On hearing the love call of the male, the female cowbird promptly adopts a come-hither posture, unmistakably indicating her readiness for copulation. Mature female cowbirds raised in isolation will adopt this posture upon hearing the male’s serenade for the very first time. The male, if he’s raised in isolation, if he’s never heard the cowbird love song in his life, still knows it by heart. The musical score, and information on how to appreciate it, are encoded in their DNA. Perhaps on hearing it the female, at least a little, falls in love with him. Perhaps, on seeing her fetching response to his music, the male, at least a little, falls in love with her.
In contrast to parental care and kin selection, which are so prominent among the birds and mammals, many frogs and fish eat their young. Cannibalism is a commonplace—not just in extraordinary circumstances such as overcrowding or famine, but under normal, everyday conditions: The little ones are plentiful, they’ve gone through all the effort of fattening themselves up into convenient and nutritious packages, only a few need to survive to continue the hereditary line, and an affectionate family life that might exert a restraining influence is lacking. But parental care is not restricted to the birds and mammals. It pops up here and there among fish and even invertebrates. Dung beetle mothers, who have laid their eggs in the “brood balls” they’ve skillfully rolled out of animal feces, dote on their young. And Nile crocodiles, whose powerful jaws can bite a human in two, walk about carefully carrying their little hatchlings, who peer out from between the mothers’ teeth “like sightseers on a bus.”13
Even if it is merely genetic sequences working out their self-interest, something that an outside observer might interpret as love has been building in the kingdom of the animals, especially since the extinction of the dinosaurs. With the origin of the primates, it begins its full flowering. It works to bind a species together, in effect to fashion something approaching a common loyalty.
The primacy of reproduction, the sense that the next generation is all, or nearly all, that matters, is made most clear in those many species that promptly die, both sexes, in huge numbers, immediately after conception has occurred and precautions have been taken to safeguard the fertilized eggs. In other species, including our own, the parents play a vital role in protecting and educating the young, and so for them there is life after copulation. Otherwise, the parental generation would have served its purpose, and been hustled off before it came into competition for scarce resources with its own progeny.
The adaptive value of getting DNA strands together has been so substantial that vast changes have been worked in anatomy, physiology, and behavior to accommodate the needs of these molecules. While cooperation was present long before sex—in stromatolite colonies, say, or in the symbiotic relationships of chloroplasts and mitochondria with the cell—sex has introduced a new kind of cooperation, common endeavor, and self-sacrifice into the world. In the differing sexual strategies of male and female, sex has also introduced a novel creative tension—one that cries out for reconciliation and compromise—as well as a potent new motive for competition. Our own species is as good an example as any of the nearly determining role of sex—not just the sex act itself, but all the attendant preparation, consequences, associations, and obsessions—in establishing much of the personality, character, agenda, and drama of life on Earth.
ON IMPERMANENCE
Only
for sleep we come,
for dreams.
Lie! It is a lie.
We come to live on Earth.
As a weed we become
each springtime,
swell green, our hearts
open,
the body makes a few flowers
and drops away withered somewhere.
Poems of the Aztec Peoples14
* In vitro fertilization is of course still sex.
* Although strands from two different dead bacteria might, on rare occasions, be incorporated by a live bacterium
Chapter 9
WHAT THIN PARTITIONS …
How instinct varies in the grovelling swine,
Compar’d, half-reasoning elephant, with thine!
’Twixt that, and reason, what a nice barrier,
Forever sep’rate, yet forever near!
Remembrance and reflection how ally’d!
What thin partitions sense from thought divide!
ALEXANDER POPE,
Essay on Man1
Most people would rather be alive than dead. But why? It’s hard to give a coherent answer. An enigmatic “will to live” or “life force” is often cited. But what does that explain? Even victims of atrocious brutality and intractable pain may retain a longing, sometimes even a zest, for life. Why, in the cosmic scheme of things, one individual should be alive and not another is a difficult question, an impossible question, perhaps even a meaningless question. Life is a gift that, of the immense number of possible but unrealized beings, only the tiniest fraction are privileged to experience. Except in the most hopeless of circumstances, hardly anyone is willing to give it up voluntarily—at least until very old age is reached
A similar puzzlement attaches to sex. Very few, at least today, have sex for the conscious purpose of propagating the species or even their own personal DNA; and such a decision for such a purpose, coolly and rationally entered into, is exceedingly rare in adolescents. (For most of the tenure of humans on Earth, the average person did not live much beyond adolescence.) Sex is its own reward.
Passions for life and sex are built into us, hardwired, pre-programmed. Between them, they go a long way toward arranging for many offspring with slightly differing genetic characteristics, the essential first step for natural selection to do its work. So we are the mostly unconscious tools of natural selection, indeed its willing instruments. As deeply as we can go in assessing our own feelings, we do not recognize any underlying purpose. All that is added later. All the social and political and theological justifications are attempts to rationalize, after the fact, human feelings that are at the same time utterly obvious and profoundly mysterious.
