Life as Mechanism, pt.1

Given that this image tells an important truth — that we cannot with consistency both praise selective breeding as "completely natural" and revile GMOs as "offenses against Nature" — what distinctions can we yet make? For, obviously, there are distinctions to make; else so many people would not feel compelled to make them (nor so stridently).

A Taxonomy of Control

What is the most obvious distinction to be made along this spectrum?

1. Natural evolution
2. Artificial evolution
   1. Unintentional — e.g., drug resistance
   2. Intentional — e.g., selective breeding
3. Intra-creature fiddling
   1. Endogenous
   2. Exogenous

I think the answer is the extent to which the technique we happen to employ dominates rather than directs Nature. Or, in other words, the difference lies in how exogenous the technique is to the existing vital processes.

Natural Evolution is entirely uncontrolled by human beings. It is the description we give to the habit we see in other creatures: of species undergoing change, some frequently, others less so. Species come into existence at times, and at other times pass into extinction. Species acquire traits, adapt to changing environments, and generally change so as to occupy some special niche in their environment.

Ecce Homo

We can say precisely where Natural becomes Artificial evolution: where there is Man to observe it. He, simply by being what he is, no sooner encounters his environment than he straightaway begins to modify it. He clears land to build a house; he fishes or hunts for meat; he plows and plants and harvests for grain. The birds of the air learn to steal his seed-corn. The beasts of the field learn his scent. The fish of the sea learn to avoid lures. In a more modern age, bacteria learn to resist his antibiotics. These changes are all "by-products" of his own growing mastery of his environment.

He takes a more active and obvious hand by selectively breeding. Here, his influence is not on vast and vague flocks or herds, but on this cow or that horse. His influence, being more focused, may therefore be both more immediate and more intentional — but also more limited. If by selective breeding he produces a milk-cow, he does not thereby change every wild ox hiding in the woods. That a man has a pet dog does not make all the wolves his best friends.

To be continued ...