16 LONELY PLANET
《万物简史英文版》章节: 16 LONELY PLANET,宠文网网友提供全文无弹窗免费在线阅读。!
From the bottom of the deepest ocean trench to the top of the highest mountain, the zonethat covers nearly the whole of known life, is only something over a dozen miles—not muchwhen set against the roominess of the cosmos at large.
For humans it is even worse because we happen to belong to the portion of living thingsthat took the rash but venturesome decision 400 million years ago to crawl out of the seas andbecome land based and oxygen breathing. In consequence, no less than 99.5 percent of theworld’s habitable space by volume, according to one estimate, is fundamentally—in practicalterms completely—off-limits to us.
It isn’t simply that we can’t breathe in water, but that we couldn’t bear the pressures.
Because water is about 1,300 times heavier than air, pressures rise swiftly as you descend—by the equivalent of one atmosphere for every ten meters (thirty-three feet) of depth. On land,if you rose to the top of a five-hundred-foot eminence—Cologne Cathedral or the WashingtonMonument, say—the change in pressure would be so slight as to be indiscernible. At the samedepth underwater, however, your veins would collapse and your lungs would compress to theapproximate dimensions of a Coke can. Amazingly, people do voluntarily dive to such depths,without breathing apparatus, for the fun of it in a sport known as free diving. Apparently theexperience of having your internal organs rudely deformed is thought exhilarating (though notpresumably as exhilarating as having them return to their former dimensions uponresurfacing). To reach such depths, however, divers must be dragged down, and quite briskly,by weights. Without assistance, the deepest anyone has gone and lived to talk about itafterward was an Italian named Umberto Pelizzari, who in 1992 dove to a depth of 236 feet,lingered for a nanosecond, and then shot back to the surface. In terrestrial terms, 236 feet isjust slightly over the length of one New York City block. So even in our most exuberantstunts we can hardly claim to be masters of the abyss.
Other organisms do of course manage to deal with the pressures at depth, though quite howsome of them do so is a mystery. The deepest point in the ocean is the Mariana Trench in thePacific. There, some seven miles down, the pressures rise to over sixteen thousand pounds persquare inch. We have managed once, briefly, to send humans to that depth in a sturdy divingvessel, yet it is home to colonies of amphipods, a type of crustacean similar to shrimp buttransparent, which survive without any protection at all. Most oceans are of course much shallower, but even at the average ocean depth of two and a half miles the pressure isequivalent to being squashed beneath a stack of fourteen loaded cement trucks.
Nearly everyone, including the authors of some popular books on oceanography, assumesthat the human body would crumple under the immense pressures of the deep ocean. In fact,this appears not to be the case. Because we are made largely of water ourselves, and water is“virtually incompressible,” in the words of Frances Ashcroft of Oxford University, “the bodyremains at the same pressure as the surrounding water, and is not crushed at depth.” It is thegases inside your body, particularly in the lungs, that cause the trouble. These do compress,though at what point the compression becomes fatal is not known. Until quite recently it wasthought that anyone diving to one hundred meters or so would die painfully as his or her lungsimploded or chest wall collapsed, but the free divers have repeatedly proved otherwise. Itappears, according to Ashcroft, that “humans may be more like whales and dolphins than hadbeen expected.”
Plenty else can go wrong, however. In the days of diving suits—the sort that wereconnected to the surface by long hoses—divers sometimes experienced a dreadedphenomenon known as “the squeeze.” This occurred when the surface pumps failed, leadingto a catastrophic loss of pressure in the suit. The air would leave the suit with such violencethat the hapless diver would be, all too literally, sucked up into the helmet and hosepipe.
When hauled to the surface, “all that is left in the suit are his bones and some rags of flesh,”
the biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1947, adding for the benefit of doubters, “This hashappened.”