Now imagine us with no interest at all in “explaining” such matters, no weakness for reason and contemplation. Suppose you unquestioningly accepted these predispositions for surviving and reproducing, and spent your time solely in fulfilling them. Might that be something like the state of mind of most beings? Every one of us can recognize these two modes coexisting within us. A moment of introspection is often all it takes. Religious writers have described them as our animal and spiritual states. In everyday speech, the distinction is between feeling and thought. Inside our heads there seem to be two different ways of dealing with the world, the second, in the sweep of evolutionary time, arisen in earnest only lately.
——
Consider the world of the tick.2 Plumbing aside, what must it do to reproduce its kind? Ticks often have no eyes. Males and females find each other by aroma, olfactory cues called sex pheromones. For many ticks the pheromone is a molecule called 2,6-dichlorophenol. If C stands for a carbon atom, H for hydrogen, O for oxygen, and Cl for chlorine, this ring-shaped molecule can be written C6H3OHCl2 A little 2,6-dichlorophenol in the air and ticks go wild with passion.3
After mating, the female climbs up a bush or shrub and out onto a twig or leaf. How does she know which way is up? Her skin can sense the direction from which light is coming, even if she cannot generate an optical image of her surroundings. Poised out on the leaf or twig, exposed to the elements, she waits. Conception has not yet occurred. The sperm cells within her are neatly encapsulated; they’ve been put in long-term storage. She may wait for months or even years without eating. She is very patient.
What she’s waiting for is a smell, a whiff of another specific molecule, perhaps butyric acid, which can be written C3H7COOH. Many mammals, including humans, give off butyric acid from their skin and sexual parts. A small cloud of the stuff follows them around like cheap perfume. It’s a sex attractant for mammals. But ticks use it to find food for prospec
tive mothers. Smelling the butyric acid wafting up from below, the tick lets go. She drops from her perch and falls through the air, legs akimbo. If she’s lucky, she lands on the passing mammal. (If not, she falls to the ground, shakes herself off, and tries to find another bush to climb.)
Clinging to the fur of her unsuspecting host, she works her way through the thicket to find a less hairy spot, a patch of nice warm bare skin. There, she punctures the epidermis and drinks her fill of blood.*
The mammal may feel a sting and rub the tick off, or intently comb through its hair and pick it off. Rats may spend as much as one-third their waking hours grooming themselves. Ticks can draw a great deal of blood, they secrete neurotoxins, they carry disease microbes. They’re dangerous. Too many of them on a mammal at the same time can lead to anemia, loss of appetite, and death. Monkeys and apes meticulously search through each other’s fur; this is one of their principal cultural idioms. When they find a tick, they remove it with their precision grip and eat it. As a result, they are remarkably free from such parasites in the wild.
If the tick has avoided the hazards of grooming, and has become engorged with blood, she drops heavily to the ground. Thus fortified, she unseals the chamber with the stored sperm cells, lays the fertilized eggs in the soil (perhaps ten thousand of them) and dies—her descendants left to continue the cycle.
Note how simple are the sensory abilities required of the tick. They may have been feeding on reptile blood before the first dinosaurs evolved, but their repertoire of essential skills remains fairly meager. The tick must be crudely responsive to sunlight so she knows which way is up; she must be able to smell butyric acid so she knows when to fall animalward; she must be able to sense warmth; she must know how to inch her way around obstacles This is not asking much. Today we have very small photocells easily able to find the sun on a cloudless day. We have many chemical analytic instruments that can detect small amounts of butyric acid. We have miniaturized infrared sensors that sense heat. Indeed, all three such devices have been flown on spacecraft to explore other worlds—the Viking missions to Mars, for example. A new generation of mobile robots being developed for planetary exploration is now able to amble over and around large obstacles. Some progress in miniaturization would be needed, but we are not very far from being able to build a little machine that could duplicate—indeed far surpass—the central abilities of the tick to sense the outside world. And we certainly could equip it with a hypodermic syringe. (Harder for us to duplicate just yet would be its digestive tract and reproductive system. We are very far from being able to simulate from scratch the biochemistry of a tick.)
What would it be like inside the tick’s brain? You would know about light, butyric acid, 2,6-dichlorophenol, the warmth of a mammal’s skin, and obstacles to clamber around or over. You have no image, no picture, no vision of your surroundings; you are blind. You are also deaf. Your ability to smell is limited. You are certainly not doing much in the way of thinking. You have a very limited view of the world outside. But what you know is sufficient for your purpose.4
——
There’s a thump on the window and you look up. A moth has careened headlong into the transparent glass. It had no idea the glass was there: There have been things like moths for hundreds of millions of years, and glass windows only for thousands. Having bumped its head against the window, what does the moth do next? It bumps its head against the window again. You can see insects repeatedly throwing themselves against windows, even leaving little bits of themselves on the glass, and never learning a thing from the experience.
