Friday, February 27, 2015

From Trilobites to Whales: Getting Bigger

Those trilobites were huge: in the Cambrian. These days, foot-long critters are common, and not particularly big.

Scientists thought related species of animals generally got bigger as they evolved: now a team has evidence to back up that assumption. We still don't know why critters usually get bigger, though.

That, and seven "croc" species sharing the same turf in the Amazon Basin — before the Amazon was there — is what I picked for this week's post:
  1. Diverse "Crocs" of Yesterday's Amazon Basin
  2. Cope's Rule: Bigger May be Better

"Greater Admiration"


I think the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old; Earth isn't flat; Adam and Eve weren't German; poetry isn't science; and thinking is not a sin. (November 21, 2014)

I've been over this before — a lot.

The universe is a place of order and beauty. It isn't perfect, yet: but that's the direction it's going. It's being created by God: constantly upheld and sustained, in a "state of journeying" toward an ultimate perfection. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 32, 302)

We're human, created in the image of God. We can, using reason, see God's work in the universe. Studying this world is okay. (Catechism, 35-36, 282-289, 301, 303-306, 311, 341, 1704)

Thinking is not a sin. We're expected to use our brains: wisely. Science and technology, learning about the universe and using that knowledge to develop new tools, is part of being human. (Wisdom 7:17; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 307, 1730, 2292-2295, 2415-2418)

Around the mid-19th century, some folks said that because the universe operates by rational, knowable, laws: a rational, orderly Creator can't exist. That oversimplifies the situation, of course.

Some Christians agreed: loudly. We've been dealing with fallout from that craziness ever since.

We've learned quite a bit since the 1860s. Some folks see humanity's expanding knowledge as opportunities for greater admiration of God's greatness. (Catechism, 283)

Others, not so much.

To this day, a remarkable number of folks — including some Christians — are convinced that Christianity is against science and that science threatens our faith.

Then there was Pope Pius VII, who said vaccination was "a precious discovery which ought to be a new motive for human gratitude to Omnipotence." And that's another topic. (February 12, 2014

1. Diverse "Crocs" of Yesterday's Amazon Basin



(From Kevn Montalan-Rivera, the American Museum of Natural History in New York; via Reuters, used w/o permission.)
("A model of a life reconstruction of the head of Gnatusuchus pebasensis, a 13-million-year-old, short-faced crocodile with globular teeth that was thought to use its snout to 'shovel' mud bottoms, digging for clams and other mollusks is shown in this undated handout photo provided by the American Museum of Natural History in New York February 23, 2015. Model by Kevn Montalan-Rivera."
(Reuters))
"Chockablock with crocs: Seven species rocked ancient Amazon basin"
Will Dunham, Reuters (February 14, 2015)

"If one croc is reason enough to stay out of the water, how about dipping your toes in a place with seven different croc species including two 26-foot (8-meter) monsters, all living side by side eating just about anything that moves?

"That is what life was like in the lush Peruvian Amazon basin 13 million years ago. It featured Earth's all-time croc bloc: the most crocodilian species dwelling in the same place and time in our planet's history, scientists said on Tuesday.

"The scientists unearthed the croc remains in two small fossil bone beds near the northeastern Peruvian city of Iquitos.

"One of the strangest was Gnatusuchus pebasensis, a 5-foot (1.6-meter) caiman with a shellfish fondness. Its shovel-like snout let it bury its head in muddy wetland bottoms and root around for prey. Its bulbous teeth were perfect for crushing shells of mollusks like clams.

" 'This highly specialized anatomy and lifestyle was previously unknown in any other crocodile,' said paleontologist John Flynn of New York's American Museum of Natural History.

"The discoveries are helping scientists better understand both the origins of modern Amazonian biodiversity and the ancient assortment of life before the Amazon River formed 10.5 million years ago. The region 13 million years ago boasted immense wetlands abounding with lakes, swamps and rivers...."
The "crocs" in this article are, or were, crocodilians: big, predatory, semiaquatic reptiles. The earliest models we know of showed up about 83,500,000 years ago. Today's crocodilians are alligators and alligator-like caimans, crocodiles, and gharials.

From a distance, Earth looked pretty much like it does today, back in the Miocene, when these "crocs" lived. The Florida peninsula was under water, and Northern Italy and Turkey were at opposite ends of an island.

The Andes had been around since before something dreadful happened to dinosaurs, but the land bridge between North and South America wasn't here yet.

Earth's climate was nice and warm, but it wasn't our fault. We wouldn't show up until the current ice age started, about 2,500,000 years back. (February 20, 2015; July 11, 2014)

Then, as now, quite a bit of the Amazon basin was under water or distinctly damp: and, as Mr. Dunham's article says, home to seven species of "crocs."

The biggest one there, 13,000,000 years back, was a Purussaurus. Eventually, Purussaurs became the biggest crocodilians ever. That we know of, anyway.

The Amazon, Antarctica, and the Drake Passage: There's More to Learn


Come to think of it, the Amazon Basin wasn't here yet, not quite. South America and Antarctica had parted ways when the Drake Passage opened.

Right around that time, the Isthmus of Panama separated the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans — indirectly starting the ice age we're in — or have just left. (February 20, 2015)

A river once ran from the Purus Arch to the Pacific, before the Andes started growing — but there's nothing left of a lake formed when that river's water backed up, where the Solimões River basin is now.

Compared to the Finke, Kanawha, and Rhine Rivers, the Amazon is a young whippersnapper. It didn't form until a few million years later. No, wait, that's not quite right.

Time was when what we call the Congo river was a lot longer, and included a channel that's now occupied by the Amazon.

I seem to have become fond of the word "whippersnapper," and that's yet another topic.

A few years ago, some scientists found evidence that pegged the Amazon's formation as a continuous, and independent, river at somewhere between 11,800,000 million 11,300,000 years back, taking its present shape about 2.4 million years ago.

Maybe Will Dunham's article got information from a more recent study. Like I've said before, we've learned a lot: and discovered that there's much more to learn.

More about rivers and lakes that aren't there any more:

Sharing Turf, Not Food


Apparently the seven crocodilian species could live in the same territory, because the area "...because they shared an elaborate environment with plenty of food and were not all chasing the same prey...." (Will Dunham, Reuters)

It's sort of like Darwin's finches: which aren't quite finches, it turns out. Anyway, it looks like these birds branched out into 15 different species — each specialized for eating one sort of food.

Gnatusuchus pebasensis is another newly-named critter mentioned in Will Dunham's article. It's a caiman, one of the pseudosuchia — or "false crocodiles" — and featured in the article's photo.

Speaking of birds, those critters — plus alligators, caimans, crocodiles, and gharials — are the only surviving archosaurs. (January 30, 2015)

2. Cope's Rule: Bigger May be Better



(From Frans Lanting/SPL, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Whales and other modern sea animals tend to be much larger than Cambrian sea creatures"
(BBC News))
"Evolution 'favours bigger sea creatures' "
Jonathan Webb, BBC News (February 19, 2015)

"The animals in the ocean have been getting bigger, on average, since the Cambrian period - and not by chance.

"That is the finding of a huge new survey of marine life past and present, published in the journal Science.

