"The Creator on the Edge of the Cliff: How 50,000 Years of Human Technological Innovation Reshaped Nature", by Beth Shapiro, translated by Hui Jingyi, published by CITIC Publishing Group in January 2023, 344 pages, 69.00 yuan
In the winter of 2013, I first heard about the gene-editing technology CRISPR-Cas9. I was studying abroad in Denmark at the time, and winter nights in Northern Europe were always long and cold, and one of the ways I spent the long nights was to drink and chat with friends on Friday nights. Once, Song, who had recently come to Denmark from England to study for a Ph.D., came to drink and chat in my small rented house. Under the dim light, with a slightly drunk expression on his face, he told me in a gentle but slightly excited tone, "Bioengineering has finally become engineering in the sense of engineering." We can design and build life the same way engineers design and build bridges. I finally feel the value and significance of my research." At that time, CRISPR-associated (Cas), although it was born for just over a year, quickly changed the ecological landscape of molecular biology and became the most suitable tool for molecular biologists and bioengineers. Precision gene editing technology represented by CRISPR-associated (Cas) gives humans the ability to create a creator: to accurately design, create life that meets specific purposes and fulfills specific functions according to human will. Man, after all, has become the "master" of all things. But the question is, should man play the role of "creator" and arbitrarily interfere with and change the natural state of life?
Beth Shapiro, an American evolutionary molecular biologist who won the MacArthur Genius Award, is not overly concerned about this, because humans have been playing the role of "creator" 50,000 years ago. Since then, human replacement of nature has become the most important shaping force in the evolution of life on Earth: humans can determine the survival of a species, accelerate the speed of life evolution, and control the evolution direction of many species. Her new book, The Creator on the Edge of the Cliff: How 50,000 Years of Human Technological Innovation Reshaped Nature, explains and demonstrates this view in detail, and uses detailed and rich cases to show that humans with new tools represented by gene editing technology, with the right regulation, can shape a better future for themselves and other species on the planet.
Beth Shapiro
Shapiro began her research work on the mediocre American bison. Compared to prehistoric giants such as mammoths, cave bears and moas, or Neanderthals, a close relative of modern Homo sapiens, the American bison are really not interesting. This was also her idea at first, but because she could go to Siberia, she accepted the subject and began to study ancient DNA. Ancient DNA research helps paleontologists more accurately locate the position of a paleontological species in biological evolution through DNA sequencing of paleontological fossil remains, avoiding the misleading that may occur in the past classification purely from a morphological point of view. The study of bison's ancient DNA is also her unique perspective on understanding the relationship between the megafauna of the North American continent and humans. She found that about 35,000 years ago, the survival of the American bison was inextricably linked to human activities in the Americas.
When humans first set foot on the North American continent, they had a severe impact on the bison herd in the United States. However, as megafauna such as mammoths and horses became extinct or endangered after encountering humans in the Holocene, ecological niche was freed up for bison herds and they were allowed to flourish again. At the same time, bison evolved in tandem with humans who were good at joint hunting, becoming smaller and better at escaping. When the virus brought by Europeans swept across the continent, with the advent of the indigenous disaster, the survival pressure of the bison herd was minimized, and the population reached its maximum. However, this prosperity did not last long. The introduction of horses and guns put the bison herd under unprecedented hunting pressure and brought them to the brink of extinction. At the time of endangerment, humans took over the place where natural evolution was dominant, determined the evolution path of the bison herd, and allowed the bison to flourish again. Humans' relationship with bison is a microcosm of humanity's relationship with other species on Earth: humans are hunters, domesticators, and can also be stewards and protectors. Shapiro shows in the first part of The Creator on the Cliffside that no matter which of these roles humans are, they will change the distribution of communities on Earth, the paths and processes of the evolution of other species, and thus reshape nature.
The most significant modification of nature by humans was the "sixth mass extinction". There is a normal extinction rate in nature, but since humans entered the stage of biological evolution, the rate of extinction has greatly increased, which is twenty times the normal extinction rate. Recent extinction events have made it clear that humanity is responsible for the extinction of many species. Shapiro, as a paleontologist wants to further ask, is whether humans are responsible for the extinction of megafauna on various continents in the early human period. The first evidence that humans are responsible for this is that the extinction of megafauna on each continent coincided highly in time with the emergence and spread of humans on that continent. However, this is just a phenomenon. As scientists, you shouldn't be satisfied with such phenomenal associations. Because the two events appear to be related in phenomena, the existence of a causal relationship between the two is only a possibility, or it may be just a coincidence, or the two have a common cause. Shapiro carefully examined the causes of the extinction of megafauna in Australia, the American continent and New Zealand, and gave independent evidence that humans were inseparable from the extinction of these animals. Humans, as disruptors, blocked the evolutionary path of these animals that would otherwise have more evolutionary possibilities.
Shapiro believes that directed domestication is the second way humans reshape nature. In the absence of human interference, life evolved spontaneously through natural selection and did not have a specific direction of evolution. However, the directed domestication of humans changed all that. The chosen life of mankind began to evolve in a definite direction, in the direction that humans wanted: more docile horses, cows that produced more milk... Humans went from hunters to herders. In generations of artificial selection, domesticated animals increasingly meet human wishes. In directed domestication, humans form a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with domesticated species. Mutualistic symbiosis is not uncommon in the biological world, and there is even a relationship very similar to human planting and grazing: leaf-cutting ants grow fungi and maintain fungal gardens to obtain stable food; Yellow hairy ants graze aphids and stroke aphids with their antennae to let them expel honeydew. However, Shapiro points out the key difference between directed domestication of humans and other mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships: humans are directed domesticated according to their own will, while mutually beneficial symbiosis between other species is only the result of co-evolution, not intention and purpose.
