Week 5 Bio: What makes a system living vs. non-living & Thoughts on older Homo Sapiens
A living vs. a non-living system
According to our packet, there are three key criteria to make a system "living":
1. Pattern of organization - a configuration of relationships which determine the most essential characteristics of that system
2. Structure - how the system is organized and embodied physically
3. Life process - the activity of the system's organization in continually becoming, embodying...
A key part of determining whether a system is alive or not is essentially about whether it is a self-referring system: is it aware of itself and its needs? Does it adapt to its needs and continually reproduce itself? If yes, then it is said to be autopoietic and it is a living system.
"Living systems are also always dissipative." A dissipative structure is far away from equilibrium yet exists in a continual flow of exchanging energy and matter with its environment. I think this is what makes our atmosphere and planet a life-supporting one, whereas Mars' atmosphere and planet is non- life-supporting - our atmosphere is unstable and beyond its own equilibrium, but in a broader context, seen in relation to the plant life, and people, the stuff below it - there is an exchange and constant flow happening, a necessary 'bind'. On Mars, the atmosphere is already stable so there isn't any need for an interaction to occur (that's how I came away with it anyway).
What's cool about a living system is that it is never one static thing, it is always becoming - there's so much possibility. I guess if we think of something as one concrete thing we are really just thinking of the snapshot of that living system.
100,000 Year old Homo Sapiens?
Every week we read a new article shedding light on the complicated history of Homo sapiens. This past week it was about a fossils found in Irhoud, in Morocco. Previously, we thought our oldest human ancestor was 200,000 years ago, but this makes it 300,000 years ago.
It's a very exciting idea to some, but it's still just a theory. One researcher responded to the news in a very moderate way, "in short, the dating has a lot of [indirect] links in the chain of interpretation"... and there's no way to be certain that the fossil they found is from the same sediment layers which would link it with other fossils from the same site, from the 1960s.
Now I'm increasingly curious about the lives of anthropologists and archaeologists who have to make so many inferences on shaky evidence. Is there great pressure for them to publish something that will make headline news? Are their jobs at stake? Are their egos at stake?
The more we read these articles the more I wonder about the academic system and how that intersects with our problematic economic system, how hyper capitalism influences the production of knowledge. I didn't look into who had funded the study, but that is another question that I find myself wanting to know when I read an article and get to the point of believing it is true or groundbreaking. There's a bigger picture in the inner workings of these studies which aren't readily apparent.
According to our packet, there are three key criteria to make a system "living":
1. Pattern of organization - a configuration of relationships which determine the most essential characteristics of that system
2. Structure - how the system is organized and embodied physically
3. Life process - the activity of the system's organization in continually becoming, embodying...
A key part of determining whether a system is alive or not is essentially about whether it is a self-referring system: is it aware of itself and its needs? Does it adapt to its needs and continually reproduce itself? If yes, then it is said to be autopoietic and it is a living system.
"Living systems are also always dissipative." A dissipative structure is far away from equilibrium yet exists in a continual flow of exchanging energy and matter with its environment. I think this is what makes our atmosphere and planet a life-supporting one, whereas Mars' atmosphere and planet is non- life-supporting - our atmosphere is unstable and beyond its own equilibrium, but in a broader context, seen in relation to the plant life, and people, the stuff below it - there is an exchange and constant flow happening, a necessary 'bind'. On Mars, the atmosphere is already stable so there isn't any need for an interaction to occur (that's how I came away with it anyway).
What's cool about a living system is that it is never one static thing, it is always becoming - there's so much possibility. I guess if we think of something as one concrete thing we are really just thinking of the snapshot of that living system.
100,000 Year old Homo Sapiens?
Every week we read a new article shedding light on the complicated history of Homo sapiens. This past week it was about a fossils found in Irhoud, in Morocco. Previously, we thought our oldest human ancestor was 200,000 years ago, but this makes it 300,000 years ago.
It's a very exciting idea to some, but it's still just a theory. One researcher responded to the news in a very moderate way, "in short, the dating has a lot of [indirect] links in the chain of interpretation"... and there's no way to be certain that the fossil they found is from the same sediment layers which would link it with other fossils from the same site, from the 1960s.
Now I'm increasingly curious about the lives of anthropologists and archaeologists who have to make so many inferences on shaky evidence. Is there great pressure for them to publish something that will make headline news? Are their jobs at stake? Are their egos at stake?
The more we read these articles the more I wonder about the academic system and how that intersects with our problematic economic system, how hyper capitalism influences the production of knowledge. I didn't look into who had funded the study, but that is another question that I find myself wanting to know when I read an article and get to the point of believing it is true or groundbreaking. There's a bigger picture in the inner workings of these studies which aren't readily apparent.
Thanks for this! I appreciate your enthusiasm about the every present movement of living things. Constantly becoming themselves and filled with possibilities. With all the possibilities it is amazing that we remain so constant. Pretty incredible....and easily taken from granted. I also appreciate your connection to capitalism and the establishment of "groundbreaking" data. I genuinely agree that it is a major player.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the same thing about how surprising it is that we remain so constant despite the many possibilities! It's cool. I guess it encourages me that I could make healthy changes in my life and that I'm not just one static complex of habits.
ReplyDelete