".
Therefore, I have fundamental problems with both of these quotes,
below:
O'Neill et al. (1987) "...define ecosystems as the smallest units that can sustain life in isolation from all but atmospheric surroundings. However, one is still left with the problem of specifying the area that should be included." "sustain life in isolation"? Is he talking about artificial
creation of ecosystems, as in space exploration (what we need to bring with
us)-- that kind of thing? Ecosystems are created by relations, as all complex
systems are. So referring to an ecosystem as a unit (with the word "smallest" as
an adjective of it) is unwise. I also think that to suggest that a
specific ecosystem is what "sustains" life is going down the wrong road, and
won't get you where you want to go with this. We are starting out from a
relational viewpoint, but that road leads to reductionistic neighborhoods. For
example, when we start referring to all living organisms which
photosynthesize using the all-purpose, one-size-fits-all label
"autotroph" we are in trouble, already. Is one autotroph as good as any
other, in some unspecified ecosystem? If we specify the ecosystem, and find an
autotroph which prefers those ecosystemic conditions (through time and seasonal
change-- a neat trick all by itself), what if we find that the relations between
this perfect autotroph and every heterotroph we try to pair it up with are
incompatible? This is all over-simplified, methinks.
I also wonder if you are perhaps getting sidetracked by ontological
issues, in ecosystemic analysis? If ecosystems form and evolve as a consequence
of the spontaneous self-organization of living organisms and their interactive
relations as they live and evolve, over time... then obviously constant
change is the norm. So, sustainability is a strange concept to me in this kind
of application.
Morowitz (1992) "sustained life is a property of an ecological system rather than a single organism or species." I think Morowitz is talking about evolution, not life. Once again,
evolution is, ultimately, a side effect of living organisms and not the
other way around.
DF: For this life and self of the community or ecosystem, death is an integral aspect as you suggested too. Whereas at the scale or focal self of life the organism a cell/organism is either alive or dead, at the scale or focal self of the community/ecosystem this form is always both alive and dead. Part of the ecosystem depends on detritus, soil, organic matter, etc. and this is "dead life". Crucial to ecosystem function and the capacity for open-ended life operation. This is complexity, at work. Not life. It's important to recognize
that there is no focal "self" of ecosystem because an ecosystem is
not an anticipatory system. Anticipation is part of organismal behavior,
co-emergent or co-existent with life.
Judith
|