Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998
From: muttnik <philb@kynd.com>
Subject: New Book Review  "Symbiotic Planet"  by Lynn Margulis

Hi Actaeon:

     I've sent you a book review as an attachment file.  I hope
you enjoy it, please feel free to add comments of your own.  Because
this is my first book review it is a very special time for me. To
celebrate I have also composed a very special limerick:

A cold winters night, the need to stay warm by a fire imposed.
My companion joins me, pressing close, an enticing repose.
Such a joy to be near him, born of mutual respect.
The flames flicker, shadows dance, face to face our bodies connect.
I see my reflection in a dogs eyes, the nature of God exposed.

     bye
          muttnik
          <philb@kynd.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

New Book Review:  Symbiotic Planet  by Lynn Margulis



Summery

This book examines in detail the symbiotic origins of 4 of the 5 kingdoms
of organisms ( protoctist, fungi, plants, animals ) that occupy the planet.
It also goes into the life from non-life origins of the 5th.  ( bacteria )  The
history of symbiosis as a generator of genetic novelty is traced back 
3,000 million years.  Symbotic Planet studies mostly microscopic life, 
however, there is a chapter on animal sex that studies multicellular 
critters that are somewhat larger. ( though still very small )  Large animals 
and plants ( cows, humans, trees ) get honorable mentions.  The last 
chapter is devoted to the Gaia hypothesis, and weak and strong Gaia 
theories are discussed.  128 pages, very well referenced.  $14.70 from
Barnes & Noble.  

Detailed synopsis and some commentary from a zoo perspective.

     Most of us consider our loving relationships with animals as 
being symbiotic.  That this is rarely spoken of in polite society goes 
without saying.  The idea that ALL multicellular life on this planet is 
symbiotic in origin and absolutely dependent on the genes picked up
in cross-species unions of bygone eras is never spoken of, until now.  
That is the "new view of evolution"  described in this book.  The formation
of new species, phyla, even new kingdoms of organisms through symbosis
is a radical idea, and Lynn Margulis proposes that it is even more 
important in the history and evolution of life than the rather mundane 
variation seen in conventional sex or random mutation as we all learned 
about in school.

     "We are symbionts on a symbiotic planet, and if we care to, we 
can find symbiosis everywhere.  Physical contact is a nonnegotiable
requisite for many differing kinds of life."  Lynn begins on the bottom of
page 5.  That we are at the end of a 3,000 million year old chain of cross-
species unions is made very clear in this book.  True most of the unions
mentioned in the book are not sexual in nature, being of the microbial
absorption variety.  Her views toward sex and humans, however, are made 
known in chapter 6 titled Animal Sex.  Because of its importance, I will 
quote these two paragraphs from chapter 6, page 98:

     " ' We,' a kind of baroque edifice, are rebuilt every two decades 
or so by fused and mutating symbiotic bacteria.  Our bodies are built from
protoctist sex cells that clone themselves by mitosis.  Symbiotic 
interaction is the stuff of life on a crowded planet.  Our symbiogenetic 
composite core is far older than the recent innovation we call the individual 
human.  Our strong sense of difference from any other lifeform, our sense 
of species superiority, is a delusion of grandeur.

     This delusion, I suspect, evolved from the need for 'species 
recognition.'   We feel the need and the passion to breed and produce
more people.  That act of staying on the evolutionary playing field requires
that we recognize potential mates of our own species.  This sexual self-
focus, however, obscures the larger symbiogenetic truth of our many-
specied components.  Multicomposition is our nature."

     The book goes into quite a lot of detail on the formation of the first
cells in all 5 kindoms of organisms, including evidence to support her 
theory of SET "serial endosymbiosis theory."  There is plenty of 
evidence to support regular SET and it is becoming accepted in the 
scientific community.  A version of it is already being taught as fact in
schools.    Evidence for "extreme SET" is hard to find, but is discussed
in the book anyway.  This refers to the very first theorized symbiotic
union between two bacteria that made the first protoctists, from which
(plus some more symbiotic unions) all other life on the planet arose.
Protoctists were the first cells to have cilia, sperm tails, sensory 
protrusions, centriole-kinetosomes and most important, nucleated cells.  
This merger is speculated to have occurred 2,000 million years ago, long 
before the mitochondria and chroroplasts unions that most of us have 
heard about in school.  Because it was so long ago, evidence is scarce.  
Lets keep looking

     Next the "spontaneous generation" paradox of the first cell
is discussed.  The classic Miller-Urey spark experiment is mentioned,
but new to the mix is the idea of "memory."   "Biology," Morowitz claims,
"is the bridge between physics and history."  RNA figures as a strong
candidate as the first self-replicating molecule.  DNA is incapable
of making more copies of itself without helper enzymes. ( they did not
exist at the time.)  RNA, by itself, can catalyze its own creation.  A nice
touch.  In all the bio I've had I don't remember hearing about that.