(Incidentally, the original diving helmet, designed in 1823 by an Englishman namedCharles Deane, was intended not for diving but for fire-fighting. It was called a “smokehelmet,” but being made of metal it was hot and cumbersome and, as Deane soon discovered,firefighters had no particular eagerness to enter burning structures in any form of attire, butmost especially not in something that heated up like a kettle and made them clumsy into thebargain. In an attempt to save his investment, Deane tried it underwater and found it was idealfor salvage work.)The real terror of the deep, however, is the bends—not so much because they areunpleasant, though of course they are, as because they are so much more likely. The air webreathe is 80 percent nitrogen. Put the human body under pressure, and that nitrogen istransformed into tiny bubbles that migrate into the blood and tissues. If the pressure ischanged too rapidly—as with a too-quick ascent by a diver—the bubbles trapped within thebody will begin to fizz in exactly the manner of a freshly opened bottle of champagne,clogging tiny blood vessels, depriving cells of oxygen, and causing pain so excruciating thatsufferers are prone to bend double in agony—hence “the bends.”
The bends have been an occupational hazard for sponge and pearl divers since timeimmemorial but didn’t attract much attention in the Western world until the nineteenthcentury, and then it was among people who didn’t get wet at all (or at least not very wet andnot generally much above the ankles). They were caisson workers. Caissons were encloseddry chambers built on riverbeds to facilitate the construction of bridge piers. They were filledwith compressed air, and often when the workers emerged after an extended period ofworking under this artificial pressure they experienced mild symptoms like tingling or itchyskin. But an unpredictable few felt more insistent pain in the joints and occasionally collapsedin agony, sometimes never to get up again.
It was all most puzzling. Sometimes workers would go to bed feeling fine, but wake upparalyzed. Sometimes they wouldn’t wake up at all. Ashcroft relates a story concerning thedirectors of a new tunnel under the Thames who held a celebratory banquet as the tunnelneared completion. To their consternation their champagne failed to fizz when uncorked inthe compressed air of the tunnel. However, when at length they emerged into the fresh air of aLondon evening, the bubbles sprang instantly to fizziness, memorably enlivening thedigestive process.
Apart from avoiding high-pressure environments altogether, only two strategies are reliablysuccessful against the bends. The first is to suffer only a very short exposure to the changes inpressure. That is why the free divers I mentioned earlier can descend to depths of five hundredfeet without ill effect. They don’t stay under long enough for the nitrogen in their system todissolve into their tissues. The other solution is to ascend by careful stages. This allows thelittle bubbles of nitrogen to dissipate harmlessly.
A great deal of what we know about surviving at extremes is owed to the extraordinaryfather-and-son team of John Scott and J. B. S. Haldane. Even by the demanding standards ofBritish intellectuals, the Haldanes were outstandingly eccentric. The senior Haldane was bornin 1860 to an aristocratic Scottish family (his brother was Viscount Haldane) but spent mostof his career in comparative modesty as a professor of physiology at Oxford. He wasfamously absent-minded. Once after his wife had sent him upstairs to change for a dinnerparty he failed to return and was discovered asleep in bed in his pajamas. When roused,Haldane explained that he had found himself disrobing and assumed it was bedtime. His ideaof a vacation was to travel to Cornwall to study hookworm in miners. Aldous Huxley, thenovelist grandson of T. H. Huxley, who lived with the Haldanes for a time, parodied him, atouch mercilessly, as the scientist Edward Tantamount in the novel Point Counter Point .
Haldane’s gift to diving was to work out the rest intervals necessary to manage an ascentfrom the depths without getting the bends, but his interests ranged across the whole ofphysiology, from studying altitude sickness in climbers to the problems of heatstroke in desertregions. He had a particular interest in the effects of toxic gases on the human body. Tounderstand more exactly how carbon monoxide leaks killed miners, he methodically poisonedhimself, carefully taking and measuring his own blood samples the while. He quit only whenhe was on the verge of losing all muscle control and his blood saturation level had reached 56percent—a level, as Trevor Norton notes in his entertaining history of diving, Stars Beneaththe Sea, only fractionally removed from nearly certain lethality.
Haldane’s son Jack, known to posterity as J.B.S., was a remarkable prodigy who took aninterest in his father’s work almost from infancy. At the age of three he was overhearddemanding peevishly of his father, “But is it oxyhaemoglobin or carboxyhaemoglobin?”
