Rational Philosophy

On nature’s mysteries; the difficulties of environmental protection, IVF, and global warming.

A NY Times article today reports on an odd ecological phenomenon; protected trees that ail and die. The trees suffer, apparently, because cordoning them off disrupts a delicate balance of mutualism between species. The acacias house ants, the ants repel giraffes and elephants, thereby protecting the thorn nectar they feed on. But, when cordoned off from large herbivores, the trees become less ingratiating to the ants, who in turn become less well-disposed to protecting the trees, allowing deadly attack by wood-boring beetles…

In England, a member of the House of Lords (David Alton) has used the spectre of twins separated at birth who later married, not knowing they were brother and sister, to argue against maintaining the anonymity of the biological father for children born by in vitro fertilization. The twins in question were born normally. But Alton argues that withholding the name of the biological father for those born of IVF would make such cases more common. Alton’s choice to disclose information about the case during debate seems distressingly melodramatic and I suspect that he has other reasons to dislike the proposed law change. But it also made me wonder whether and how many people stop to think just why we have laws against siblings marrying.

Unless I’m mistaken, the prohibition (religious, moral, and legal) against marrying close family members derives from the increased likelihood of destructive genetic mutation; society has codified nature’s preference for mixing dissimilar gene pools. It is normal now in the US that prospective parents with a high likelihood of passing on a genetic health problem to their children get genetic counseling, along with testing for the fetus to determine whether the mutations in question have been passed on. Would it be natural then or unnatural to suggest that another approach to resolving Alton’s concern would be to recommend genetic counseling and testing for specific mutations to those born of IVF so that they can be better prepared before beginning a family? (Not to determine familial ties to their spouse, but simply to watch out for shared mutations.)

And lastly to global warming. It appears that glaciers were formed during a so-called “super greenhouse” period about 91 million years ago. Even as surface ocean temperatures at the equator rose several degrees higher than they are today, sheets of ice appeared in Antarctica. Hmmm. Throw that one into your current climate model.

Evidence shows we’ve messed with the earth’s natural climate by burning large quantities of fossil fuels and cutting down trees, causing global warming. And now we have to live with the consequences. Logic seems to indicate that we should try to slow down global warming. Wishful thinking would indicate that we would like to fix things and return the planet to a more natural equilibirium. (Some scientists have covered large swaths of glacial ice with aluminum foil in the hopes of preventing the ice from melting. Which seems pragmatic, touching and utterly futile.)

But, when the relatively innocuous seeming act of cordoning off trees to protect them leads to their death, how can we hope to know what is natural when dealing with things on a much vaster scale? After making so many terrible mistakes by ignoring the consequences to the planet we live on, our philosophy in living as modern human beings, it seems, should be to do as little as possible to mess with nature, and to stop doing things that we know are invasive.

Where does this leave us with IVF? Well – and I hesitate long and hard before writing this, since it seems heretical to me as a self-professed liberal, and insensitive to those who seek to have children but can’t — since IVF isn’t natural, and since messing with nature tends to have unforseen and undesired consequences, shouldn’t we consider this before we consider IVF?

ÂÂ