"It describes a pattern of increasing body size that cannot be explained by random 'drift', but suggests bigger animals generally fare better at sea.

"In the past 542 million years, the average size of a marine animal has gone up by a factor of 150.

"It appears that the explosion of different life forms near the start of that time window eventually skewed decisively towards bulkier animals.

"Measured by volume, today's tiniest sea critter is less than 10 times smaller than its Cambrian counterpart; both are minuscule, sub-millimetre crustaceans. But at the other end of the scale, the mighty blue whale is more than 100,000 times the size of the largest animal the Cambrian could offer: a trilobite less than half a metre long.

"It appears that the explosion of different life forms near the start of that time window eventually skewed decisively towards bulkier animals...."

The phrase "cannot be explained by random 'drift' " in that article jumped out at me. I rambled on about randomness, faith, and getting a grip, last month. (January 30, 2015)

Jonathan Webb's article explains that today's smallest sea critter is less than 10 times smaller than it's Cambrian counterpart. They're both submillimeter crustaceans: really tiny things. The biggest living animal, the blue whale, is more than 100,000 times the biggest Cambrian critter: a trilobite that was a third of a meter long.

Big and small, then and now:
  • Smallest
    • Cambrian genus: Zhenpingella (crustacean), 0.6 millimeters
    • Modern genus: Luvula (seed shrimp), 0.3 millimeters
  • Largest
    • Cambrian genus: Dikelocephalus (trilobite - pictured), 32 centimeters
    • Modern genus: Balaenoptera (whale), 30 meters
      (BBC News)

A Mustache, a Beard, the Bone Wars, and Critters


Edward Drinker Cope, a 19th-century paleontologist with an impressive mustache, never actually stated Cope's rule, but Charles Depéret did, which is why why it's also called the Cope-Depéret rule.

Mr. Cope, who didn't have much formal scientific training, and Othniel Charles Marsh, who did, were rivals in the Bone Wars.

That's the "Great Dinosaur Rush," not the First and Second war between the Netherlands and the Bone sultanate of Sulawesi.

Sulawesi is what used to be called Celebes, not to be confused with Max Ernst's The Elephant Celebes.

Theodor Eimer; who had a beard, had said pretty much the same thing about critters getting bigger before either Cope or Depéret did. These days, he's chiefly known for "Eimer's organs," something moles have — and having Eimeria, a genus of parasitic protozoa, named after him.

I'm forgetting something. Give me a minute. Drinker, beards, paleontology. Got it.

Cope's rule, or the Cope-Depéret rule, or what Theodor Eimer said, is that as critters evolve, they tend to get bigger. Or, for folks who like sophisticated erudition, Cope's rule "postulates that population lineages tend to increase in body size over evolutionary time." (Wikipedia)

Not all animals get bigger. One branch of archosaurs kept getting smaller over a span of about 50,000,000 years, sprouted wings, and survived whatever happened some 66,000,000 years back. (August 8, 2014)

Most critters seem to get bigger, though. Assuming that's true, and backing up the assumption with evidence, aren't the same thing. That's why Stanford University's Dr Noel Heim tested Cope's rule: with the help of professors, undergraduates, and high school interns.

They pulled together information about over 17,000 genera — groups of species. They eventually had data about more than 60% of all animal genera that ever lived.

Sometimes a group of critters got smaller as they evolved, like birds. Most kept getting bigger, though. Branches of the family tree where the critters were bigger generally divided: a lot. By now, Earth's ocean has a great many big animals.

Big Critters



(From Jaime Chirinos/SPL, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("Breathing air helped marine reptiles to maintain their extra body size"
(BBC News))
"...The team also wanted to work out whether this bigness bias was really driven by evolutionary advantage, or was simply a matter of chance.

"To this end, they put their size data from the oldest animals into a computer model and ran multiple simulations of how the family tree might evolve. Each species could die out, stay the same, or get bigger or smaller.

"In some simulations, the scientists allowed the animals' size to drift randomly without affecting each species' success; in others, they tweaked the rules so that bigger animals were more likely to survive and flourish.

"The version that best matched the real fossil history was one with a genuine size advantage.

" 'The degrees of increase in both mean and maximum body size just aren't well explained by neutral drift,' said Dr Heim. 'It appears that you actually need some active evolutionary process that promotes larger sizes.'

"As for what those benefits of extra bulk might be, the researchers cannot be sure - but larger species likely took advantage of being able to move faster, burrow better in sediment, or eat larger prey.

"The changing chemistry of the ocean, including an increase in oxygen, may also have played a role, Dr Heim suggested...."
(Jonathan Webb, BBC News))
Dr. Heim says that "degrees of increase in both mean and maximum body size just aren't well explained by neutral drift." (Jonathan Webb, BBC News))

In other words, the pattern of animal genera getting bigger, the longer they're around, isn't random.

This is a step forward, from simply noticing that animals get bigger: but scientists still aren't sure why they get bigger.

Maybe it's because big animals can move faster, eat bigger prey, or dig in faster, than their smaller counterparts. Or maybe something else is going on: like more oxygen being around these days.

Air-breathing animals get a lot bigger when they return to the ocean: like shonisaurs, mosasaurs, and whales.

Finally, a Fish Story


Geologists from Mount Holyoke College, Mark McMenamin and Dianna Schulte McMenamin, suggested that an odd pattern of shonisaur bones was the self-portrait of a squid-like animal they dubbed a Triassic kraken.

There's no evidence of the Triassic cephalopod artist, apart from the Holyoke College scientists' imaginative explanation tale: but some scientists though the platypus was a hoax, when they first heard of that unlikely animal.

I can't say that I blame them. An egg-laying, beaver-tailed, duck-billed animal with feet like an otter's — and venomous spurs — must have seemed unlikely, back around 1800.

My opinion about the Triassic kraken is that it makes a good story, and might have actually existed. I also think Brian Switek, quoted on the Shonisaurus Wikipedia page, made a good point:
"The Giant, Prehistoric Squid That Ate Common Sense"
Brian Switek, Wired Science Blogs (October 10, 2011)

"...Whether you think the 'kraken' story should have been reported or ignored due to lack of evidence, the fact remains that journalists should have actually done their jobs rather than act as facilitators of hype. You don't have to be a paleontologist to realize that there’s something fishy about claims that there was a giant, ichthyosaur-crunching squid when there is no body to be seen...."
And yes, I know that tales of the kraken may have their origins in sightings of (real) giant squid. They're good stories, though, some of them.

stuff:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Dim Day of the Soul

Sometimes it's easier to see at night. It depends on what you're looking for.
"O guiding night! O night more lovely than the dawn!"
(Translated from "Dark Night of the Soul," St. John of the Cross)
I decided that this year's Lent would be a good time to upgrade my prayer life. (February 15, 2015)

That could have been a topic for this post: except that I couldn't think of anything to say about it. Not that 'clicked.'

When I start working on Friday's or Sunday's post, I check out the news, look at what the Scripture readings are going to be, or look at what I've written recently. Something generally 'clicks:' I realize that some topic is a good idea, and I start working at it.

That didn't happen for this week's Sunday post.