     Now the good stuff, the chapter on Animal SEX.  Well actually
no, a surprise twist.  Virtually the entire chapter deals with the need
for programmed death in multicellular organisms, and the haploid, to
diploid, to multiploidy problem of cannibalistic sex without meiosis first.
This is all High School biology, and adds almost nothing new.  The real
nature of symbiosis and symbiotic sexual unions between larger animals
is left untouched except for the 2 paragraphs on p 98 quoted above.  Our
situation is never mentioned.   A major disappointment.  Just read it if
you need a review of meiosis.  ( See the commentary below.   Dearest
Pet by Midas Dekkers covers this subject much more thoroughly.)

     The last part of the book covers the colonization of land from
the sea and the Gaia hypotheses.  All you trekies out there pay attention
because Lynn mentions Star Trek specifically.  She makes a very, very
strong argument that habitation of dry land was only possible through
symbiogenesis.  A bare and nutrient poor soil is no place for a plant but
fungi ( mycorrhizae ) can fix phosphorus and nitrogen,  necessary plant 
mineral nutrients.  Even the first plant itself is postulated to be a "fungal
fusion" of fungi and algae some 450 million years ago.  Although algae is 
not resistant to drying out, fungi very much is, also a necessary 
requirement for life on land.  Over the years plants incorporated the fungal 
genes. 

     Again animals aren't mentioned much, however, a tantalizing 
look into the mind of Lynn Margulis occurs at the end of chapter 7:  "If 
people ever journey in outer space, the endeavor will never be as 
machinate and barren as 'Star Trek.'  The vision of sterile engineering 
emancipating us from our planetmates is not only tasteless and boring, 
it borders on the hideous.  No matter how much our own species 
preoccupies us, life is a far wider system.  It is an incredibly complex 
interdependence of matter and energy among millions of species beyond 
( and inside ) our own skin.  These Earth aliens are our relatives, our 
ancestors, and food.  Without 'the other' we do not survive."  Lynn may 
not be zoo but no zoo on this planet could explain how we feel any 
better!  Bravo.

     In some circles Gaia has achieved cult religion status.  This is 
all put to rest in chapter 8.  Proprioception, the ability to sense movement
and spatial orientation, in short, the sensing of self, does not require a
brain or even a spinal cord.  No consciousness is necessary.  Gaia is the
idea that the Earth has enjoyed proprioceptive feedback since the 
beginning of life.  The only requirement is global communication.  It does
surprise us inward looking animals that global communication has been
around a long time in the form of biologically produced gases - soluble 
chemicals from trees, insect pheromones, bacteria etc.  Even the 1951
Howard Hawks movie The Thing from another world mentions the long 
range communication ability of plants.  "Love compounds have wafted 
in spring breezes since the Archean age.  But the speed of proprioception
has greatly increased with the electronic age."

     This is regular Gaia and it is generally accepted, but what about
"Strong Gaia?"  "Does all life on the planet constitute a superorganism?"
Is it conscious and does it consciously optimize the environment for its
own benefit?  Evidence exists that it does not, regardless, it very clearly
does not optimize the environment for OUR own benefit:  "We need 
honesty.  We need to be freed from our species-specific arrogance.  No
evidence exists that we are 'chosen,' the unique species for which all the
others were made.  Nor are we the most important one because we are so
numerous, powerful, and dangerous.  Our tenacious illusion of special
dispensation belies our true status as upright mammalian weeds."  

     I do not feel "chosen" and I do not want to be "chosen" separate 
>from my animal mate.  The other species on this planet are my equals in 
the very deepest sense of the word.   To hell with arrogance, we sink or 
swim together and I, for one, want to help toss out the life-preservers. 
After all, any one of them might have been my lover, or might still be.  
                        THIS is sybiosis ---- THIS is Strong Gaia.
To my way of thinking it is very beautiful.  For zoos worldwide this book
ends on a sad note.  I hurts because we so strongly identify with our
animal companions, but I run into Lynn's closing observation more and
more as I continue my research:

"I hear our nonhuman brethren snickering:
'Got along without you before I met you, gonna
get along without you now,' they sing about us
in harmony.  Most of them, the microbes, the whales,
the insects, the seed plants, and the birds, are
still singing.  The tropical forest trees are humming
to themselves, waiting for us to finish our arrogant
logging so they can get back to their business of
growth as usual.  And they will continue their
cocophonies and harmonies long after we are 
gone."
        ;)

