What this potentially does is put the human race into an interesting quandary. What happens when you can create species with only slightly more effort than it takes to destroy them?

Consider the number of seed vaults that have been created around the world. Now consider the practicalities of a DNA vault which could contain the DNA of several hundred thousand species just waiting to be repopulated. The current thinking is that preserved DNA could potentially survive for hundreds of thousands of years in the natural environment. The implicit assumption is that we could extend that through the use of technology and DNA replication techniques.

So what we are left with is a very practical philosophical dilemma.

Is it okay to cut down the rain forest and to render extinct thousands of species in the name of human population expansion if we can replicate those species at will and reintroduce them into new environments at the drop of a hat?

Technically we aren’t really destroying anything as we are quickly approaching the point at which any single species can be cloned. It is starting to look more and more as if we can also restrict non-desirable characteristics and keep the desirable ones. It is a pickle no doubt about it.

What can’t be duplicated in any great measure however are the various complexities inherent in a thriving ecosystem. Beyond this is an ecosystem’s capacity to develop new species through the progression of natural selection. How do we replicate those aspects of natural habitats? The various combinations and complexities far outweigh the straight permutations on a strand of DNA. It is this equilibrium that drives the ability of complex systems to adapt and hence provide a safety net in the case of a catastrophic loss of due to some type of natural phenomena (such as a meteor impact or volcanic eruption). Not to suggest that this is by intention however it is fortunate that such a rich variety of life does exist otherwise we would not.

It is for this reason that it may be advantageous to not become so self assured of our intellectual superiority as to claim that we can, or should, control nature for self serving purposes. As the human race continues to develop our intellectual prowess our physical prowess is becoming more and more homogeneous. In otherwords, we are deliberately weeding out genetic differences which would allow us to survive some type of cataclysmic catastrophe.

For example, the Ebola virus can be up to 90% lethal to any given human population to which it is introduced. Now consider a genetic version of this virus crossed with an influenza virus. In a heterogeneous population which is constantly evolving there is a good chance of at least some survivability. However in the case of our current population where we have worldwide programs designed to ensure a consistency of survivability against common pathogens – this starts to open the door to high morbidity if a ‘door’ for a new type of virus is opened as a result of one of these wide spread treatments.

A bit of a scary thought. However as economics, not the practicalities of what our current actions mean for long term survivability, seem to dictate social philosophies, I’m not holding out much luck that within 20-25 years the case may be made that it is okay to shoot ourselves in the foot because we can resuscitate the DNA of any species that we destroy if only we collect them in advance.

Assuming of course we are around to do the resuscitating.

At issue is the fact that one major source of stem cells is from embryonic tissues – essentially fetuses. While not unique to either a right leaning or left leaning ideology, the Christian Right in the United States has been the most vocal objector to stem cell research on the basis of theological grounds. The general argument is that since abortion is wrong, some would go so far as to say criminal, ergo any research derived from the deliberate use of that act should also be wrong and therefore not permitted.

The problem is that the United States is now 8 years behind in stem cell research including a number of breakthroughs in the understanding of differences between adult and embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are now realized to be as effective in the creation of new tissue types as embryonic cells. While this might not hold in every case, it is far easier for researchers to obtain adult stem cells without the religious and political overtones.

So . . . is the recent rash of news articles and attempt by the media to push forward an agenda that will promote a quick end to the Bush policies on stem cell research or is this simply playing into the fact that the new administration seems pre-disposed to this idea already as one of its intended promises. Not that politicians and the news media use each other on a regular basis mind you. But it just seems strange to my mind, with so many other things going on, that the media should pick now to start picking up on these stories on mass. Not that this is a bad thing – just very strange in terms of timing me thinks.

Jessica Hellmann proposes that maybe we should move polar bearsfrom the North Pole, where the ice cap is more progressively disappearing, to the south pole where the ice cap is still disappearing but not exactly at the same pace. The concept being that while we are trying to reduce carbon dioxide levels, we should maybe give nature a helping hand by moving some of these species around to climates better suited to their sustainability.

The problem I have with this is that every time humans have interferred with the natural food chain in a specific area we have screwed things up so massively as to be unrepairable.

Let’s follow the logic in the case of polar bears just as an example. Assume we move 200 polar bears from the North Pole to the south. Yes there are seals in this area which are one of the primary food sources, but there are also a number of other prey that are not adapted to the presence of such a large land carnivore roaming around. Penguins for example will not have defensive mechanisms against Polar Bears and it would simply be like shooting fish in a barrel. Seals, who in the north create dens in the ice flows where they have an escape route under the sea ice will have no such protection in the south as most of Antarctica is a solid land mass. Again – like shooting fish in a barrel.

Mammals tend to bred based upon the availability of their food sources until they establish a natural equilibrium with the other plants and animals in the area which sustain them (present company excepted of course). With a very large abundant supply of food, Polar Bear populations in the south would tend to explode which would put further pressure on other already delicate food chain equilibriums. Such a situation would have radical implications for the entire food web all for the sake of those few animals at the top of the food chain which are, arguably, the most adaptable to changing circumstances.

In short – good idea, lousy execution.

The health of any ecosystem is only as good as its weakest link. If these people really want to make a difference then find the weak link in the food web and focus on the sustainability issues that impact the health and viability of that component. Polar Bears have adapted to global warming episodes in the past (Greenland was called Greenland for a reason in the not too distant past) and they will endure this one. The issue for Polar Bears is not the lack of accessibility of sea ice, it is the endangerment and accessibility of their food sources. Which means the weak link is further down in the food web.

Unfortunately it is always easier to apply a band-aid to the wound we can see rather than treating the internal causes. Hopefully that doesn’t mean transporting Polar Bears to Antarctica; something that will cause more harm than good I fear. – K

What seems to be evident from this DVD series is that without these currents, the basic food sources in a specific area would quickly be consumed without opportunity to replenish. One of the implications is that early forms of life would have had a built in defense mechanism against other predatory organisms. It would be easy to imagine that with the very earliest forms of life such defense would have been surely a matter of dumb luck. However with each circuit around the ocean currents, specialization would occur through natural selection in which less migratory organisms would develop more aggressive, predatory tactics and the more highly migratory organisms (at least to begin with) would develop more defensive tactics.

Currently there is this big push on to see if life ever evolved on Mars. The essence of the theory is that where there is flowing water, there exists the possibility of life. My thought however is that it isn’t just flowing water that is a requirement. You need to show geological evidence of some type of circulatory system for water otherwise the processes of natural selection have no opportunity to influence the evolution of amino acids to single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.

In the case of Mars while water does appear to exist, circulation doesn’t. So my thought is that the best we will ever hope to find is the precursors of life, but not actual life itself. For that, we might actually have a better chance of finding life on Titan. – K