I was talking with my wife about my writer's block, when she noted that I was having — I don't remember her exact words, by the time I was sitting down what I remembered was 'dim day of the soul.'

And I still didn't know what I was going to write about. Then I read about the troublemaker who wrote "Dark Night of the Soul," and that's when I started writing this:

Juan and Hardcore Faith


Juan de Yepes y Álvarez was born in 1542, and joined the Carmelite Order in 1564.

The Carmelite specialty was contemplation: which they saw as involving prayer, community, and service.

There were Carmlite Friars, nuns, and laypeople: not sharing the same quarters: and that's another topic. Young Juan ran into a Carmelite nun, and I'll get back to that.

Juan became a priest in 1567. That's when he said he wanted to join the Carthusian Order: because they were really hardcore.

Putting it more conventionally, the Carthusian Order "appealed to him because of its encouragement of solitary and silent contemplation." (Wikipedia)

Teresa: a Troublemaker


Then a Carmelite nun talked to him about her plans to reform the Carmlite Order. Her idea was restoring rules from the early 1200s. The Carmelites had gone through proper channels, getting official approval when they eased up on the rules.

Pope Eugene IV, for example, okayed rule changes about eating meat and being silent. ("The Carmelites," resource for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California; St. John's Seminary (1990))

The nun asked Juan to put off joining the Carthusians, and join her reform. in 1568, Friar Juan and Friar Antonio de Jesús de Heredia set up the first monastery for men following the nun's principles.

Juan was such a troublemaker that some of his superiors in the Carmelite Order ordered him to stop following the reformed rules. Juan said he had approval from the Spanish nuncio, who outranked them.

That's when Carmelites who didn't like the stricter rules kidnapped (or arrested, from their viewpoint) and imprisoned Juan.

Eventually he wound up in what we'd call solitary confinement: punctuated by public lashings. Around this time, one of the friars had given him paper — and presumably something to write with. I'll get back to that.

Juan escaped August 15, 1578; Pope Gregory XIII signed off on a separation between the Calced and Discalced Carmelites; Juan came down with erysipelas, and died in 1591.

Today, Juan is known as Saint John of the Cross in my language.

"Dark Night of the Soul"


While he was imprisoned, in the late 1570s, St. John of the Cross wrote a poem: "La noche oscura del alma." In my language it's called "Dark Night of the Soul." A few years later, in 1584 and 1585, he wrote a treatise explaining the poem, one stanza at a time.

I gather that "Dark Night of the Soul" is about the dry patches I can expect. Sometimes — quite often, actually — I don't feel much like praying. Apparently it's not just me. (Catechism, 2728, 2731)

I'm not going to try writing about that. Not today. Maybe not this month.

More:
Mostly about emotions, reason, and faith:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, February 20, 2015

Setting Earth's Thermostat

Events like the Pinatubo eruptions of 1991 happen about once a century — on average — roughly.

Some scientists say that next time there's a Pinatubo-scale eruption, we should deploy a fleet of instrument-carrying aircraft, balloons, and satellites: to see exactly what happens when sulfur dioxide and other chemicals get dumped into the upper atmosphere.

We know that the stuff causes regional and global climate changes: but we don't know exactly how the process works.

There's more than pure scientific curiosity behind wanting this knowledge. Earth's climate is changing, which is par for the course: but we're at a point where our actions can affect climate.

The job at hand is leaning how Earth's climate works, how it changes, and what causes the changes. Then we'll decide what to do about that knowledge.

Just for fun, I also picked a news item about furry critters that lived in the days of dinosaurs.
  1. 'Next Pinatubo' and Geoengineering
  2. Furry Critters and Dinosaurs

Pinatubo, 1991



(From USGS, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(June 12, 1991: Mt. Pinatubo eruption. U.S. Geological Survey Photo taken by Richard P. Hoblitt.)

June, 1991, was not a good month to live on — or near — Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. Folks knew a big eruption was coming, so evacuation plans had been made: and put off until rather close to the catastrophic event.

Unlike Boston National Weather Service forecasters back in 1953, Philippine authorities weren't worried about panicking 'the masses.' (January 16, 2015)

They realized that if they kept issuing false alarms, folks in harms way might start ignoring them: and did get around 60,000 folks out of a 30-kilometer danger zone by June 13. The 'big one' came June 15.

Evacuees included Aeta living on Mount Pinatubo: whose ancestors may have walked to the Philippines during the last (or current) ice age. Many Aeta had started moving after the first eruptions. You don't survive that long by being stupid or crazy: and that's not really another topic.

My guess is that we're centuries, maybe millennia, from having technology that could suppress or control volcanic eruptions. At this point, we're doing well to predict when the things will go off while there's still time to run.

We can do something about the weather, though: and are learning the value of prudence and foresight.

Cloud Seeding and a Disturbing Coincidence



(From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, via Wikipedia, used w/o permission.)
(Black Hills Flood of 1972: jumbled cars.)

At the start of the 20th century, "experts" knew that weather modification was a foolish waste of time — or a fraud. I can see their viewpoint: they hadn't learned how to make it rain when they got their degrees, so how could these young whippersnappers and bunko artists possibly be right?

Around 1950, even "experts" had to acknowledge that cloud seeding works. Large-scale weather modification was a very real possibility when I went through high school.

Living in the upper Midwest, I took more notice of plans that focused on bringing rain to growing crops — and keeping the fields dry during planting and harvest.

Then the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences tested a newish cloud seeding technique on a storm west of Rapid City, South Dakota.

Torrential rain filled Rapid Creek and other waterways past their banks, backed up behind the Canyon Lake Dam: which underwent catastrophic failure during the night of June 9, 1972.

Rescue and recovery teams eventually found most of the bodies, and the debris has long since been cleared away.

The flood killed 238 people, injured 3,057, and destroyed more than 1,335 homes and 5,000 automobiles. After that experience, disaster response procedures changed: and folks aren't allowed to build houses or motels where another flood will eventually happen.

Another bit of good news: Nobody hunted down and lynched the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences folks. The last I heard, there still wasn't any evidence that their cloud seeding experiment made that storm get nasty.

As I recall, though, public discussion of weather modification stopped — rather abruptly. Understandably, I suppose.

Learning Wisdom: Not Fear


Humans have pretty good brains: the trick is using them properly. (February 10, 2013)

I take the Bible very seriously: it's 'in the rules.' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 101-133)

On the other hand, I'm not a hardwired literalist, and that's another topic. (January 30, 2015)

Bear with me, this connects to a discussion of geoengineering that comes later in this post.

We're made "in the image of God," with the power and authority that implies:
"4 Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.'

"God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. "
(Genesis 1:26-27)
No, I do not think that I look like God.

Being made in God's image means that we're people: I'm someone, not something. (Catechism, 356-358)

There's more to it: like what's in Catechism, 1701-1709. Today I'm focusing the job that goes along with that "dominion."

We're pretty hot stuff, like it says in Psalms 8:
"When I see your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and stars that you set in place -"

"4 What are humans that you are mindful of them, mere mortals that you care for them?"

"5 Yet you have made them little less than a god, crowned them with glory and honor."
(Psalms 8:4-6)
I've talked about hubris, humility, and getting a grip, before. (August 10, 2014)

We've got "dominion," but we do not own the universe: or Earth.