Throughout his youth, the young Haldane helped his father with experiments. By the time hewas a teenager, the two often tested gases and gas masks together, taking turns to see howlong it took them to pass out.
Though J. B. S. Haldane never took a degree in science (he studied classics at Oxford), hebecame a brilliant scientist in his own right, mostly in Cambridge. The biologist PeterMedawar, who spent his life around mental Olympians, called him “the cleverest man I everknew.” Huxley likewise parodied the younger Haldane in his novel Antic Hay, but also usedhis ideas on genetic manipulation of humans as the basis for the plot of Brave New World.
Among many other achievements, Haldane played a central role in marrying Darwinian principles of evolution to the genetic work of Gregor Mendel to produce what is known togeneticists as the Modern Synthesis.
Perhaps uniquely among human beings, the younger Haldane found World War I “a veryenjoyable experience” and freely admitted that he “enjoyed the opportunity of killing people.”
He was himself wounded twice. After the war he became a successful popularizer of scienceand wrote twenty-three books (as well as over four hundred scientific papers). His books arestill thoroughly readable and instructive, though not always easy to find. He also became anenthusiastic Marxist. It has been suggested, not altogether cynically, that this was out of apurely contrarian instinct, and that if he had been born in the Soviet Union he would havebeen a passionate monarchist. At all events, most of his articles first appeared in theCommunist Daily Worker.
Whereas his father’s principal interests concerned miners and poisoning, the youngerHaldane became obsessed with saving submariners and divers from the unpleasantconsequences of their work. With Admiralty funding he acquired a decompression chamberthat he called the “pressure pot.” This was a metal cylinder into which three people at a timecould be sealed and subjected to tests of various types, all painful and nearly all dangerous.
Volunteers might be required to sit in ice water while breathing “aberrant atmosphere” orsubjected to rapid changes of pressurization. In one experiment, Haldane simulated adangerously hasty ascent to see what would happen. What happened was that the dentalfillings in his teeth exploded. “Almost every experiment,” Norton writes, “ended withsomeone having a seizure, bleeding, or vomiting.” The chamber was virtually soundproof, sothe only way for occupants to signal unhappiness or distress was to tap insistently on thechamber wall or to hold up notes to a small window.
On another occasion, while poisoning himself with elevated levels of oxygen, Haldane hada fit so severe that he crushed several vertebrae. Collapsed lungs were a routine hazard.
Perforated eardrums were quite common, but, as Haldane reassuringly noted in one of hisessays, “the drum generally heals up; and if a hole remains in it, although one is somewhatdeaf, one can blow tobacco smoke out of the ear in question, which is a socialaccomplishment.”
What was extraordinary about this was not that Haldane was willing to subject himself tosuch risk and discomfort in the pursuit of science, but that he had no trouble talkingcolleagues and loved ones into climbing into the chamber, too. Sent on a simulated descent,his wife once had a fit that lasted thirteen minutes. When at last she stopped bouncing acrossthe floor, she was helped to her feet and sent home to cook dinner. Haldane happily employedwhoever happened to be around, including on one memorable occasion a former primeminister of Spain, Juan Negrín. Dr. Negrín complained afterward of minor tingling and “acurious velvety sensation on the lips” but otherwise seems to have escaped unharmed. He mayhave considered himself very lucky. A similar experiment with oxygen deprivation leftHaldane without feeling in his buttocks and lower spine for six years.
Among Haldane’s many specific preoccupations was nitrogen intoxication. For reasons thatare still poorly understood, beneath depths of about a hundred feet nitrogen becomes apowerful intoxicant. Under its influence divers had been known to offer their air hoses topassing fish or decide to try to have a smoke break. It also produced wild mood swings. Inone test, Haldane noted, the subject “alternated between depression and elation, at onemoment begging to be decompressed because he felt ‘bloody awful’ and the next minutelaughing and attempting to interfere with his colleague’s dexterity test.” In order to measure the rate of deterioration in the subject, a scientist had to go into the chamber with thevolunteer to conduct simple mathematical tests. But after a few minutes, as Haldane laterrecalled, “the tester was usually as intoxicated as the testee, and often forgot to press thespindle of his stopwatch, or to take proper notes.” The cause of the inebriation is even now amystery. It is thought that it may be the same thing that causes alcohol intoxication, but as noone knows for certain what causes that we are none the wiser. At all events, without thegreatest care, it is easy to get in trouble once you leave the surface world.
