6 ms·

My fave theory for the origin of life is that the porous spaces in the material around the vents were full of pockets which functioned as different cells in whi

My fave theory for the origin of life is that the porous spaces in the material around the vents were full of pockets which functioned as different cells in which sets of molecules would interact. Groups of molecules that cooperated to form a successful self-replicating metabolism that excluded freeloaders would then colonise neighbouring pockets. But free loader molecules that could infiltrate a metabolism and contribute nothing, but use it only for their own self-replication would also thrive. according to this theory the evolution of metabolism precedes the development of the cell membrane, the cell membrane might have begun as incomplete barrier to reduce loss and entry to neighbouring pockets and evolved over time to become a complete barrier that eventually removed the dependency on a vent-rock-pocket. What I love about this theory is that it sets up the contest between co-operation (cells) and infiltration (viruses) as strategies for life right from the get go.

codybontecou 3y ago
This is fascinating. I always joke to friends that earth is alive, just slow moving. "Is a rock that gets stuck in your shoe just trying to travel?" Does this theory have a name or a place I can ready more about it?
- haswell 3y ago
  I think it was Alan Watts who described what earth might look like to an observer with a different perspective. “Look at that; this planet is peopling”. His point being that we are all emerging phenomena intrinsically linked to the unfolding processes of earth and the cosmos more broadly, and that our existence is a manifestation of the universe unfolding. For whatever progress science makes, there’s this underlying primordial quality that often gets lost in the academic conceptual descriptions and labels assigned to this phenomena. I think it’s fair to say earth is alive with a completely straight face, and it’s probably even important for more people to start seeing it this way.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    I love this perspective but think it needs to be taken all the way. Are you comfortable saying corporations are alive? Stars? The universe? Once that floodgate of 'aliveness' is open, I don't see that it stops flowing, up and down. And it's and even smaller step to 'everything is conscious'...
  - firecall 3y ago
    Indeed, and Alan Watts’ further point was that we come out of this world, not into it. In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and that our mind, body and soul are seperate entities. Whereas other cultures and philosophies consider that we are part of the world, that we are born out of it but still connected. The speeches for Watts are really about the increasingly unhealthy abstraction from this planet that is shaping our thinking. Ideas that we can and should live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat are just bonkers really. I’m all for science and advancement, but being restoring our connection to this planet is the answer. :-)
    - jschveibinz 3y ago
      You had me until that last paragraph went off the rails. …live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat… Not sure what your train of thought was there.
      - firecall 3y ago
        LOL - no, a bit random. I was typing on my phone and running out of time. Broadly, it was a half baked thought that our Western culture heavily promotes ideas that are anti-Earth in a way. Ideas for instance where Elon Musk is talking about saving humanity by getting to Mars, or creating artificial meat as a solution to our food crises. These ideas suggest that the solution is to engineer our way out of a problem of our own making. The problem rhetoric being that Earth cannot support us. This runs counter to the thinking that we are bound to this Earth because we are part of it. We are one and the same. So we should respect it and work with it. Watts talks about seeing the Californian hills in the 60s, being carved up and houses being wedged in to the landscape in an artificial way. Where no consideration is given to working with the land, instead we try to dominate and shape it. Like I say, it's a half baked idea that I'm not really expressing very well I don't think! :-) I'd love others to straighten me out, or put me on the right path! :-) I did laugh a while back when in one of Watts' talks he mentioned Plastics being the solution to Deforestation and Paper Wastage... Engineering a solution to deforestation using plastics didn't work out so well for us. Fast forward 50 years and it turns out that Humans just began using more of everything! Like building roads to reduce traffic and you end up just promoting more car usage! :-)
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
  Hylozoism [0] and panpsychism [1] might be fun rabbit holes for that kind of thinking. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
- mreid 3y ago
  "It is well known that stone can think, because the whole of electronics is based on that fact, but in some universes men spend ages looking for other intelligences in the sky without once looking under their feet. That is because they've got the time-span all wrong. From stone's point of view the universe is hardly created and mountain ranges are bouncing up and down like organ-stops while continents zip backward and forward in general high spirits, crashing into each other from the sheer joy of momentum and getting their rocks off. It is going to be quite some time before stone notices its disfiguring little skin disease and starts to scratch, which is just as well." -- Terry Pratchett, "Equal Rites"
  - jareklupinski 3y ago
    going in the other direction... wonder what life would look like to one of the purple sparks formed @7:54 https://youtu.be/dqNQ6KS0mjg?t=476 https://youtu.be/dqNQ6KS0mjg?t=476
- yojo 3y ago
  Maybe not exactly what you’re looking for, but the Gaia hypothesis is the theory that the inorganic and organic parts of the Earth influence each other such that you might describe the convoluted system as “alive.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
Jedd 3y ago
If you haven't already read it, then I can highly recommend Nick Lane's 'Transformer - The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death', which goes into deep detail on this hypothesis. He's touched on this in a couple of his earlier books, I think The Vital Question and one other, but in general all his works are relatively easy to read, and worth the effort.
- monkeycantype 3y ago
  i haven't read it, but soon will thank you. (thumbs up emoji)
- Insanity 3y ago
  Haven't read "Transfomer..", but I did read "the vital question" earlier this year. I thought it was a good book and it does indeed touch on this, plus it was relatively easy to read for someone without too much context like me.
- 725686 3y ago
  Nick Lane's Power Sex & Suicide, and The Vital Question are excellent and relatively easy for anyone. Transformer is much more difficult and dense. There are also some excellent talks in yt.
- HPsquared 3y ago
  Thanks for the reference, I didn't know he had a more thorough book on this. I remember reading "Life Ascending" and being amazed at the descriptions of the hydrothermal vents.
intimidated 3y ago
Great, insightful reply. Thank you. > But free loader molecules that could infiltrate a metabolism and contribute nothing, but use it only for their own self-replication would also thrive. Could you please explain the "mechanical" distinction between molecules that contribute to self-replication and molecules that contribute nothing during replication? What does it mean to contribute?
- monkeycantype 3y ago
  somewhere on the internet are some videos in which an italian scientist describes what he means by a system. I think that's probably enough to google. So if you're willing to accept that sometimes we are able to recognise a phenomenon that fits our definition of a category, even though we are not capable of explicitly defining that category, then we could say that a cell fits out intuitive definition of a system, even though I think despite being employed as system achitect, I'm not sure I could tell you what a system is. I like the attempts at definitions of living systems that discuss phenomenon that enable the persistence of information that are robust against the entropy. Anywhy on to my attempt at answering your question: If we could identify a set of molecules in the pores of vent rock back in the early pre-biotic earth, each with a distinct catalytic function, that were the using energy available, perhaps as electric charge, perhaps chemical energy and interacting to replicate that same set of molecules in neighbouring pores, then we could look at the actions of each molecule, and determine how each molecule participates in the chemical processes that result in the replication of the whole set of molecules. If a molecule is mutually dependent on on other molecules in the set for their mutual replication, I think we can call them a contributing part of the system. If a molecule depends on the other molecules to be replicated, but the replication of no other molecule is improved from its presence in the set, then it is not a contributing part of the system, but a freeloader. I think this sets up two maximal strategies: A system is most efficient if it has no freeloaders. A molecule is most efficient if it can freeload.
mjan22640 3y ago
Life on Earth is essentially pumping electric charges to create a potential and then discharging it to drive its processes. The outside of the cell is charged positively with hydrogen ions, the inside is negative. The membrane is an insulator. The chemistry of the vents on early Earth where life emerged acted like a battery and had an electric gradient on which the life fed. A membrane has competitive advantages like storing more charge for immediate disposal than what is naturally available, ability to charge to a higher potential difference than what is naturally available and drive processes that would not be possible without it, and crucially an ability to survive outside of the vent.
androidbishop 3y ago
Read "The Romance of Reality" by Bobby Azarian. It starts there and expands to cosmic levels.