I think the 'we can do anything we want' attitude of the 19th and early 20th century was as silly as the currently-fashionable notion that humanity is nothing more than a dangerous, demented, and doomed, animal.

The world is a wonderful place: and it's God's property.

Our position is sort of like shop foreman or steward. We don't own the place, but we're responsible for its management. (Catechism, 339, 952, 2402-2405, 2456)

Considering the responsibility that comes with our power, being made in the image of God is a scary thought. (March 17, 2013)

But, scary or not, we've got a job to do: taking care of the world's resources for our use, and for future generations. (Catechism, 339, 2402, 2415)

Curiosity comes with being human. Studying the universe, and developing new tools using that knowledge, is part of our job. So is paying attention to ethics. (Catechism, 2293-2295)

Being scared silly won't, I think, help. It makes about as much sense as a shop foreman being scared of power tools.

1. 'Next Pinatubo' and Geoengineering



(From USGS, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("The 1991 Mount Pinatubo blast was the biggest on Earth in recent times"
(BBC News))
" 'Next Pinatubo' a test of geoengineering"
Jonathan Amos, BBC News (February 14, 2015)

"Scientists who study ideas to engineer the climate to mitigate global warming say we should be ready to deploy an armada of instrumentation when Earth has its next major volcanic eruption.

"Data gathered in the high atmosphere would be invaluable in determining whether so-called 'geoengineering' solutions had any merit at all.

"It would have to be an event on the scale of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.

"That eruption cooled global temperatures for a couple of years.

"It did so by pumping 20 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide high into the sky above the Philippines.

"The resulting droplets of sulphuric acid that formed on contact with moisture reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, preventing that radiation from warming the surface.

"Some have suggested humanity could mimic this same effect by deliberately seeding the stratosphere with sulphur...."
Mount Pinatubo's 1991 eruption "was the biggest on Earth in recent times" — sort of.

It depends on what you think "recent" means. Novarupta's inaugural 1912 eruption, 47 kilometers, 290 miles, southwest of Anchorage, Alaska, was roughly as big as Pinatubo's.

The Oruanui eruption, about 26,500 years back; and the Yellowstone Caldera's. some 640,000 years ago; were more than a thousand times more massive than any 20th century.

Then, every 22,000,000 years or so, on average, large igneous provinces happen. There was one in what we call the Pacific Northwest about 17,000,000 to 14,000,000 years ago — which was still fairly active until around 6,000,000 years back.

Another, some 125,000,000–120,000,000 years back, formed the Ontong Java Plateau; and 251,000,000 to 250,000,000 years ago another big one left the Siberian Traps, and almost certainly helped start Earth's biggest known extinction event.

It might be coincidence, but we've found what looks a whole lot like what's left of an asteroid impact under Wilkes Land in Antarctica. That happened a quarter of a billion years back, when Wilkes Land was antipodal to the Siberian Traps.

Earth's core would have acted as an acoustic lens, focusing shock waves from the impact — if that's what it was — on the other side of the planet. Something like that happened on Mercury, and that's yet another topic. (November 29, 2013)

Where was I? Pinatubo. Global warming. Climate change. Geoengineering. Right.

"Geoengineering?!"

"... Allergic to Change ..."

"Humans are allergic to change. They love to say, 'We've always done it this way.' I try to fight that. That's why I have a clock on my wall that runs counter-clockwise."
(Grace Hopper, developer of the first compiler for a computer programming language, U.S. Naval officer)
Geoengineering, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of an environmental process that affects the earth's climate, is a new word for a new idea. Some discussion of geoengineering has been fairly calm:
Other folks, predictably, seem convinced that geoengineering threatens life, liberty, and business-as-usual. They're right about that last point.

If this was the 'good old days,' we'd probably see fear that discussing geoeningeering offends the Almighty. I don't miss the 'good old days.' (August 29, 2014; April 27, 2014)

The easiest approach to geoengineering is to assume that there's nothing we can — or should — do about Earth's climate: and hope that we'll never need to regulate climate. I think there are several ways to justify this approach: or maybe "rationalize" would be a better term.

Someone might decide that Earth's climate never changes, never will, and can't change: because it doesn't. Another person might decide that we're all gonna die because of [select your favorite crisis], so it doesn't matter what we do: because we're all gonna die anyway.

I didn't say those justifications make sense: but they're possible, if extreme, versions of attitudes I occasionally run into.

Yet another justification may be seriously discussed. It's a version of the 'my end of the boat isn't sinking' argument.

Geoengineering, deliberately changing Earth's climate, will be an expensive project, and more important to future generations than to anyone alive today.

I have no trouble imagining someone deciding that spending money on entertainment, a political campaign, or the biggest tombstone in the cemetery, is more important than making Earth a better place for folks living a thousand years from now.

'It won't happen in my lifetime, so I don't care' may be a natural attitude: but that doesn't make it right. We're expected to use the animals, plants, and inanimate resources of this word — wisely, with respect for the integrity of creation, and with a concern for future generations. (Catechism, 2415-2418)

Then there's Deuteronomy 25:4, instructions about feeding oxen mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 18, that comes between instructions for punishing wrongdoers; and that's yet again another topic.

Earth: Hot, Cold, and Everything in Between



(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology; via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.)
(Earth during the Paleocene - Eocene Thermal Maximum, 50,000,000 years ago.)

Earth's climate isn't what it used to be: and never was. We're in an interglacial period with another round of continental glaciation on the way — or at the end of the latest ice age cycle.


(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology; via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.)
(Earth during the early Miocene, 20,000,000 years back. This warm era wouldn't last.)


(From Ron Blakey, NAU Geology; via Wikimedia Commons; used w/o permission.)
(Earth today: either just after — or during a warmish break in — Earth's most recent ice age.)

Either way, Earth is cooler than "normal:" by early Eocene standards. (January 10, 2014)

The current ice age, the Pliocene/Quaternary glaciation, started about 2,580,000 years back.

The last I heard, scientists aren't sure whether this ice age is finally over: or if we're in one of the interglacial periods. We don't know exactly how ice ages work: but it's likely that one factor is how much snow falls near the poles.

It's possible that when Earth heats up enough for the Arctic ice cap to melt, more water evaporates there, leading to heavier snowfalls that don't entirely melt each summer. Eventually, you've got glaciers grinding their way south.

All those glaciers make Earth brighter, reflecting more sunlight back into space. Between that, and lower sea levels that come from so much water going into glaciers, there isn't as much snowfall: which slows the advance of glaciers. That's the idea, anyway.

It's also likely that where the continents matters where ice ages are concerned. Right now, for example, there's a continent at Earth's south pole, and a nearly-landlocked body of water at the north pole. Less water gets moved between the poles and the equator, letting the poles stay very cold.

The Himalayas may be a factor, too. Earth's precipitation rate has apparently gone up since they formed; and they're still growing, by about five millimeters a year.

Earth has been through five major ice ages: the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and Pliocene/Quaternary glaciation. Earth has had permanent icecaps at the poles ever since humanity showed up, about two and a half million years back. (July 11, 2014)

It's easy to assume that this is the way it's always been — and always should be. The more we learn about Earth's past, though, the more it looks like ice-free high latitudes are normal: and we're living in an oddly-cold era.