Clearly there’s a simple flying program in their brains, and nothing that allows them to take notice of collisions with invisible walls. There’s no subroutine in that program that says, “If I keep bumping into something, even if I can’t see it, I should try to fly around it.” But developing such a subroutine carries with it an evolutionary cost, and until lately there were no penalties levied on moths without it. They also lack a general-purpose problem-solving ability equal to this challenge. Moths are unprepared for a world with windows.
If we have here an insight into the mind of the moth, we might be forgiven for concluding that there isn’t much mind there. And yet, can’t we recognize in ourselves—and not just in those of us gripped by a pathological repetition-compulsion syndrome—circumstances in which we keep on doing the same stupid thing, despite irrefutable evidence it’s getting us into trouble?
We don’t always do better than moths. Even heads of state have been known to walk into glass doors. Hotels and public buildings now affix large red circles or other warning signs on these nearly invisible barriers. We too evolved in a world without plate glass. The difference between the moths and us is that only rarely do we shake ourselves off and then walk straight into the glass door again.
Like many other insects, caterpillars follow scent trails left by their fellows. Paint the ground with an invisible circle of scent molecule and put a few caterpillars down on it. Like locomotives on a circular track, they’ll go around and around forever—or at least until they drop from exhaustion. What, if anything, is the caterpillar thinking? “The guy in front of me seems to know where he’s going, so I’ll follow him to the ends of the Earth”? Almost always, following the scent trail gets you to another caterpillar of your species, which is where you want to be. Circular trails almost never occur in Nature—unless some wiseacre scientist shows up. And so this weakness in their program almost never gets caterpillars into trouble. Again we detect a simple algorithm and no hint of an executive intelligence evaluating discordant data.
When a honeybee dies it releases a death pheromone, a characteristic odor that signals the survivors to remove it from the hive. This might seem a supreme final act of social responsibility. The corpse is promptly pushed and tugged out of the hive. The death pheromone is oleic acid [a fairly complex molecule, CH3(CH2)7CH = CH(CH2)7COOH, where = stands for a double chemical bond]. What happens if a live bee is dabbed with a drop of oleic acid? Then, no matter how strapping and vigorous it might be, it is carried “kicking and screaming” out of the hive.5 Even the queen bee, if she’s painted with invisible amounts of oleic acid, will be subjected to this indignity.
Do the bees understand the danger of corpses decomposing in the hive? Are they aware of the connection between death and oleic acid? Do they have any idea what death is? Do they think to check the oleic acid signal against other information, such as healthy, spontaneous movement? The answer to all these questions is, almost certainly, No. In the life of the hive there’s no way that a bee can give off a detectable whiff of oleic acid other than by dying. Elaborate contemplative machinery is unnecessary. Their perceptions are adequate for their needs.
Does the dying insect make a special last effort to generate oleic acid, to benefit the hive? More likely, the oleic acid derives from a malfunction of fatty acid metabolism around the time of death, which is recognized by the highly sensitive chemical receptors in the survivors. A strain of bees that had a slight tendency to manufacture a death pheromone would do better than one in which decomposing, disease-ridden dead bodies were littering the hive. And this would be true even if no other bee in the hive were a close relative of the recently departed. On the other hand, since they are all close relatives, special manufacture of a death pheromone can be understood perfectly well in terms of kin selection.
——
So here’s a bejeweled insect, elegantly architectured, prancing among the dust grains in the noonday sun. Does it have any emotions, any consciousness? Or is it only a subtle robot made of organic matter, a carbon-based automaton packed with sensors and actuators, programs and subroutines, all ultimately manufactured according to the DNA instructions? (Later, we will want to look more closely at what “only” means.) We might be willing to grant the proposition that insects are robots; there’s no evidence, so far as we know, that compellingly argues the contrary; and most of us have no deep emotional attachments to insects.
In the first half of the seventeenth century, René Descartes, the “father” of modern philosophy, drew just such a conclusion. Living in an age when clocks were at the cutting edge of technology, he imagined insects and other creatures as elegant, miniaturized bits of clockwork—“a superior race of marionettes,” as Huxley described it,6 “which eat without pleasure, cry without pain, desire nothing, know nothing, and only simulate intelligence as a bee simulates a mathematician” (in the geometry of its hexagonal honeycombs). Ants do not have souls, Descartes argued; automatons are owed no special moral obligations.
What then are we to conclude when we find similar very simple behavioral programs, unsupervised by any apparent central executive control, in much “higher” animals? When a goose egg rolls out of the nest, the mother goose will carefully nudge it back in. The value of this behavior for goose genes is clear. Does the mother goose who has been incubating her eggs for weeks understand the importance of retrieving one that has rolled away? Can she tell if one is missing? In fact, she will retrieve almost anything placed near the nest, including ping-pong balls and beer bottles. She understands something, but, we might say, not enough.