Which brings us back (well, nearly) to our earlier observation that Earth is not the easiestplace to be an organism, even if it is the only place. Of the small portion of the planet’ssurface that is dry enough to stand on, a surprisingly large amount is too hot or cold or dry orsteep or lofty to be of much use to us. Partly, it must be conceded, this is our fault. In terms ofadaptability, humans are pretty amazingly useless. Like most animals, we don’t much likereally hot places, but because we sweat so freely and easily stroke, we are especiallyvulnerable. In the worst circumstances—on foot without water in a hot desert—most peoplewill grow delirious and keel over, possibly never to rise again, in no more than six or sevenhours. We are no less helpless in the face of cold. Like all mammals, humans are good atgenerating heat but—because we are so nearly hairless—not good at keeping it. Even in quitemild weather half the calories you burn go to keep your body warm. Of course, we cancounter these frailties to a large extent by employing clothing and shelter, but even so theportions of Earth on which we are prepared or able to live are modest indeed: just 12 percentof the total land area, and only 4 percent of the whole surface if you include the seas.
Yet when you consider conditions elsewhere in the known universe, the wonder is not thatwe use so little of our planet but that we have managed to find a planet that we can use even abit of. You have only to look at our own solar system—or, come to that, Earth at certainperiods in its own history—to appreciate that most places are much harsher and much lessamenable to life than our mild, blue watery globe.
So far space scientists have discovered about seventy planets outside the solar system, outof the ten billion trillion or so that are thought to be out there, so humans can hardly claim tospeak with authority on the matter, but it appears that if you wish to have a planet suitable forlife, you have to be just awfully lucky, and the more advanced the life, the luckier you have tobe. Various observers have identified about two dozen particularly helpful breaks we havehad on Earth, but this is a flying survey so we’ll distill them down to the principal four. Theyare:
Excellent location.We are, to an almost uncanny degree, the right distance from the right sortof star, one that is big enough to radiate lots of energy, but not so big as to burn itself outswiftly. It is a curiosity of physics that the larger a star the more rapidly it burns. Had our sunbeen ten times as massive, it would have exhausted itself after ten million years instead of tenbillion and we wouldn’t be here now. We are also fortunate to orbit where we do. Too muchnearer and everything on Earth would have boiled away. Much farther away and everythingwould have frozen.
In 1978, an astrophysicist named Michael Hart made some calculations and concluded thatEarth would have been uninhabitable had it been just 1 percent farther from or 5 percent closer to the Sun. That’s not much, and in fact it wasn’t enough. The figures have since beenrefined and made a little more generous—5 percent nearer and 15 percent farther are thoughtto be more accurate assessments for our zone of habitability—but that is still a narrow belt.
1To appreciate just how narrow, you have only to look at Venus. Venus is only twenty-fivemillion miles closer to the Sun than we are. The Sun’s warmth reaches it just two minutesbefore it touches us. In size and composition, Venus is very like Earth, but the smalldifference in orbital distance made all the difference to how it turned out. It appears thatduring the early years of the solar system Venus was only slightly warmer than Earth andprobably had oceans. But those few degrees of extra warmth meant that Venus could not holdon to its surface water, with disastrous consequences for its climate. As its water evaporated,the hydrogen atoms escaped into space, and the oxygen atoms combined with carbon to forma dense atmosphere of the greenhouse gas CO2. Venus became stifling. Although people ofmy age will recall a time when astronomers hoped that Venus might harbor life beneath itspadded clouds, possibly even a kind of tropical verdure, we now know that it is much toofierce an environment for any kind of life that we can reasonably conceive of. Its surfacetemperature is a roasting 470 degrees centigrade (roughly 900 degrees Fahrenheit), which ishot enough to melt lead, and the atmospheric pressure at the surface is ninety times that ofEarth, or more than any human body could withstand. We lack the technology to make suitsor even spaceships that would allow us to visit. Our knowledge of Venus’s surface is based ondistant radar imagery and some startled squawks from an unmanned Soviet probe that wasdropped hopefully into the clouds in 1972 and functioned for barely an hour beforepermanently shutting down.