Geoengineering and Options


Somewhere during the next thousand years, we must make some hard decisions.

The question isn't whether or not we can change Earth's climate.

There's good reason to believe that we've been doing it for the last few generations.

The results haven't, hysterical headlines notwithstanding, been dramatic: but we hadn't been trying to turn up the thermostat. It just happened.

Earth's climate changes, and was changing long before humanity arrived. It's changed a lot over the last few billion years.

We've learned quite a bit about these changes in the last few centuries: and there's a lot more to learn.

The last I heard, for example, scientists are still sifting through data and discussing whether the Medieval Warm Period was a regional event: or global.

The Little Ice Age that came later wasn't exactly an ice age, but it was cold: which was good news, sort of, and bad news. Folks could walk from Manhattan to Staten Islands in the winter of 1780. That was the good news. The bad news — well, it could have been worse.

The Great Famine of 1315–1317 happened just before or just after the start of the Little Ice Age — depending on how that protracted cold snap gets defined.

Only around 10 percent of folks living in France, Norway, and Sweden died in famines of 1693–94 (France), 1695–96 (Norway), and 1696–97 (Sweden). Estonia and Finland's famines of 1696–97 killed between a fifth and a third of Finns and Estonians.

Meanwhile, folks stopped trying to grow oranges in Jiangxi Province. Maybe it's a coincidence that shorelines on Pacific islands receded from 1270 to 1475, New Zealand's Franz Josef glacier grew rapidly during the Little Ice Age. Then again: maybe not.

We're still collecting data about Antarctic and Australian climate back then, but there's evidence of colder-than-usual conditions there, too.

One more thing, and I'll get back to long-range planning: Patagonian tree rings show slow growth from 1270 to 1380 and 1520 to 1670, so it looks like the southern hemisphere cooled off then, too.

Gathering Data


As " 'Next Pinatubo' a test of geoengineering" (Jonathan Amos, BBC News) says, the next Pinatubo-scale eruption will let us collect data about what happens when 20 million tones of sulfur dioxide gets dumped into the stratosphere.

The sulfur dioxide changed to droplets of sulfuric acid when it hit water droplets. That reflected incoming sunlight back out into space, which cooled off part Earth's surface.

Studying this phenomenon would take a fleet of balloons, aircraft, and satellites: at least some equipped with lidar. Those resources weren't available when Pinatubo exploded, but now we could set up rapid-response teams and wait for the next major explosive eruption.

We could probably get the data faster by pumping sulfur into Earth's upper atmosphere: but that would be expensive, and I don't think any sane person would be overly eager to sign the 'go ahead' order.

It'd be a bit like those 'mad scientist' movies, when Professor Übergeschnappt chugalugged (yes, they're real words) a brew that Boris the demented assistant wouldn't touch: and that's still another topic.

Seeding the stratosphere with sulfur isn't our only geoengineering alternative. For example, we've developed carbon dioxide scrubbers for industrial operations — and the Space Shuttle.

Scaling something like the shuttle RCRS up to handle continent-size volumes of Earth's atmosphere would be expensive: and a massive technical challenge. But it might be a better idea than seeding the stratosphere.

More than you may want to know about RCRS:

Choices: Crazy and Otherwise


Like I said, we have hard decisions ahead.

We're very close to having the technology needed to adjust Earth's climate. Having the knowledge it takes to do so safely — that's emphatically a work in progress.

In the short run — a few centuries, on these scales — putting more carbon dioxide scrubbers on factory exhausts and fruit storage locations, and catalytic converters on cars should be enough. Finding a practical alternative to petroleum-powered vehicles is a good idea for several reasons. Still more topics.

Somewhere in the next thousand years or so, though, we'll need to decide where to set Earth's thermostat.

One option is to pick a recent era — maybe that warm spell, a thousand years back; or the mid-19th century — and keep Earth's climate pretty close to that era's conditions.

Or we could decide that what this world needs is more mammoths and mastodons; clone a few herds, or reverse-engineer the critters from elephants; and return to the climate of the Late Miocene and early Pliocene. Eventually we'd have to evacuate places like Seattle, Chicago, New York City, and Moscow: but there'd be new beachfront property, thanks to lower sea levels.

Yet another option would be to let Earth warm up a little more. Humans aren't really suited for arctic and subarctic conditions, anyway.

If we were careful, we'd have time to build new port cities, replacing places like San Diego and Singapore — which would flood as sea levels rose to "normal" levels.

I suggest the Late Cretaceous as the model for this option. 'Correcting' what happened around 66,000,000 years back would allow open-air zoos stocked with ersatz dinosaurs, and that's — you guessed it — another topic.

We wouldn't necessarily have to completely abandon today's coastal cities. A few, at least, could be preserved as museums or luxury resorts: enclosed by water- and pressure-resistant domes.

My guess is that we'll decide that polar ice caps are okay: and ignore the 'save the mammoth' and 'dino power' activists.

2. Furry Critters and Dinosaurs

"Furry forerunners: Jurassic arboreal, burrowing mammals unearthed"
Will Dunham, Reuters (February 12, 2015)

"It may not have been the most opportune time to be a furry little critter, what with all those hungry dinosaurs and flying reptiles hanging around. But early mammals still managed to make their mark during the Jurassic Period.

"Scientists on Thursday described fossils unearthed in China of two shrew-sized creatures that represent the oldest-known tree-climbing and burrowing mammals and show that early mammals had claimed a variety of ecological niches.

"Agilodocodon scansorius, an omnivore that lived about 165 million years ago, possessed paws with curved claws for climbing, limb dimensions characteristic of other tree-dwelling mammals and flexible elbow, wrist and ankle joints good for scrambling up trees with agility.

"Its spade-like front teeth, similar to some New World monkeys today, allowed it to chew into bark and eat tree gum or sap.

"Docofossor, a mole-like insect-eater that lived about 160 million years ago, boasted shovel-like paws for digging, teeth similar to later burrowing mammals that forage underground and sprawling limbs ideal for underground movement.

"University of Chicago paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo called Docofossor a 'dead ringer' for today's African golden mole...."
I'm fascinated by what we're learning about Earth's long backstory. Your experience may vary.

Docofossor seems to have pioneered underground life for mammaliaformes. That's a phylogenetic nomenclature term — a new way of describing critters that you'll probably never use, unless you're a big fan of paleontology.

Getting back to Docofossor, moles, and all that: golden moles aren't made of gold, and they're not moles. They look a lot like Australia's marsupial moles, which also aren't moles. I've talked about convergent evolution before. A lot. (January 30, 2015; September 12, 2014; June 6, 2014)

Agilodocodon scansorius looked a bit like a squirrel: a very small squirrel. The critter was 13 centimeters, about 5⅛ inches, long: including the tail. Agilodocodon scansorius had spade-like teeth, sort of like critters that gnaw bark and drink sap today.

But evolutionary biologist Frietson Galis pointed out that saying its teeth aren't quite like today's sap-sucking monkeys — and the extinct critter's lower jaw is long, thin, and doesn't look strong enough to chomp tree bark. Not effectively.

