meaningful Martian microbes...maybe

IN THE i on Saturday I discovered (on Sunday; I am usually a day late reading the paper) a comment from Science Editor Steve Connor talking about our 'fascination with the Red Planet'.  Always interested in such things I proceeded to read on as he referred to the most recent discoveries implying the previous existence of running water on Mars, and the inference that if there is water, there could be life, or at least, there could have been, once upon a time.

So far, so good.  Still interested.  But my interest became irritation at this paragraph:

"A universe where life is so common [i.e. on both Earth and Mars, in whatever form the latter took] would presumably be governed by the same rules of Darwinian evolution that produced intelligent, conscious human beings on Earth.  Discovering even the simplest life form on Mars, therefore, would almost certainly mean the existence of advanced, intelligent aliens in other solar systems." - italics mine.

This made my eyebrows do a few things.  But I don't think the jump they made is as big as the jump he makes.  Almost certainly?  Even allowing for the 'almost', the 'certainly' was an eyebrow aggravator.
Now, I cannot tell you whether there is extra-terrestrial life out there, intelligent or not.  Alas, you'll be sad to hear I am not gifted by such knowledge.  I am not threatened by the prospect, but I understand that even if there were other intelligent life forms out there, the likelihood that the timing would be so in tune with our own development that we could actually be in contact is - well, teeny, to use a very scientific term.

I have a vague memory of reading something somewhere sometime (as ever, beautifully accurate in my references) that the proximity of Earth and Mars could reasonably mean that some kind of microbe exchange could have gone on in the early stages of its formation, with all the collisions that took place in our solar system...the ingredients for life, it could be assumed, may indeed have 'crossed over' between the two planets during the rocky and violent making of our solar system.  This being the case, any life found on Mars (and they've not found it yet) may not be as independent of Earth as we may think.  (That's a very convoluted summary of something I can't remember very well, so please don't take my word for it.)

If signs of life are discovered on Mars it will indeed be fascinating, but I'm not sure I will be able to say that this implies 'almost certainly' that there is intelligent life on other planets.  That is beyond my knowledge and, as I've said, such an inference is rather aggravating to my eyebrows.

Image source: NASA - definitely not me.

are we enslaved to our genes?

Sometimes it feels like some people think that our genes make up everything about us, that we cannot escape them and it is pointless to try.  I keep coming across things to do with this as part of my research – although I’m looking at how people think, learn and remember, I stray into behaviour and personality and get rather sidetracked by talk of genetics on occasion.

(I’m no scientist, but I’m more likely to pick up a copy of the New Scientist than I am Woman’s Weekly. I find the former fascinating…the latter less so.)

From what I’ve read it falls in line with my own muddled thoughts on the matter: that there is no nature versus nurture or one thing that determines us, rather our lives are chock full of influences and leanings – be they external or internal. 

In the words of Robin Barrow and Ronald Woods:

We are not determined by our genes; they are rather potentialities or tendencies that place limits on who we can become, but do not dictate specifics.¹

Yes, genes have power, but they are not all powerful.

In a magazine article looking at the relationship of genes to criminal punishment, Kevin Beaver says that

With criminal behaviour, or virtually any behaviour, genes are not fatalistic nor are they deterministic – they simply increase the odds of someone committing a criminal act.²

Long before we explored our genes we knew that we all had different problems, our own tendencies, our own weaknesses.  Does knowing there may be a genetic element to these mean that we should give up on ourselves?  Does knowing a possible reason mean we should not try and overcome it?  E.g. if, in a classic example, I have a tendency toward violent behaviour am I in someway not ‘responsible’ for what I do?  Do I have no power over myself at all?  Or, do I identify the things of tendency and potential within me and choose to nurture the good and overcome the harmful?

My genes influence, guide, attract.  But I refuse to accept them as my master.  Some would say I have little choice, but that is where we disagree the most.  I would say we always have choice.  Some choices will be harder than others.  But none the less, we have the capacity to make them, because I still believe we are more than the sum of our parts.

I should add that I mean this in a general sense.  I know that there are serious genetic conditions which do rob people of the power of choice, among other things. This is just rambling on a topic from a non expert who does not claim to be otherwise. 


¹ Robin Barrow and Ronald Woods, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, p23
² Kevin Beaver, Should your genes determine your punishment in court? BBC Focus Magazine, Issue 212, February 2010, p23 (again!)


Image from University of Sussex website