Well, it’s just a budding theory about how “life” is formed (article link at the end), but if you’ve read Babylon – you might have picked up on my hints surrounding this topic. In fact, from this new theory, more people may finally coming around to my view of our universe:
“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,” said Carl Franck, a biological physicist at Cornell University.
Well, yeah, Mr. Cornell… Get on board with me already!
Eden & Babylon (and beyond) are certainly my attempts to explain my thoughts on life & our world through the best medium I know how. (I’m not about to hit school for another 4-6 years to get a degree) Hey, Science – go look at my publication dates! I’ve felt, for a long time now, that the simple categorizations of alive/not-alive (and the associated mindsets which come along with that distinction) are inherently “off”. Wrong on some level.
Maybe that’s why I still need science in my life – to support what I’ve already been trying to articulate in my fiction. Would it blow your mind to discover that seemingly “not-alive” things exhibit “life” in the same ways we do, at a 2nd-law of thermodynamics level? Swirling liquid can self-replicate. Snowflakes and sand dunes follow and internal building order/structure not much unlike how life builds upon itself into a complex organism.
“Hippies” were sometimes referred to as “tree-huggers”. Well, I guess I’m a “dirt-hugger”? A mountain may cause the landscape on the other side to turn arid, supporting all the life and “not-life” qualities which abound in that environment. Yet, who thinks of the mountain as “alive”? … Nobody except me? You see, just because we cannot perceive intent, awareness, free will, self-defense & feeding patterns doesn’t mean that mountain isn’t important. Valuable. Serving a purpose. Aware. I argue that it most certainly IS, we’re just not keen enough or attuned enough to understand.
Yup, pretty outlandish, right?
Well, prove me wrong! Until we understand all the mysteries of the universe (or universes… or the “world” beyond our universe… or the realities beyond that), there is just no way to be certain about anything. Science tries its best with experimentation, observation & theorizing. Religion attempts to cater to the human condition by offering something science cannot – a “reason” or a “place” to call home for the soul (or whatever label you wish to attach to that part of yourself you cannot explain… hmmm… another blog post on that topic someday?) So, are my views more akin to “religious” views since they aren’t based on much beyond my “gut” feelings about the world around me? (not to belittle Religion, but this is clearly where many religions have originated, and I don’t view that as a negative whatsoever)
Years ago, perhaps I would agree with that postulation. Now? As science keeps corroborating my gut feeling? As I read more philosophy (classical and modern) which aligns with views? I dunno…
Centuries ago, some groups of people enslaved others because they thought little for those other groups’ humanity. Decades ago, we thought women inequal (and that sentiment continues in some cultures). We now give rights & protection to some mammals and other animals.
What’s next? Plant rights? Dirt emancipation?
What is the logical evolution of our awareness & tolerance for how we interact with our world? Where are the lines drawn? (At mammals because they are most like us? At all “living” things? What if a snowflake exhibits “life”? What is reasonable?)
And my last question: At what point do we just accept the big “what is”? And what will that mean for moralists, “leaders” and cultures as a whole?
… yes, this is what swirls around in my brain on a daily basis. You are welcome. :)
(the full article is here)