This isn't, I think, useless information. If you memorize enough of these facts, you'll find them effective at inducing glazed eyes and blank expressions in folks you want to bore silly.

Modularity


A bit more seriously, the Reuters article says that Docofossor's fingers are so exactly similar to today's moles that they may have used the same genes. That may mean that one of the scientists mentioned in Will Dunham's article said so: or that Mr. Dunham knows about Wikipedia.

The critter in the photo is an eastern, or common, mole: and sincerely not threatened by extinction. Not any time soon, at least.

Wikipedia's page on Docofossor says that the BMP and GDF-5 control that critter's mole-like finger traits. That's odd, or at least unexpected, since Docofossor and moles are in different branches of the mammal family.

Or maybe not so odd. The same genes control the growth of paws, hands, and spotted gar fins. Earth's life is very modular at the genetic level. (January 9, 2015; December 26, 2014)

I still run into folks who seem unwilling to think that we really are made of the stuff of this world. And like just about every other topic in this post, I've talked about that before. (October 31, 2014; July 15, 2014; April 4, 2014)

More about cautions optimism and "greater admiration:"
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Skydiving and Lent

I'll be giving up skydiving for Lent again this year: also mountain climbing, another activity I am profoundly unqualified for, and never attempted. (February 13, 2013)

So, what am I doing for Lent?

Some folks in my circles are going offline for Lent — refraining from socializing online. That's a good idea: but I won't be changing my online habits. Not much, anyway.

It's not that I can't give up my online 'fix:' much of what I do online involves this blog, prayer, or other related activities. In a sense, this is my "work:" and not something I think it's prudent to stop during Lent.

Giving up some optional pleasure for Lent is a good way to unite "... to the mystery of Jesus in the desert." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 540)

It's a sort of penance: "an act of self-mortification or devotion performed voluntarily to show sorrow for a sin or other wrongdoing." (thefreedictionary.com)

Penance


Despite the impression some folks give, "blessed are the miserable" isn't one of the Beatitudes. (Matthew 5:3-12)

It's like I've said: despondency isn't a virtue. That odd notion isn't limited to religious kooks, by the way, and that's another topic. (June 3, 2012; January 8, 2012)

Getting back to penance: it's part of the conversion, penance, and satisfaction process we need when we mess up our relationship with God. (Catechism, 1431-1470, particularly 1432)

That conversion and penance isn't about 'acting sorry.' Doing stuff that others can see might be useful, or not. What matters is what happens inside me, turning my thoughts and desires away from offenses against truth and reason; and toward God. (Catechism, 1430-1432)

This interior penance gets done — mainly — by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. That works on conversion that relates to myself, God, and others. (Catechism, 1434)

Penance is an important part of Lent, but it's not all that's going on this season:
"The seasons and days of penance in the course of the liturgical year (Lent, and each Friday in memory of the death of the Lord) are intense moments of the Church's penitential practice.36 These times are particularly appropriate for spiritual exercises, penitential liturgies, pilgrimages as signs of penance, voluntary self-denial such as fasting and almsgiving, and fraternal sharing (charitable and missionary works)."
(Catechism, 1438)

Prayer and Palms


Having access to two millennia of assorted spiritual exercises is a good thing: but a tad overwhelming. The trick isn't finding something: it's finding something that I can understand well enough to do. That's a good sort of problem to have, though: and I've got a few days before Lent starts.

I've found some good resources, and figure that I'll be working at upgrading my prayer life.

Ash Wednesday is this week: which is my deadline for deciding what I'll do for Lent, and getting last year's palms to the church.

And that's yet another topic.

More of my take on Lent:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 13, 2015

New on the Blogroll: Susan Tassone

There's a new item on the blogroll:
A tip of the hat to Paul Sofranko, for the heads-up on Susan Tassone's website.
Posted by No comments:
Labels: ,

DNA, Babies, Life, and Death

DNA evidence in a court case isn't new: but deer DNA in a poaching trial is.

Less than two decades after a cloned sheep's birth, British Members of Parliament okayed human cloning: using DNA from three people.

Scientists who think this is a good idea may be right: at least for some versions of the new tech.
  1. Deer DNA Proves Poacher's Guilt
  2. Science, Technology, and "Rational Reflection"
I've said it before, a lot: new ideas aren't always bad, old ideas aren't always good, and thinking is always a good idea. (September 7, 2014; February 14, 2014)

Humans are People



(From sporki, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(World Youth Day 2000.)

Human beings are people: all humans, no matter who our ancestors are, where we live, what we look like, or how old we are. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 357, 361, 369-370, 1700, 1730, 1929, 2273-2274, 2276-2279)

We have equal dignity, but we're not all alike: and we're not supposed to be. (Catechism, 33, 366, 1934-1938, 2232, 2393)

Maybe that sounds radical: but it's what I must believe, since I'm a Catholic.

Families are important, but not all-important. (Catechism, 2201-2213, 2232)

Children are an important part of a family, and they've got duties. (Catechism, 2214-2220)

So do parents, but it's not the same set of duties. (Catechism, 2221-2231)

Wanting to raise children is a good thing, but nobody has a right to have children. Children are not property. Nobody is. (Catechism, 2373-2379, 2414)

Science and technology, learning how things work and using that knowledge to make new tools, is part of being human. It's what we're supposed to do. Like everything else we do, ethics apply. That includes medical techniques intended to produce children. (Catechism, 159, 2292-2296, 2375-2377, 2414)

That's how we should behave. What actually happens is — sometimes regrettable, occasionally tragic, and that's another topic. Topics. (February 1, 2015; January 18, 2015; December 28, 2014; July 11, 2012)

Life and Health: "Precious Gifts"


Backing up a little: I must believe that human life is sacred; that life and health are "precious gifts;" and that healing the sick is a good idea, within reason. (Catechism, 2258, 2288-2295)

Individual Catholics might feel squeamish about organ transplants, for example: but the Church says they're okay.

On the other hand, we're not allowed to dry-gulch someone and take their kidneys — or kill one person to get parts for another. (Catechism, 2296)

We're also required to believe that humans are people: all humans. That includes folks who aren't old enough to vote: or breathe.
"...The inviolability of the innocent human being's right to life 'from the moment of conception until death'..."
"Instruction on Respect for Human Life In Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day," William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (February 22, 1987))
I live in a country where it's legal to kill people: as long as we do it while they're still young enough to be fair game. This convenient arrangement is getting extended to other folks: who are too old or sick to be worthy of life.

We don't call it Lebensunwertes Leben, but most Americans speak English: and that phrase got a distasteful reputation about 73 years back. (December 5, 2014)

It's been decades since I've heard the phrase "quality lifestyle" used in discussions of euthanasia. I thought it was a bad idea in my youth, partly because I realized that I'd probably get culled soon after the first sweep. (December 5, 2014)

Moving on.

People, Property, and Parts


Designating some humans as non-persons can be convenient.

Folks with the 'wrong' ancestry were once considered property in my country. We're still cleaning up the mess that left. Slavery is a bad idea, and we shouldn't do it. (Catechism, 2414)

Some Catholics have owned slaves, others have been slaves: and neither makes it right.