Commentary

     This is my chance to speculate on what chapter 6 would
have covered had it talked about what most of us consider symbiotic
animal sex.  To me the single most important question that should
have been dealt with is:  Why are we here?  Why do our genes
persist in the gene pool to this day?  They're plenty of reasons
why they shouldn't, I can think of 2 offhand.  The first:  Human-
animal sex does not produce viable offspring.  The second:  Human-
animal sexuality has been suppressed for so long, including at least
3 centuries of genocide, that it could have been wiped out, at least
in the west.  Why not?  It is hard for us to remember nowadays that 
the Witch/Bestiality hunts sometimes wiped out WHOLE villages.
( these questions might also apply to Homosexuals and Pedophiles, 
but for the moment they will have to fend for themselfs.  I do not know 
if they went through anything like the Witch/Bestiality trials of a few 
centuries ago like we did.)  

     Before I proceed let me give you The Assumptions.  I do not
necessarily agree with them, but these are the assumptions I make
for the purpose of this discussion:

A.  Strong Gaia exists.

B.  Sexual Orientation has a strong genetic component.  Beyond a 
certain, very early age, a persons sexual orientation becomes fixed 
and relatively inflexible.

C.  Cross-species sexuality has always existed, not just between 
microbes, but between larger animals as well.  Evolutionary pressure
can select for or against this behavior just like any other.

D.  Mainstream western religions have held that human-animal sexuality
is a sin ( usually punishable by death ) for at least 3 millennia.





OK what's happening with us?   Why does zoosexuality persist
and is the population of zoos growing or declining?  Here is
a list of possible reasons, outcomes, and comments, take your
pick:

1.)  3,000 years of religious suppression hasn't been long enough to 
purge the pool of your genes.  Your population is in decline and will 
cease to exist before too much longer.  

     If you believe this one I own a bridge in Brooklyn I want to
sell you.

2.)   You all just went underground and faked normalcy for the past
three or four millennia.  OK, you talk about it more now but the size 
of the zoo population has neither increased nor decreased.

     About the only part of this statement that probably is correct 
regards the population size.  The rest of it is wrong.  Faking or not
we're still active sexually.  To do THAT and fake it means you need a
lot of privacy.  Privacy is a rather new invention.  Prior to about 900 
years ago and the invention of the chimney, it didn't exist for the 
average person.  ( still doesn't in some cultures )

     Now imagine a millennium ago, your the regular Joe Smo coming
home from work.  You and the farm animals go to a Manor house where
there is a central fire you and the rest can stay warm by.  A hole cut in
the roof lets the smoke out.  There are no rooms or partitions, just lots
of people and animals, and absolutely no privacy.  On a cold winters night
if you want some love, you grab your partner and do it.  Even the children
could see and hear.  A zoo would grab their animal lover and do it, maybe
you had a blanket for some "privacy."  You weren't fooling anyone, and
I doubt it made much of a difference to anyone.  You knew everyones
sexual preferences and they knew yours, no big deal.  This is the way it
had been for untold thousands of years.  Other cultures had other 
structures, ( Tee-pee, Long house etc ) but the basic idea is the same,
without the chimney, no privacy as we know it was possible.  There is a 
fine re-creation of a Manor house in James Burke's "Connections" series.  
This sequence shows all the people, animals, fire and smoke.  In it, is a 
very touching scene of a middle-aged man in bed with a Greyhound. 
(? Whippet ?)  They were both tucked in the blanket together in a tender 
embrace.  Even if you weren't zoo you might take an animal to bed with 
you for warmth.  It was easier to be zoosexual then than now, it is when 
friends and relatives know your orientation, and back then, relatives and 
good friends were your life.  Still I bet it wasn't talked about much outside 
of the house.  Outside religion still ruled, and the sexual revolution had yet 
to happen.

     I believe the pre-Internet situation of almost total repression in the 
face of a sexual revolution is a terrible remnant of the relatively recent 
Witch/Bestiality trials.  This did drive zoos underground, however, by then 
privacy existed and we could hide our actions.  We survived. The true 
horror of this remnant is felt everyday by many teen-aged zoos who must 
keep their orientation and actions secret from their own parents.  This 
would have been unthinkable and just about impossible a millennium ago.

3.)  Zoosexuality has never been suppressed.  It's all in your heads.

