How did Life Begin?

The philosopher Immanuel Kant once said, “It is absurd to hope that another Newton will arise in the future who will make comprehensible to us the production of a blade of grass according to natural laws.” Soon after Kant died, Charles Darwin was born. And after Darwin came molecular biology.

Despite Kant’s pessimism, we have come a long way toward understanding life in terms of physics and chemistry. Darwin’s theory of evolution by variation and natural selection has been substantiated and improved upon by the discovery of DNA and genetics. We now have a robust theoretical picture of how, over billions of years, life can evolve from single-celled organisms to the variety and complexity we see today.

Yet still, one piece of the puzzle eludes us. How did the first spark come to be, when life formed from non-life? We have not seen this happen anywhere, not in nature, nor the controlled conditions of the laboratory. So far, Kant's prediction has held.

But Kant's claim is a lot stronger than perhaps even he would have meant. It is far easier to show something is possible than to prove it impossible. For instance, it was once said that there are no black swans. Nobody in Western culture had ever seen one, and it was taken for granted as common knowledge. But when explorers set out to map the coast of Australia, there they were, black swans, swimming around like nothing was out of the ordinary. The claim that we will never find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is the same as saying there are no black swans. To disprove it, all we have to do is find one.

How do we go about looking for a theory of the origin of life? We need to look for what all life absolutely requires, its reductionist building blocks. First is water. We know of nothing living or semi-living that does not incorporate liquid water as an essential part of its makeup. The next is organic molecules. All of the complex molecules making up life forms are constructed from small organic molecules. Finally, life needs an energy gradient. This is a technical term for “food source,” although it sometimes literally means energy is being transferred through the environment, like in photosynthesis. In the realms of physics and chemistry, energy gradients are the drivers of reactions and increasing complexity, making it look on a small scale like the second law of thermodynamics is being violated.

All three of these are common in the universe, water especially. But there is another element we haven’t talked about yet: the information the organism is made of. This consists of DNA and RNA, long chains of molecules that act like source code. DNA and RNA are only known to exist on Earth, within living or quasi-living organisms, and in laboratories. When we look for it in nature, in places we guess life might have emerged from, we don’t find it. Is this evidence Kant was right? No, because of one important factor: life already exists in all those places. Anywhere the ingredients for life could be found are swarming with bacteria gobbling it up. Once life exists in a place, we can safely bet it won’t get started there a second time.

So what do we do now? The next obvious course to investigate is the simplest life we can find. So far, the simplest natural living organism we know of is a bacterium called mycoplasma genitalium. This little bugger has less than 600,000 base pairs in its DNA. Contrast that with humans, who have billions. Still, 600,000 base pairs is far from simple, and it has a cell wall to boot. M. genitalium does not look like a good analog for the bridge between non-life and life.

If existing life is not the answer, we can perform experiments to try to make something simpler. Nine years ago, Craig Venter took the DNA from M. genitalium, deleted as much as he could, and put the results into an inert cell, creating the worlds simplest and first synthetic life form, mycoplasma laboratorium. The number of nucleotides it had was . . . still over 500,000. It was an improvement, and a major breakthrough for science, but did not get us much closer to the origin of life. At least, not yet.

However, we have not yet talked about quasi-living organisms. These are organisms that are kind of alive, but don’t replicate themselves, instead relying on the reproductive machinery of other living things. There are two kinds of quasi-living organisms: viruses and viroids. Viruses have their own DNA and cell walls, but viroids are just small closed loops of RNA. How small? Between 200 and 500 nucleotides. Not genes, nucleotides. And they don’t have a cell wall, or organelles, or supporting macromolecules.

Model of the potato spindle tuber viroid.

Now we might be getting somewhere! Of course, viroids could not be the original life forms, because they require other life in order to reproduce. Still, it is now within the realm of possibility that the first quasi-living organisms were similar to viroids. We know that small amounts of DNA and RNA can perform various types of mechanical tasks, as shown by the field of DNA nanotechnology, so we seem to be on the threshold of a solid theory of the origin of life.

You may sometimes hear people talk about the probability that life will arise on its own. But no number you hear is valid. Whenever I’ve dug into these calculations, I’ve found the math formulae that are used treat the molecules as if they are drawn out of a hat. That is not how chemistry works. To do the calculation properly, we would have to know the physics of the environment, the chemistry of every step along the way, how common such environments are in the universe, and how big the universe is. We don’t know any of that stuff, so we can’t say anything at all about the probability.

Some people don’t want to believe it’s possible that life arose naturally in the universe. Some of them just aren’t interested in the science, and don’t have the time to learn the mental skills and do the research to get up to speed. That’s understandable. Others are averse because they are loyal to a religious narrative, like I once was. Still others may be uncomfortable at the thought that human life had such a humble beginning, believing it takes away from our innate worth. This is a fallacy. Human beings are priceless and have innate dignity because of what we are. How we came to be this way has no effect on what we deserve or how we should treat one another.