I didn't become a Catholic because we're all perfect people. Good grief: one Pope was elected three times, kicked out twice, and sold the Papacy once. Then there was the Verdun incident, and that's another yet another set of topics. (September 14, 2014; January 11, 2015)

Sooner or later, someone's going to suggest cloning 'important' people so that Senator Fogbottom or the CEO of Amalgamated Gigabucks will have spare parts available.

That was lurid fiction in 1979. Today? For all I know, someone's discussing a real-life analog to Clonus in Washington.

Life and physical health are "precious gifts." Maintaining or restoring health and normal function is a duty. So is not making health, fitness, or appearance, my top priority. (Catechism, 2288-2291)

That's why I don't feel guilty about having metal and plastic hip joints, re-engineered hands, and a brain that needs prescribed drugs to work properly. (August 29, 2014)

On the other hand, if I needed a new heart — breaking someone else down for parts wouldn't be right: even if the donor wasn't, legally, a 'real' person. Killing one person to help another isn't right. (Catechism, 2296)

Ancient, Not Old-Fashioned


The Catholic Church is old, ancient. Some of our traditions (lower-case "t") go back to the days when Rome was a superpower.

But we're not desperately trying to live in the 1st, or 11th, century.

Our basic principles don't change. No matter what century I lived in, the rules would be:
That hasn't changed in two millennia, and it won't.

How we apply those principles to our daily lives: that's changed, and will continue to change.

But forgetting that humans are people was wrong when Rome went through four emperors in one year, it's wrong today, and it'll be wrong when Caesar's assassination, Zhang Zeduan's landscapes, and the United Nations Charter are seen as roughly contemporary.


(Zhang Zeduan's Along the River During Qingming Festival, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)


(From Raphael-Lacoste, DeviantArt.com, used w/o permission.)

Diversity, Unity, and Tradition


As a Catholic, I'm part of an outfit that's καθολικός, universal: a united and diverse people, embracing all cultures and all times.

Our Tradition, capital "T" is important: but the Catholic Tradition isn't our word for 'clinging to a bygone age.'

It is the living transmission of the Gospel.

Our Tradition is not about one culture or one era. It's for Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and everyone else; although the Acts 2:5-11 thing is about the Holy Spirit. There's Sacred Scripture, too. (Catechism, 74-95, 113, 174, and 126)

Before wrenching myself back on-topic, some definitions:
  • "BIBLE: Sacred Scripture: the books which contain the truth of God's Revelation and were composed by human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit (105). The Bible contains both the forty-six books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New Testament (120). See Old Testament; New Testament."
  • "MAGISTERIUM: The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture), or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals (85, 890, 2033)."
  • "TRADITION: The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83)."
We should be thinking about ideas, old and new; not assuming that old is good and new is bad:
"...Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected...."
("Divino Afflante Spiritu," "Inspired by the Holy Spirit," Pius XII (September 30, 1943))
Part of that's quoted in the New American Bible's Preface. Pius XII was writing about about scriptural studies, but I'm pretty sure that applying the principle to new technologies makes sense.

1. Deer DNA Proves Poacher's Guilt



(From ThinkStock, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
"Deer DNA used for first time in UK to prosecute poacher"
BBC News (February 4, 201)

"DNA from a red deer has been used for the first time in the UK to help prosecute a poacher.

"James Kennedy, 70, illegally shot and killed and then removed a deer from the Glenfinnan Estate in Lochaber.

"He claimed to having shot it lawfully at another location, but scientists matched a blood stain in his van to remains he had left on the estate.

"Kennedy was fined £100 and ordered to pay compensation of £70 at Fort William Sheriff Court on Tuesday...."
Maybe spending public funds on DNA testing in this case was overkill: or maybe not. Wildlife management is important here in Minnesota, where I live: and some of the most active supporters of game and wildlife laws are hunters.

I don't hunt, but quite a few of my kinfolk do: and I don't see that as a problem. Animals are God's creatures, but so are we: and part of our job is taking care of this world. (Catechism, 2415-2418)

Here in Minnesota, that job includes managing the populations of wolves, deer, and trout; and dealing with zebra mussels. I'm getting off-topic again. (March 17, 2013; August 17, 2009)

Apparently the odds of DNA profiles like these matching is one in 40 million: so either Mr. Kennedy is guilty, we're looking at a wildly improbable coincidence — or something else is going on. My guess is that Mr. Kennedy shot the deer on protected land.

Poaching isn't the worst crime in the world: but it's nice, having a tool that can help sort out what's true and what's not in these cases.

2. Science, Technology, and "Rational Reflection"

"MPs say yes to three-person babies"
James Gallagher, BBC News (February 3, 2015)

"MPs have voted in favour of the creation of babies with DNA from two women and one man, in a historic move.

"The UK is now set to become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people.

"In a free vote in the Commons, 382 MPs were in favour and 128 against the technique that stops genetic diseases being passed from mother to child.

"During the debate, ministers said the technique was 'light at the end of a dark tunnel' for families.

"A further vote is required in the House of Lords. It everything goes ahead then the first such baby could be born next year.

"Proponents said the backing was 'good news for progressive medicine' but critics say they will continue to fight against the technique that they say raises too many ethical and safety concerns....

"...Prime Minister David Cameron said: 'We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one.'...

"...Estimates suggest 150 three-person babies could be born each year...."
James Gallagher's article doesn't say whether "...150 three-person babies could be born each year..." in England, or worldwide. Either way, it reminded me of the expert who figured that England would need three computers, tops. That was in 1951. (January 27, 2013)

Sooner or later we'll probably see something like "Jurrasic Park Meets The Boys from Brazil" hit the silver screen. Then there's "The_Clones_of_Bruce_Lee," and that's — not quite another topic, actually.

We already have headlines like "Churches oppose three-person baby plan." Here's an excerpt:
"...The Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales said it was not clear the technique - adding a donor woman's mitochondria to another woman's egg - was safe or ethical.

"But a group of scientists has urged MPs to approve the procedure - intended to stop deadly mitochondrial diseases...."
(BBC News (January 30, 2015))
I'm not surprised that scientists who developed this technique want Parliamentary permission: and am pretty sure that they don't see safety or ethical problems. Unless they're daft, the scientists wouldn't ask for human testing until they were confident that their tech would work: and wasn't unethical, by their cultural standards.

Preventing lethal mitochondrial diseases, disease of any sort, is a good idea. (Catechism, 1503-1510)

However:
"...what is technically possible is not for that very reason morally admissible. Rational reflection on the fundamental values of life and of human procreation is therefore indispensable for formulating a moral evaluation of such technological interventions on a human being from the first stages of his development...."
("Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions," William Cardinal Levada, Prefect; Luis F. Ladaria, S.I., Titular Archbishop of Thibica, Secretary; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (September 8, 2008)) [Emphasis mine]
It'd be easy to be excited by the prospect of a world without birth defects, where tragedies like Sharon Bernardi losing all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease didn't happen.

This is a personal issue for me. A friend and classmate died in her teens of a cancer that might have involved an inherited metabolic glitch.