The first two ways of reshaping nature are clearly human-centered. For the selfish interests of human survival, human beings have led to the extinction of megafauna and changed the evolutionary path of other species. However, even if it is purely for human self-interest, these two short-sighted approaches are not good for the long-term survival and development of mankind. Moreover, human beings are a species that can be reflected, and human survival should not be at the expense of the extinction of other species. Shapiro believes that the third way that resulting humans can reshape nature is to protect nature and protect other species. She introduced two approaches to protecting nature: one is to designate nature reserves, let nature be nature, and avoid excessive human intervention; The other is active human intervention to allow nature to continue to develop. The second sounds paradoxical, intervening with nature in order to protect it. She gave the example of saving mountain lions. When people began to protect mountain lions, although the number of mountain lions could be increased by protecting them, inbreeding may bring various genetic diseases, but in turn exacerbate the risk of population extinction. To this end, biologists actively promote the hybridization of mountain lions to increase the diversity of mountain lion genes. The practice turned out to be good, the incidence of congenital diseases and physiological defects in crossbred cougars decreased, and the population increased by more than fifty percent.
Before the advent of transgenic technology and synthetic biology technology, humans have indeed been reshaping nature, but largely unintentionally, even if it is directed domestication, the process is very slow, and it may take decades or hundreds of years to continue careful artificial breeding. The emergence of new biotechnologies, especially precision gene editing, as my friend Song puts it, allows us to engineer and build life. In the second part of the book, "The way it could be," Shapiro discusses what we can and cannot do with these advanced biotechnologies, and how we can use them to create a better future.
With today's GM technology and gene-editing technology, we can create hornless Holstein cattle that are more docile and easier to graze, migrate and milk, tomatoes that taste better and are shelf-stable, rice that can save lives by supplementing the body with essential elements, food crops that are pesticide-free and resistant to pests, saving endangered animals, bacteria that dispose of Pacific garbage, and so on. However, both genetically modified products and the gene-edited baby incident in 2018 are mired in huge debate. The general public feels the great uncertainty of the latest biotechnology and the risks it entails. People worry that in the profit-seeking nature of capital, "with sharp weapons and murderous intentions", it seriously threatens our vital security and the future of our entire life. Shapiro disagrees with this "GMO fear." She believes that "with good intentions and sharp weapons", these biotechnologies can be used to create biological products that are more in line with human needs, improve the ecological environment, save endangered species, and have a better future. She is convinced that biotechnology can give us a better future, the future that humanity itself wants. Because the evolutionary future of natural selection is inherently uncertain, biotechnology allows us to grasp the power of evolution and control the evolutionary future ourselves.
Although Shapiro's view sounds a little too optimistic, ignoring the uncertainty and risk of biotechnology itself, her view is not groundless, but based on concrete theory and real-world cases. People are always afraid of things they don't know and don't know. She tried to theoretically show that, apart from speeding up the speed and precision of evolution and controlling the direction of evolution, the changes in life brought about by biotechnology are not substantially different from naturally occurring evolution. Therefore, there is no need to worry unduly about this. Of course, she doesn't think scientists can do whatever they want. On the contrary, she believes that special regulation is necessary, and scientific research should also be actively regulated by the public and relevant departments. Those events that have caused great controversy, such as the "Golden Rice Incident" and the "Gene-Edited Baby Incident", have been questioned by the public and the expert community precisely because of their attempts to evade regulation. As long as genetic technology is strictly regulated and fully understood by the public, we can let biotechnology shape a better future for us and other life on Earth.
Even for all these reasons, I think Shapiro's view is still overly optimistic and oversimplistic to the public's thinking. First, public distrust of biotechnologies like GMOs, gene editing, etc. is not just a simple emotional response to ignorance, but is justified by reason. Scientists can certainly anticipate the risks posed by biotechnology, but the public is concerned about risks beyond what scientists predicted. In fact, the public does not seek absolute safety and certainty, and the public is accustomed to living in unknown uncertainty. The public's possession of non-formal local knowledge that is highly relevant to their interests is sufficient to support their rational response to scientific risks. This is why the public is skeptical that science so confidently claims to have predicted and can completely control all uncertainties. Second, public distrust of biotechnology and its associated theoretical knowledge is not simply a distrust, but a reasonable question about the conduct, track record, and credibility of the institutions responsible for science-related public affairs. Today, science is no longer the business of scientific experts who exist only in the laboratory, but also has potential commercial and political interests, and many scientific experts are even entrepreneurs themselves. Especially in recent years, the commercialization of science has accelerated dramatically due to the widespread commercialization culture in academic science. Public judgment is "the moral, intellectual and political judgment of available science 'captured' by commercial or other forces of political interest." Third, public skepticism about biotechnology can push science to take its share of public responsibility, and make scientists and corresponding public institutions more cautious about technologies that may affect public safety and interests.
However, whether one agrees with Shapiro's optimism about biotechnology expressed in his book, there is no denying that this book is excellent as a popular science book that describes how humans have shaped nature in the past and may shape nature in the future. Anyone who wants to understand humanity's past, present, and future, as well as state-of-the-art biotechnology, should not miss this book.