So that’s what happens when you move two light minutes closer to the Sun. Travel fartherout and the problem becomes not heat but cold, as Mars frigidly attests. It, too, was once amuch more congenial place, but couldn’t retain a usable atmosphere and turned into a frozenwaste.
But just being the right distance from the Sun cannot be the whole story, for otherwise theMoon would be forested and fair, which patently it is not. For that you need to have:
The right kind of planet.I don’t imagine even many geophysicists, when asked to counttheir blessings, would include living on a planet with a molten interior, but it’s a pretty nearcertainty that without all that magma swirling around beneath us we wouldn’t be here now.
Apart from much else, our lively interior created the outgassing that helped to build anatmosphere and provided us with the magnetic field that shields us from cosmic radiation. Italso gave us plate tectonics, which continually renews and rumples the surface. If Earth wereperfectly smooth, it would be covered everywhere with water to a depth of four kilometers.
There might be life in that lonesome ocean, but there certainly wouldn’t be baseball.
In addition to having a beneficial interior, we also have the right elements in the correctproportions. In the most literal way, we are made of the right stuff. This is so crucial to ourwell-being that we are going to discuss it more fully in a minute, but first we need to considerthe two remaining factors, beginning with another one that is often overlooked:
1The discovery of extremophiles in the boiling mudpots of Yellowstone and similar organisms found elsewheremade scientists realize that actually life of a type could range much farther than that-even, perhaps, beneath theicy skin of Pluto. What we are talking about here are the conditions that would produce reasonably complexsurface creatures.
We’re a twin planet.Not many of us normally think of the Moon as a companion planet,but that is in effect what it is. Most moons are tiny in relation to their master planet. TheMartian satellites of Phobos and Deimos, for instance, are only about ten kilometers indiameter. Our Moon, however, is more than a quarter the diameter of the Earth, which makesours the only planet in the solar system with a sizeable moon in comparison to itself (exceptPluto, which doesn’t really count because Pluto is itself so small), and what a difference thatmakes to us.
Without the Moon’s steadying influence, the Earth would wobble like a dying top, withgoodness knows what consequences for climate and weather. The Moon’s steady gravitationalinfluence keeps the Earth spinning at the right speed and angle to provide the sort of stabilitynecessary for the long and successful development of life. This won’t go on forever. TheMoon is slipping from our grasp at a rate of about 1.5 inches a year. In another two billionyears it will have receded so far that it won’t keep us steady and we will have to come up withsome other solution, but in the meantime you should think of it as much more than just apleasant feature in the night sky.
For a long time, astronomers assumed that the Moon and Earth either formed together orthat the Earth captured the Moon as it drifted by. We now believe, as you will recall from anearlier chapter, that about 4.5 billion years ago a Mars-sized object slammed into Earth,blowing out enough material to create the Moon from the debris. This was obviously a verygood thing for us—but especially so as it happened such a long time ago. If it had happened in1896 or last Wednesday clearly we wouldn’t be nearly so pleased about it. Which brings us toour fourth and in many ways most crucial consideration:
Timing.The universe is an amazingly fickle and eventful place, and our existence within itis a wonder. If a long and unimaginably complex sequence of events stretching back 4.6billion years or so hadn’t played out in a particular manner at particular times—if, to take justone obvious instance, the dinosaurs hadn’t been wiped out by a meteor when they were—youmight well be six inches long, with whiskers and a tail, and reading this in a burrow.