My defective hips may be inherited, or could have happened for other reasons. My quirky neurochemistry is almost certainly inherited: my father was the same way, although less so; and two of my kids enjoy — or suffer — what I do.

The good news with the kids is that we knew what to look for: and this isn't the 1950s, for which I'm duly grateful.

I'm not sure that I'd want to be 'cured' of what makes my brain work the way it does, though. Like what Aristotle said: "There is no great genius without a mixture of madness."

Not that I'm a "great genius," but I am one of those creative types: and if being "normal" meant losing that — thanks; but no, thanks. I'd rather work with what I've got. (January 23, 2015)

Mitochondria


Mitochondria are little modules embedded in the cells of most eukaryotes — a five-dollar word for plants, animals, fungi, and critters with hard-to-pronounce names. Mitochondria do or control quite a bit of a cell's chemical processing, so bad things happen when they don't work.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, and may have started as independent organisms: moving into or getting absorbed by eukaryotes some 1,500,000,000 years back. If that's what happened, they're fully integrated into eukaroytes by now.

Therapy and Death



(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("1) Two eggs are fertilised with sperm, creating an embryo from the intended parents and another from the donors 2) The pronuclei, which contain genetic information, are removed from both embryos but only the parents' are kept 3) A healthy embryo is created by adding the parents' pronuclei to the donor embryo, which is finally implanted into the womb[.]"
(James Gallagher, BBC News)


(From HFEA, via BBC News, used w/o permission.)
("1) Eggs from a mother with damaged mitochondria and a donor with healthy mitochondria are collected 2) The majority of the genetic material is removed from both eggs 3) The mother's genetic material is inserted into the donor egg, which can be fertilised by sperm."
(James Gallagher, BBC News)

Again, I must believe that human life is sacred: and that humans are people; no matter how young, old, or sick we are. (Catechism, 2258, 2270, 2276-2279)

That's why I'm pretty sure that "method one" isn't acceptable. You'd start with two people: one from the parents, and a donor. You'd wind up with one person: with the donor's mitochondria and the parent's DNA in his or her cells' nuclei.

I could rationalize that half a person is better than none, or that two halves make a whole, or dive into metaphysical gibberish. I won't, because I'm pretty sure that when two living people go into an operating room, and one comes out — someone's missing, and the leftover parts suggest that one of the originals died.

Somehow, that doesn't quite seem right.

Happily, the church doesn't insist that every bit of material with human DNA is a person.

If that were true — it's not — someone would die during every woman's cycle. Men produce about 100,000,000 viable sperm daily, replacing those generated about three months previously.

Thinking that enough people to populate California, Florida, New York state, Illinois, and Texas, every day in every man is — "silly" seems a mild term.

That's why I think "method two" may, in at least some cases, be acceptable. The procedure would start with two eggs — not people — and ultimately end with a person. Nobody dies: and that's a good thing.

Problems — and Opportunities — Ahead


As I said last month, I think we've got problems — and opportunities — ahead. Strictly therapeutic genetic manipulation may, in some cases, be okay: and a blessing to folks with inherited disorders.

The same technologies could be used to purge "undesirable" traits from humanity. Since many of my ancestors are of an 'inferior race,' I can hardly be expected to show enthusiasm for eugenics. And that's yet again another topic. (January 23, 2015; December 5, 2014)

Catholic viewpoints:
My take on science, faith, and getting a grip:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Like it? Pin it, Plus it, - - -

Pinterest: My Stuff, and More

Visit Brian H.'s profile on Pinterest.

Advertisement

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Popular Posts

Label Cloud

1277 abortion ADD ADHD-Inattentive Adoration Chapel Advent Afghanistan Africa America Amoris Laetitia angels animals annulment Annunciation anti-catholicism Antichrist apocalyptic ideas apparitions archaeology architecture Arianism art Asperger syndrome assumptions asteroid astronomy Australia authority balance and moderation baptism being Catholic beliefs bias Bible Bible and Catechism bioethics biology blogs brain Brazil business Canada capital punishment Caritas in Veritate Catechism Catholic Church Catholic counter-culture Catholicism change happens charisms charity Chile China Christianity Christmas citizenship climate change climatology cloning comets common good common sense Communion community compassion confirmation conscience conversion Corpus Christi cosmology creation credibility crime crucifix Crucifixion Cuba culture dance dark night of the soul death depression designer babies despair detachment devotion discipline disease diversity divination Divine Mercy divorce Docetism domestic church dualism duty Easter economics education elections emotions England entertainment environmental issues Epiphany Establishment Clause ethics ethnicity Eucharist eugenics Europe evangelizing evolution exobiology exoplanets exorcism extremophiles faith faith and works family Father's Day Faust Faustus fear of the Lord fiction Final Judgment First Amendment forgiveness Fortnight For Freedom free will freedom fun genetics genocide geoengineering geology getting a grip global Gnosticism God God's will good judgment government gratitude great commission guest post guilt Haiti Halloween happiness hate health Heaven Hell HHS hierarchy history holidays Holy Family Holy See Holy Spirit holy water home schooling hope humility humor hypocrisy idolatry image of God images Immaculate Conception immigrants in the news Incarnation Independence Day India information technology Internet Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Japan Jesus John Paul II joy just war justice Kansas Kenya Knights of Columbus knowledge Korea language Last Judgment last things law learning Lent Lenten Chaplet life issues love magi magic Magisterium Manichaeism marriage martyrs Mary Mass materialism media medicine meditation Memorial Day mercy meteor meteorology Mexico Minnesota miracles Missouri moderation modesty Monophysitism Mother Teresa of Calcutta Mother's Day movies music Muslims myth natural law neighbor Nestorianism New Year's Eve New Zealand news Nietzsche obedience Oceania organization original sin paleontology parish Parousia penance penitence Pentecost Philippines physical disability physics pilgrimage politics Pope Pope in Germany 2011 population growth positive law poverty prayer predestination presumption pride priests prophets prostitution Providence Purgatory purpose quantum entanglement quotes reason redemption reflections relics religion religious freedom repentance Resurrection robots Roman Missal Third Edition rosaries rules sacramentals Sacraments Saints salvation schools science secondary causes SETI sex shrines sin slavery social justice solar planets soul South Sudan space aliens space exploration Spain spirituality stem cell research stereotypes stewardship stories storm Sudan suicide Sunday obligation superstition symbols technology temptation terraforming the establishment the human condition tolerance Tradition traffic Transfiguration Transubstantiation travel Trinity trust truth uncertainty United Kingdom universal destination of goods vacation Vatican Vatican II veneration vengeance Veterans Day videos virtue vlog vocations voting war warp drive theory wealth weather wisdom within reason work worship writing

Marian Apparition: Champion, Wisconsin

Background:Posts in this blog: In the news:

What's That Doing in a Nice Catholic Blog?

From time to time, a service that I use will display links to - odd - services and retailers.

I block a few of the more obvious dubious advertisers.

For example: psychic anything, numerology, mediums, and related practices are on the no-no list for Catholics. It has to do with the Church's stand on divination. I try to block those ads.

Sometime regrettable advertisements get through, anyway.

Bottom line? What that service displays reflects the local culture's norms, - not Catholic teaching.