Can all life on earth be viewed as the expression of a single organism?

[MikeF]

Very cool idea. I think you could make a case for this based on the inherent dependency that some life has on other life. It depends on how large a system you want to look at.

Our cells have organelles called mitochondria which let us convert food into a form of chemical energy that is directly usable within cells. Mitochondria were almost certainly there own species of proto-bacteria that were taken up into eukaryotic cells far back in the evolutionary process. To this day, mitochondria still have their own DNA and replicate themselves independently within our cells. Without them, we'd die within the day.

Can you see ecosystems in a similar light? Bacteria that fix nitrogen gas in the soil are necessary for plants to grow. Plants are necessary for oxygen-dependent animal life to function. Prey animals will reproduce too quickly and decimate their habitats without predators to regulate their numbers.

You could analogize the entire earth as a sort of "cell" or "organism," which individual organisms making up the analogues to the "organelles" or "organs" that work in synchronicity to keep the whole going. I'd say the earth is a bit more robust and actually less interdependent than the organ systems of our body; it can evolve life and spring back even from mass-extinction events. Still, a neat analogy.

I think I see it less in terms of interdependency or of the earth as a cell. The earth I would clearly demarcate as environment separate from entity.

If 'Earth Life' or 'The Entity' began as a single cell with a prime directive to exist and survive, and to do so it employs the mechanisms of adaptation and reproduction, then all subsequent expressions of this original entity are still the entity. All past and current expressions are the uninterrupted continuation of its existence or survival. Some parts of the Entity may be interdependent as you describe, but all of the entity does not have to be. It all depends on what is required to adapt to different or changing environments, to be maximally resilient by exploiting any possible resource in any manner possible. All that matters is that any expression continue to exist, not any particular expression.

 

[MikeF]

Not particularly.

And you are most certainly not alone in that.

 

[Heyo]

The term, "When does life begin", is often used in discussion surrounding when to afford specific rights to human embryos or the human fetus. This came up for me in another thread.

In an off-the-cuff remark I stated that life began billions of years ago and life has been a continuum since that beginning. This thought made me ponder the following:

If all life is simply a continuum of this earliest beginning, is it appropriate to think of all life on earth the expression of a single organism or entity? If all variations of that entity are simply adaptive mechanisms to survive varied conditions and exploit any possible resource, can we view the variations as differentiated parts of the whole, much like our different organs are manifestations of the whole? Can we zoom out above the planet and view all life as the same expression of a single organism as it oozes and spreads over the planet?

Curious if others think such a concept is useful, or have strong feelings as to why all life should not be considered the expression of a single entity.

"Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• noun Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit." - entity - definition and meaning

Life, as @exchemist pointed out, is exactly not that, "a particular and discrete unit". It is a property, as he put it, or a concept. It is expressed in many discrete units, but not a unit itself.

 

[rational experiences]

Thinking. A human trait.

Exploration of anything a human choice.

Theorising never necessary is just egotism for and about human group status in reality.

As it is all just talk. Your talking does not change natural presence in presence. Your machine design controlled by humans however did. Made you feel personally powerful.

Medical looked at microscopic to reason how it changed health. Which was removal.

Thinking about microscopic not for medical is also about removal.of the whole. In the thinking pretence I am the creator. Why he is inferred O as the maths science human applied status.

You have to live as a human to apply science calculations. Natural never calculated itself into being.

Why about 2000 years ago science in human law was contemplated to outlaw by human law sciences rulings used to attack life. Rationally.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The term, "When does life begin", is often used in discussion surrounding when to afford specific rights to human embryos or the human fetus. This came up for me in another thread.

In an off-the-cuff remark I stated that life began billions of years ago and life has been a continuum since that beginning. This thought made me ponder the following:

If all life is simply a continuum of this earliest beginning, is it appropriate to think of all life on earth the expression of a single organism or entity? If all variations of that entity are simply adaptive mechanisms to survive varied conditions and exploit any possible resource, can we view the variations as differentiated parts of the whole, much like our different organs are manifestations of the whole? Can we zoom out above the planet and view all life as the same expression of a single organism as it oozes and spreads over the planet?

Curious if others think such a concept is useful, or have strong feelings as to why all life should not be considered the expression of a single entity.

Maybe it is.

 

[MikeF]

"Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
noun Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit." - entity - definition and meaning
Life, as @exchemist pointed out, is exactly not that, "a particular and discrete unit". It is a property, as he put it, or a concept. It is expressed in many discrete units, but not a unit itself.

I am by no means wedded to this idea, but am willing to fully exercise the concept.

As with all labels, they can be used in a variety of ways to express a variety of meanings. Certainly I agree that the term 'life' can refer to a property, not a thing. If we use the phrase "all life on earth" we are not talking about a property however, but a collection of things that share a property. And maybe entity should be replaced with organism.

If we take a human being, I think we might all agree that a human could be considered an entity. And yet, as @AlexanderG referenced, it is felt that mitochondria were their own species of proto-bacteria that were taken up into eukaryotic cells. Additionally we harbor all manner of bacteria that we symbiotically require for healthy function. Yet the entity human is made up of this combination of entities. And again, slime molds can live as discrete single-celled organisms or aggregate into multicellular reproductive bodies. I think we often find it useful to consider systems that have independent parts yet all work toward a common objective as being part of the same thing, say ant colony or beehive.

Is it possible to consider all single-cell and multi-cell organisms on earth differentiated parts of a multi-part organism. All the result of an uninterrupted continuation and expression of the original organism with the directive to exist, to survive.

 

[rational experiences]

Maybe it is.