We don’t really know for sure because we have nothing else to compare our own existenceto, but it seems evident that if you wish to end up as a moderately advanced, thinking society,you need to be at the right end of a very long chain of outcomes involving reasonable periodsof stability interspersed with just the right amount of stress and challenge (ice ages appear tobe especially helpful in this regard) and marked by a total absence of real cataclysm. As weshall see in the pages that remain to us, we are very lucky to find ourselves in that position.
And on that note, let us now turn briefly to the elements that made us.
There are ninety-two naturally occurring elements on Earth, plus a further twenty or so thathave been created in labs, but some of these we can immediately put to one side—as, in fact,chemists themselves tend to do. Not a few of our earthly chemicals are surprisingly littleknown. Astatine, for instance, is practically unstudied. It has a name and a place on theperiodic table (next door to Marie Curie’s polonium), but almost nothing else. The problem isn’t scientific indifference, but rarity. There just isn’t much astatine out there. The mostelusive element of all, however, appears to be francium, which is so rare that it is thought thatour entire planet may contain, at any given moment, fewer than twenty francium atoms.
Altogether only about thirty of the naturally occurring elements are widespread on Earth, andbarely half a dozen are of central importance to life.
As you might expect, oxygen is our most abundant element, accounting for just under 50percent of the Earth’s crust, but after that the relative abundances are often surprising. Whowould guess, for instance, that silicon is the second most common element on Earth or thattitanium is tenth? Abundance has little to do with their familiarity or utility to us. Many of themore obscure elements are actually more common than the better-known ones. There is morecerium on Earth than copper, more neodymium and lanthanum than cobalt or nitrogen. Tinbarely makes it into the top fifty, eclipsed by such relative obscurities as praseodymium,samarium, gadolinium, and dysprosium.
Abundance also has little to do with ease of detection. Aluminum is the fourth mostcommon element on Earth, accounting for nearly a tenth of everything that’s underneath yourfeet, but its existence wasn’t even suspected until it was discovered in the nineteenth centuryby Humphry Davy, and for a long time after that it was treated as rare and precious. Congressnearly put a shiny lining of aluminum foil atop the Washington Monument to show what aclassy and prosperous nation we had become, and the French imperial family in the sameperiod discarded the state silver dinner service and replaced it with an aluminum one. Thefashion was cutting edge even if the knives weren’t.
Nor does abundance necessarily relate to importance. Carbon is only the fifteenth mostcommon element, accounting for a very modest 0.048 percent of Earth’s crust, but we wouldbe lost without it. What sets the carbon atom apart is that it is shamelessly promiscuous. It isthe party animal of the atomic world, latching on to many other atoms (including itself) andholding tight, forming molecular conga lines of hearty robustness—the very trick of naturenecessary to build proteins and DNA. As Paul Davies has written: “If it wasn’t for carbon, lifeas we know it would be impossible. Probably any sort of life would be impossible.” Yetcarbon is not all that plentiful even in humans, who so vitally depend on it. Of every 200atoms in your body, 126 are hydrogen, 51 are oxygen, and just 19 are carbon.
2Other elements are critical not for creating life but for sustaining it. We need iron tomanufacture hemoglobin, and without it we would die. Cobalt is necessary for the creation ofvitamin B12. Potassium and a very little sodium are literally good for your nerves.
Molybdenum, manganese, and vanadium help to keep your enzymes purring. Zinc—bless it—oxidizes alcohol.
We have evolved to utilize or tolerate these things—we could hardly be here otherwise—but even then we live within narrow ranges of acceptance. Selenium is vital to all of us, buttake in just a little too much and it will be the last thing you ever do. The degree to whichorganisms require or tolerate certain elements is a relic of their evolution. Sheep and cattlenow graze side by side, but actually have very different mineral requirements. Modern cattleneed quite a lot of copper because they evolved in parts of Europe and Africa where copperwas abundant. Sheep, on the other hand, evolved in copper-poor areas of Asia Minor. As arule, and not surprisingly, our tolerance for elements is directly proportionate to their2Of the remaining four, three are nitrogen and the remaining atom is divided among all the other elements.
abundance in the Earth’s crust. We have evolved to expect, and in some cases actually need,the tiny amounts of rare elements that accumulate in the flesh or fiber that we eat. But step upthe doses, in some cases by only a tiny amount, and we can soon cross a threshold. Much ofthis is only imperfectly understood. No one knows, for example, whether a tiny amount ofarsenic is necessary for our well-being or not. Some authorities say it is; some not. All that iscertain is that too much of it will kill you.