Based on what we've talked about, we can construct a crude hypothesis, a guiding tool, a proof of concept. This may or may not be close to how life began, but it will stand as evidence that there is an answer, and we can find it. Here it is:

Suppose, deep in the ocean, where vents spewed heat from the Earth’s mantle, there was a soup of organic molecules. These molecules bumped into each other, reacting millions or billions of times every second, to make more complex molecules. Some of these complex molecules would fold and unfold, or spin parts of themselves around, or be attracted to certain parts of other molecules. Some of these molecules could break other molecules apart and reconstruct them. This process was random, and mostly resulted in junk. But a few made copies of themselves, which in turn made more copies. There, Darwinian evolution took root, with variations in each generation, and natural selection favoring those that reproduced better. With further generations, the molecules bonded with other, non-reproducing complex molecules, forming a symbiosis which allowed them to do more tasks. Eventually, one of these constructed a shell of molecules around itself, and the first cellular organism was born.

This process, and others like it, can be tested in the lab. One of the most interesting mysteries of all time, it's a popular subject of research. So far, there has not been a Newton for the blade of grass. But it is no longer absurd to think one will arise one day soon.

How We Choose what to Believe – Narratives and Rationality

Every moment we find ourselves alive, two questions drive us: What should we do, and what should we believe? When looking for answers, we find narratives, stories about existence and right and wrong. Many narratives gel with one another, and many contradict. Our natural method for evaluating narratives is by our narrative senses, coherence and fidelity.

If that sounded like Greek, let me explain with a type of narrative that is easy to understand: fiction. Despite fictional stories being made-up, there are things about them that “ring true,” specifically the parts that are coherent and fidelitous. Coherence is how well the elements of the story fit together and remain true to themselves, like the believability of the characters and the consistency of the science and magic. The fidelity of the story is how well it resonates with our values, like when the characters act heroically, or when its exploration of the themes includes views we sympathize with.

That’s fine for stories, but what about real life? We might naively believe we see the world in terms of facts. On the contrary, our view of the world is colored by layer upon layer of narrative, with facts getting only the smallest amount of our attention. It is our first instinct to apply our narrative senses to everything we hear, from religion to politics to science. We think we’re good at determining what is true, that we and those who believe as we do have a knack for common sense.

But this “common sense” is really just our narrative senses telling us what feels true. If we want to know what is true, we need to change the way we evaluate narratives. A method that keeps us focused on our goals and the relevant facts. We need rationality.

Rationality is the practice of forming beliefs through observation and logic. By anchoring ourselves to evidence and mathematical thinking, we can overcome the pull of narratives, and follow truth wherever it leads. Rational thinkers recognize that almost everything is more complicated than they know. They arrive at their beliefs by knowing their values, and assessing facts and possibilities to best act in accordance with those values. They keep their minds open to be changed by good counter-arguments, recognizing the difference between having a solid foundation for their beliefs and being stubborn.

I’m sure this came as no surprise. Of course we should be rational, not chase after what feels true. But knowing this in our heads and putting it into practice are very different things. It is human nature to believe ourselves much more rational than we really are. Rationality is a skill, requiring constant exercise. Our natural method of determining truth is our narrative senses, and unless we admit this about ourselves, it is likely we are not very rational at all.

I grew up believing the Earth was created six thousand years ago. I also believed myself to be rational. My mind changed a few years after I started college, and I became obsessed with the question, “Why do people believe things when there is clear and easily accessible evidence to the contrary?” You could say it has been one of the overarching themes of this blog. And now, I’ve found a narrative that just might be the answer: Rationality is not natural. The only reason anyone is rational is because they stumbled upon the rationality narrative, and it appealed to their narrative senses.

If you truly understand this, if comprehension sinks into your bones, then you see how profound the implications of this statement are. Narratives are everywhere, and their persuasive power does not necessarily have anything to do with how truthful or rational they are. Our views of the world are shaped by narratives about morality, human nature, religion, science, the nature of reality, the structure of society, justice, honor, history, and the list goes on and on. Many of these narratives use dirty tactics to appeal to our narrative senses and shield us from the rationality that would show us how hollow they are. Here are some to watch out for.

1. Trying to take control of the space of ideas allowed by language. Narratives do this by changing the meanings of words, making words taboo, or introducing new ideas in such a way as to feed the narrative. For instance, they might fiddle around with the definitions of “truth” and “rationality” to confuse people into believing the narrative is rational when it is not.

2. Pointing to individuals or groups as scapegoats. This is an effective tactic to redirect doubt and discomfort from the narrative. After all, if you’re convinced the immigrants, or the homosexuals, or the straight white men are the ones causing you problems, then you feel less need to question the narrative.

3. Treating faith in and loyalty to the narrative as virtues. If something doesn’t make sense, this kind of narrative would say, don’t worry, it’s still true; it’s just beyond your comprehension right now. This makes people feel small and insignificant, and it can be especially depressing when one believes everyone around them understands, and they are the only one who does not.

4. Using guilt and shame. Making people feel they are bad or worthless unless they espouse the views of the narrative and act in accordance with its rules. Double points if the rules are vague and contradictory.