If a theist says concepts of non existence is my priority.

You have to question why. When multi single one cells do exist plus whole diverse by billions whole forms seen in the state of seen.

I look at a scientist as a human. Why do you think about my life not existing as just a human by pretending it less than what I live as?

A question you never answer.

Why do you think a book written by humans in genetic science said humans tried to eradicate us by a one only theory.

As if one was everything?

Irrational preaching.

The teaching one said science knew all one base forms were self present and Idealised as one each separate form. Elements.

Everything living was its owned one base Multi billions of living bodies not named as separate elements. As they were not intended to be changed by a human scientist.

The same type of thinker today however lying to gain identification to remove origin life forms is making the same claim. I never named bio life as base one were elements.

Proving your mind is one destructive memory worse than before.

As you are studying every status as separate and not whole life forms.

 

[WalterTrull]

We corroborate our experience with the observations of others.

Kinda cool dontcha think? Must be some sort of centralized observer. Wonder what you'd call that.

 

[MikeF]

Kinda cool dontcha think? Must be some sort of centralized observer. Wonder what you'd call that.

Wouldn't it be the opposite of centralized? Plus it is a plurality of observers, not a singular observer.

 

[We Never Know]

Certainly, the word 'life' can be used in a variety of ways and so your points are taken.

However, if we consider the process of evolution and instead of using the label 'life', we try and specify a specific thing and label it 'Earth Life', life as expressed on the closed system of the planet Earth, would the idea stand up when framed in this manner?

The earth may be a closed system but with every system on/in the earth, energy and matter can be transferred making them all open systems.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I’m only curious as to why you make the distinction between entity and environment. If all life and all living things are part of one entity, then why can’t all entities, organic and otherwise, be part of one physical system?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Wouldn't it be the opposite of centralized? Plus it is a plurality of observers, not a singular observer.

If the closest we can get to objectivity is a sort of collective intersubjectivity, doesn’t it follow that there at least might also be a complete consciousness, a unitary function of all living things, which is capable of objectivity?

 

[Heyo]

And maybe entity should be replaced with organism.

I'd be OK with organism. Hives and colonies have been called an organism.

Is it possible to consider all single-cell and multi-cell organisms on earth differentiated parts of a multi-part organism. All the result of an uninterrupted continuation and expression of the original organism with the directive to exist, to survive.

There are already words for some sets of living things, when you add the non-living things that interact with life (e.g. the carbon and nitrogen cycles) you have a biosphere. All life (and former life) of category X has been called the biomass.

 

[ChristineM]

I would certainly agree with this. However, we often find it useful to not only acknowledge individuals, but to recognize groups of individuals being a distinct thing greater than their parts. Examples might be an ant colony or slime mold. Slime molds can live as distinct entities yet aggregate to form multicellular reproductive structures. Even we human beings require a symbiotic relationship with other organisms that live within us.

Because groups act together does not make them a single organism.

 

[MikeF]

If the closest we can get to objectivity is a sort of collective intersubjectivity, doesn’t it follow that there at least might also be a complete consciousness, a unitary function of all living things, which is capable of objectivity?

For me, I don't see any evidence of that. Intersubjectivity requires the observations of one to be communicated to others. I don't see that all life in interconnected mentally or networked in some way. Absent an always-on networking of minds, I do not see how there could be a unitary consciousness.

 

[MikeF]

Because groups act together does not make them a single organism.

I imagine it all depends on how we want to categorize things.

Whether we use the word organism or some other word, we can recognize the interdependency of certain social species. Members of a colony or hive are not autonomous and discretely independent as a single-celled organism that reproduces asexually. The hive does not work, cannot exist, without its specialized members being present. It only works as a whole.

 

[MikeF]

I’m only curious as to why you make the distinction between entity and environment. If all life and all living things are part of one entity, then why can’t all entities, organic and otherwise, be part of one physical system?

We human being categorize things to help us organize and use information effectively and efficiently. But we can create categories with different criteria and a 'thing' can be a member of more than one category and category sets can overlap.

It is certainly useful to consider things a systems as you describe. We can consider the whole earth a system, or only focus on the oceans, or only on land, or only on arid land etc.

One of the properties that I am trying to highlight about this thing 'Earth Life' that started billions of years ago, is that one of its characteristic is the ability to adapt itself to multiple environments to gain resources. Additionally, the whole environmental system of the planet is not static. It is constantly changing (think movement of the tectonic plates). That the earth is not static emphasizes the importance of this characteristic of adaptability, and for this discussion why I focus on this thing 'Earth Life' separate from the inanimate physical system in which it is contained.

 

[MikeF]

I'd be OK with organism. Hives and colonies have been called an organism.

There are already words for some sets of living things, when you add the non-living things that interact with life (e.g. the carbon and nitrogen cycles) you have a biosphere. All life (and former life) of category X has been called the biomass.

I find it interesting or worth consideration that the biomass has been continuously alive for billions of years. That the biomass as it is today is the current expression of some original 'thing' that had the prime directive to survive and it did so through adaptation and reproduction.

 

[WalterTrull]

Because groups act together does not make them a single organism.

Ya know... I can't fathom how separate entities can even be aware of each other, let alone act together or form groups.

 

[ChristineM]

Ya know... I can't fathom how separate entities can even be aware of each other, let alone act together or form groups.

It's all to do with pointing,
The pointer says 'You do that, and you do that'
Soon it becomes natural to just do it.

Your post also should have had a like, if we were in a group i could have instructed someone else to like it. But as an individual if afraid i can only give a post one frube...