     Really?  Try bringing the subject up to a priest.  I have.  I won't
even bother to do it again for a while.  You could also talk to the conquered
Chimus and Mochicas Indians in South America.  They once enjoyed  
happy, loving, and open cross-species sexual relationships with the local 
animals....until the Incas and Spanish arrived.  The practice was 
eliminated.  ( well they tried anyway.  Were they successful or did it just 
put them in-the-closet? )  I don't think North American Indians were treated 
much better in this regard but I have no evidence of this.

4.)  You freaks screw just enough humans to keep the gene pool and
your own population at a steady state.  

     What?  Have sex with a human?  Your disgusting, you better 
go see a psychiatrist.  Actually he has a point, we do this. 

5.)  Assumption B is wrong, anyone can become a zoo at any time.
Genes play no part in determining sexual orientation.  Learned 
behavior rules.  Your population size has been in equilibrium for at
least 100,000 years.  Now the Internet makes exposure to this
kind of behavior easy.  This must be suppressed to protect our children
from being converted, and keep the zoo population from exploding
in size.

     Hmmm, equilibrium parts ok.  For many of us our FIRST sexual
contact, after we hit puberty, is an animal.  In those first 12 or 13 years
of our life where did we even get the IDEA to do this.  Sure the animal
often initiates first contact but it is still our decision to violate a major
taboo.  The taboo was so strong, in fact, very few of us even heard about 
cross-species sex until later, after we became sexually active, and we 
began to really seek out the information.  You can't learn the behavior if
you never see or hear anything about it and for years we never did.  It
didn't stop us from becoming zoo so there must be a genetic component.
Times they are a changing, however.

     Now that I'm in chatrooms where zoos congregate I get to talk 
to people who come in for information but have not yet had a zoo sexual 
experience.   However they get there, they have hit the mother-lode.  
( -load!  Thanks dad, I hadn't noticed that.  Hee )  They can ask almost 
any specific question about several different species and someone in the 
room can give a very specific answer.  For us this is the true beginning of 
the sexual revolution that straights have enjoyed since the 1960's.  At its 
heart the sexual revolution is about access to information.  If I love a horse 
and want to know how to make love to a horse I could learn by trial and 
error.  The error part can lead to serious injury.  It does me little good to 
study sex manuals and magazines that don't talk about horses!  Yet this 
is the situation zoos have been in since the beginning.  Now they're 
websites where I can go to get exactly that kind of information.   It is a 
good time to be alive.  

     That said it is ludicrous to think that a 18 year old, ( the minimum
age for these sites ) seeking information, is going to be converted by
anything he/she finds.  Not only is sexual orientation fixed way before 
that, many zoos have already had some/much animal contact before that.  
I believe orientation is fixed even before 12 years of age, just when a 
young zoo begins to realize they are very different from everyone else.  
( some of us know we are "unique" way before age 12. )  In-other-
words by the time you know your different, it's too late to change it.
Being different, however, makes us desperate for any information
we can get our hands on.  Once you understand this, you realize 
there can't be an explosion in our population size, we are born zoo.
Don't suppress it, use the baby-sitting programs to protect younger  
children.

6.)  Strong Gaia implies that the planet wants you around.  It knows that 
a zoos behavior and attitude toward other species is just what is needed 
to help the Earth, and all living things ( including people ) on it, survive.   
It is these behaviors and attitudes that are selected for.  Your population 
will increase and at a brisk pace.

     Ok this is a radical idea, but it does explain why were still
here and is very optimistic about the future.  Behaviors and attitudes, 
like genes, are passed down from generation to generation and are just 
about as conservatively retained as DNA sequences.  That is why Earth is 
in so much trouble.  Most people treat the planet just as they did  500 
years ago.  This crap has got to stop and fast.  If strong Gaia is a correct 
theory, future generations of zoos will once again have an important role to 
play in society, not closeted as we are now, but open and aboveboard.   
Lynn's ideas will be proven correct, and like a cavalry charge coming over 
the hill in a old movie, symbiois will save the day. 

Recommendations:

This is required reading for anyone with a strong Biology background.
I think all biology-challenged zoos should read it too, because, even if 
many of the biological terms are difficult to grasp, the overall tone of the 
book is very, very pro-zoo.  It will make you proud to be what nature has 
made you.

Gripes: 

Just one:  It's a brand new book, first edition, but there's no way to send/
get feedback to/from anyone!  NO e-mail address, website, chatroom, 
newsgroup, nothing listed.  The publisher has one, hard to read, website 
listed on the jacket but the URL is not recognized.  In 1998 this is 
barely tolerable, in 2000 this will be inexcusable.

For non-zoos who've read the book and this review:  We don't bite
really.

Add comments if you like and lets send this off to Lynn Margulis,
somehow!

     Book reviewed by:
          muttnik
          <philb@kynd.com>