codybontecou 3y ago

This is fascinating. I always joke to friends that earth is alive, just slow moving. "Is a rock that gets stuck in your shoe just trying to travel?" Does this theory have a name or a place I can ready more about it?

haswell 3y ago
I think it was Alan Watts who described what earth might look like to an observer with a different perspective. “Look at that; this planet is peopling”. His point being that we are all emerging phenomena intrinsically linked to the unfolding processes of earth and the cosmos more broadly, and that our existence is a manifestation of the universe unfolding. For whatever progress science makes, there’s this underlying primordial quality that often gets lost in the academic conceptual descriptions and labels assigned to this phenomena. I think it’s fair to say earth is alive with a completely straight face, and it’s probably even important for more people to start seeing it this way.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  I love this perspective but think it needs to be taken all the way. Are you comfortable saying corporations are alive? Stars? The universe? Once that floodgate of 'aliveness' is open, I don't see that it stops flowing, up and down. And it's and even smaller step to 'everything is conscious'...
- firecall 3y ago
  Indeed, and Alan Watts’ further point was that we come out of this world, not into it. In modern western societies we learn that we born into this world, and that our mind, body and soul are seperate entities. Whereas other cultures and philosophies consider that we are part of the world, that we are born out of it but still connected. The speeches for Watts are really about the increasingly unhealthy abstraction from this planet that is shaping our thinking. Ideas that we can and should live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat are just bonkers really. I’m all for science and advancement, but being restoring our connection to this planet is the answer. :-)
  - jschveibinz 3y ago
    You had me until that last paragraph went off the rails. …live on Mars or grow and eat artificial meat… Not sure what your train of thought was there.
    - firecall 3y ago
      LOL - no, a bit random. I was typing on my phone and running out of time. Broadly, it was a half baked thought that our Western culture heavily promotes ideas that are anti-Earth in a way. Ideas for instance where Elon Musk is talking about saving humanity by getting to Mars, or creating artificial meat as a solution to our food crises. These ideas suggest that the solution is to engineer our way out of a problem of our own making. The problem rhetoric being that Earth cannot support us. This runs counter to the thinking that we are bound to this Earth because we are part of it. We are one and the same. So we should respect it and work with it. Watts talks about seeing the Californian hills in the 60s, being carved up and houses being wedged in to the landscape in an artificial way. Where no consideration is given to working with the land, instead we try to dominate and shape it. Like I say, it's a half baked idea that I'm not really expressing very well I don't think! :-) I'd love others to straighten me out, or put me on the right path! :-) I did laugh a while back when in one of Watts' talks he mentioned Plastics being the solution to Deforestation and Paper Wastage... Engineering a solution to deforestation using plastics didn't work out so well for us. Fast forward 50 years and it turns out that Humans just began using more of everything! Like building roads to reduce traffic and you end up just promoting more car usage! :-)
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
Hylozoism [0] and panpsychism [1] might be fun rabbit holes for that kind of thinking. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
mreid 3y ago
"It is well known that stone can think, because the whole of electronics is based on that fact, but in some universes men spend ages looking for other intelligences in the sky without once looking under their feet. That is because they've got the time-span all wrong. From stone's point of view the universe is hardly created and mountain ranges are bouncing up and down like organ-stops while continents zip backward and forward in general high spirits, crashing into each other from the sheer joy of momentum and getting their rocks off. It is going to be quite some time before stone notices its disfiguring little skin disease and starts to scratch, which is just as well." -- Terry Pratchett, "Equal Rites"
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  going in the other direction... wonder what life would look like to one of the purple sparks formed @7:54 https://youtu.be/dqNQ6KS0mjg?t=476 https://youtu.be/dqNQ6KS0mjg?t=476
yojo 3y ago
Maybe not exactly what you’re looking for, but the Gaia hypothesis is the theory that the inorganic and organic parts of the Earth influence each other such that you might describe the convoluted system as “alive.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Jedd 3y ago