5. Viewing interactions with people who disagree with the narrative as fights. This attitude stimulates our deep-seated light versus dark mentality, where the light is the Truth (i.e. the narrative) and the darkness is doubt, questioning, and the hearts of those who would lead you astray. Less dramatically, it manifests in the idea of using arguments to “defend your beliefs.” Discussions about beliefs should be had with an open mind and a desire to learn, not to further cement yourself into what you already believe.

6. Presenting themselves as the only alternative to another narrative which is clearly bogus. If you see the world as us versus them, and realize the “us” part has problems, the “them” starts to look pretty good. It’s the false dichotomy fallacy. If you look, you will find plenty of other narratives to choose from, and perhaps even forge your own.

Some people craft and perpetuate narratives like this for the sake of power. Others spread these narratives because they honestly believe them to be true. We find ourselves in a world full of narratives that have almost taken on a life of their own, competing with each other for dominance. Being pulled to and fro from every direction, it is so easy to get lost in the currents of narrative, forgetting our skepticism and rationality. Nevertheless, it is worth it to remain steadfast to yourself, even when the path of reason seems to disappear.

If you find your own way, forming your own narrative, observing the world around you and taking the rational and good parts from other narratives, then you will find a kind of confidence that cannot be found any other way. It won’t be a straight shot to the truth. In fact, you will constantly be making adjustments as new information comes in or you see connections or contradictions you missed before. But the goal is not to have the “right” view of things, it is to get ever closer to truth and wisdom. And having a solid structure you built yourself, which you keep crafting and tweaking and making more beautiful, is so much more satisfying than merely trusting in the stories you have been told.

Economics: Motivations and Incentives – Take 2

Economics:
The Purpose of the Economy
A Problem-Solving Mindset
Production and Distribution
Motivations and Incentives
Inequality

While reading over the past entries in the Economics series, I found the previous discussion of motivations and incentives was too narrow. So I decided to rewrite it, making it more general, and adding in a few more thought I’d had since then. I’m actually happy about backtracking like this, because the whole point of this series is to journal my economic views as I construct them, and things like this happen. So here we go, a new and improved version of Economics part 4.

In order for an economy to run, work must be done. Producing and distributing goods and services takes labor and organization. So naturally, the question arises, what motivates people to do these things?

The most common motivation for individuals throughout history, past and present, is the threat of poverty and starvation. You work, you get paid, you pay your bills. But given the opportunity, people will also work for other reasons. Some like the promise of wealth and moving up in the hierarchies of society. Others work because it provides joy and purpose to their lives. Still others have a strong sense of duty, and cannot rest unless they have given their fair share of effort toward supporting society. Others see problems in society, and their compassion moves them to help.

People also generally like to do what is right, especially if it is easy. For instance, if recycling means taking a load of trash in your car to a facility twenty miles away, not very many people will recycle. However, if there are conveniently-placed blue bins all over the place that somebody else takes care of, almost everybody will recycle.

Individual workers are not the primary drivers of the economy, though. The real economic power is in organizations: businesses, corporations, cooperatives, governments, fiefdoms, and plenty of others I haven’t thought of. Although these organizations are run by people, they can be treated as if they have their own motivations. It is an emergent phenomenon.

Like individuals, organizations have a diverse range of motivations. These could be to provide high-quality services, to solve problems for humanity, or to gain economic power (profit, in modern society). Here we find a feedback loop. If an organization makes it its goal to gain more economic power, it will become more powerful than organizations that value other things. Therefore, the organizations that have the most influence over the economy are naturally going to be the ones that prioritize accruing economic power.

This can lead to all kinds of practices that are not in alignment with the greater purpose of the economy, to provide people with what they need in order to pursue fulfilling lives. These organizations might form cartels, agreements between producers of a certain commodity to raise prices ridiculously high. They might buy out competing companies, becoming monopolies with total control over a market. They might leverage governmental influence in their favor, either through lobbying or direct political power. And they do whatever they can to raise prices and lower wages.

Organizations aiming to increase economic power can also cause collateral damage. Pollution, for instance. If it is more cost-effective to dump chemicals in the river than to properly dispose of them, such an organization is going to dump them in the river. Damage caused in this way might be temporary, or it might build up over long periods of time and cause serious damage later on. Even when it is best for all organizations in the economy collectively if they don’t cause collateral damage, it is often more advantageous for each individually to do so, no matter what the others do. In game theoretical terms, this is called a Prisoner’s Dilemma.

No matter what kind of economy we live in, we want to mitigate these negative effects of power-seeking organizations that inevitably rise to the top. Luckily, there are ways to do this. If a large number of people come together in a social movement and refuse to use a certain provider’s product or service, the organization will lose out unless they change their behavior. Workers can band together in unions to demand more reasonable wages and benefits. And the government can add incentives, like minimum wages, taxes, subsidies, regulations, and plenty of others.

It is important to note, however, that things are not black and white. It is not simply the good people versus the bad forces of the economy. Strong economies do a lot of good for humanity, and we want the Elon Musks of the world to be able to do their thing. The key is smart legislation. It is not enough to simply be “for people.” When coming up with policies, it is important to make decisions based on data and science, so we can be sure they will actually do the good we want them to do.