The properties of the elements can become more curious still when they are combined.
Oxygen and hydrogen, for instance, are two of the most combustion-friendly elements around,but put them together and they make incombustible water.
3Odder still in combination aresodium, one of the most unstable of all elements, and chlorine, one of the most toxic. Drop asmall lump of pure sodium into ordinary water and it will explode with enough force to kill.
Chlorine is even more notoriously hazardous. Though useful in small concentrations forkilling microorganisms (it’s chlorine you smell in bleach), in larger volumes it is lethal.
Chlorine was the element of choice for many of the poison gases of the First World War. And,as many a sore-eyed swimmer will attest, even in exceedingly dilute form the human bodydoesn’t appreciate it. Yet put these two nasty elements together and what do you get? Sodiumchloride—common table salt.
By and large, if an element doesn’t naturally find its way into our systems—if it isn’tsoluble in water, say—we tend to be intolerant of it. Lead poisons us because we were neverexposed to it until we began to fashion it into food vessels and pipes for plumbing. (Notincidentally, lead’s symbol is Pb, for the Latin plumbum, the source word for our modernplumbing.) The Romans also flavored their wine with lead, which may be part of the reasonthey are not the force they used to be. As we have seen elsewhere, our own performance withlead (not to mention mercury, cadmium, and all the other industrial pollutants with which weroutinely dose ourselves) does not leave us a great deal of room for smirking. When elementsdon’t occur naturally on Earth, we have evolved no tolerance for them, and so they tend to beextremely toxic to us, as with plutonium. Our tolerance for plutonium is zero: there is no levelat which it is not going to make you want to lie down.
I have brought you a long way to make a small point: a big part of the reason that Earthseems so miraculously accommodating is that we evolved to suit its conditions. What wemarvel at is not that it is suitable to life but that it is suitable to our life—and hardlysurprising, really. It may be that many of the things that make it so splendid to us—well-proportioned Sun, doting Moon, sociable carbon, more magma than you can shake a stick at,and all the rest—seem splendid simply because they are what we were born to count on. Noone can altogether say.
Other worlds may harbor beings thankful for their silvery lakes of mercury and driftingclouds of ammonia. They may be delighted that their planet doesn’t shake them silly with itsgrinding plates or spew messy gobs of lava over the landscape, but rather exists in apermanent nontectonic tranquility. Any visitors to Earth from afar would almost certainly, atthe very least, be bemused to find us living in an atmosphere composed of nitrogen, a gassulkily disinclined to react with anything, and oxygen, which is so partial to combustion thatwe must place fire stations throughout our cities to protect ourselves from its livelier effects.
But even if our visitors were oxygen-breathing bipeds with shopping malls and a fondness for3Oxygen itself is not combustible; it merely facilitates the combus tion of other things. This is just as well, for ifoxygen were corn bustible, each time you lit a match all the air around you would bur into flame. Hydrogen gas,on the other hand, is extremely corn bustible, as the dirigible Hindenburg demonstrated on May 6, 193 inLakehurst, New Jersey, when its hydrogen fuel burst explosive) into flame, killing thirty-six people.
action movies, it is unlikely that they would find Earth ideal. We couldn’t even give themlunch because all our foods contain traces of manganese, selenium, zinc, and other elementalparticles at least some of which would be poisonous to them. To them Earth might not seem awondrously congenial place at all.
The physicist Richard Feynman used to make a joke about a posteriori conclusions, as theyare called. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight,” he would say. “Isaw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of licenseplates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight?
Amazing!” His point, of course, was that it is easy to make any banal situation seemextraordinary if you treat it as fateful.
So it is possible that the events and conditions that led to the rise of life on Earth are notquite as extraordinary as we like to think. Sti