If you haven't already read it, then I can highly recommend Nick Lane's 'Transformer - The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death', which goes into deep detail on this hypothesis. He's touched on this in a couple of his earlier books, I think The Vital Question and one other, but in general all his works are relatively easy to read, and worth the effort.

monkeycantype 3y ago
i haven't read it, but soon will thank you. (thumbs up emoji)
Insanity 3y ago
Haven't read "Transfomer..", but I did read "the vital question" earlier this year. I thought it was a good book and it does indeed touch on this, plus it was relatively easy to read for someone without too much context like me.
725686 3y ago
Nick Lane's Power Sex & Suicide, and The Vital Question are excellent and relatively easy for anyone. Transformer is much more difficult and dense. There are also some excellent talks in yt.
HPsquared 3y ago
Thanks for the reference, I didn't know he had a more thorough book on this. I remember reading "Life Ascending" and being amazed at the descriptions of the hydrothermal vents.

intimidated 3y ago

Great, insightful reply. Thank you. > But free loader molecules that could infiltrate a metabolism and contribute nothing, but use it only for their own self-replication would also thrive. Could you please explain the "mechanical" distinction between molecules that contribute to self-replication and molecules that contribute nothing during replication? What does it mean to contribute?

monkeycantype 3y ago
somewhere on the internet are some videos in which an italian scientist describes what he means by a system. I think that's probably enough to google. So if you're willing to accept that sometimes we are able to recognise a phenomenon that fits our definition of a category, even though we are not capable of explicitly defining that category, then we could say that a cell fits out intuitive definition of a system, even though I think despite being employed as system achitect, I'm not sure I could tell you what a system is. I like the attempts at definitions of living systems that discuss phenomenon that enable the persistence of information that are robust against the entropy. Anywhy on to my attempt at answering your question: If we could identify a set of molecules in the pores of vent rock back in the early pre-biotic earth, each with a distinct catalytic function, that were the using energy available, perhaps as electric charge, perhaps chemical energy and interacting to replicate that same set of molecules in neighbouring pores, then we could look at the actions of each molecule, and determine how each molecule participates in the chemical processes that result in the replication of the whole set of molecules. If a molecule is mutually dependent on on other molecules in the set for their mutual replication, I think we can call them a contributing part of the system. If a molecule depends on the other molecules to be replicated, but the replication of no other molecule is improved from its presence in the set, then it is not a contributing part of the system, but a freeloader. I think this sets up two maximal strategies: A system is most efficient if it has no freeloaders. A molecule is most efficient if it can freeload.

mjan22640 3y ago

Life on Earth is essentially pumping electric charges to create a potential and then discharging it to drive its processes. The outside of the cell is charged positively with hydrogen ions, the inside is negative. The membrane is an insulator. The chemistry of the vents on early Earth where life emerged acted like a battery and had an electric gradient on which the life fed. A membrane has competitive advantages like storing more charge for immediate disposal than what is naturally available, ability to charge to a higher potential difference than what is naturally available and drive processes that would not be possible without it, and crucially an ability to survive outside of the vent.

androidbishop 3y ago

Read "The Romance of Reality" by Bobby Azarian. It starts there and expands to cosmic levels.