User Profile

This review was first published at BriefEcology.com

Show me someone who says they've found a place on Earth with no life and I'll show you a liar. That is, at least according to Alex Riley's upcoming book, Super Natural: How Life Thrives in Impossible Places, which I was fortunate to receive an advanced copy of. Riley's expansive look at the extreme conditions under which many extraordinary species live, and even thrive, reveals the diversity and ingenuity of life on Earth.

It's clear that Riley did the homework here. Traveling across the globe to interview over one hundred scientists, visiting their labs, and learning about their work are things only someone truly dedicated to the science of biology would undertake. And it shows up in the pages of Super Natural. The book is thoroughly researched and yet still widely accessible to non-experts, breaking down extreme conditions into categories of sustenance, environmental conditions, and radiation (solar and otherwise). Riley explores the biological details that allow life to survive in the harshest environments on the planet, while keeping the narrative grounded in the journey of investigative research and the context of what it all means.

One pattern that struck me while reading was the pervasiveness of life. It's virtually impossible to find a place on Earth that isn't inhabited. At the deepest floors of the sea, where there's often no light, little oxygen, sometimes even minimal water due to salt concentrations, there's life. In scorching deserts with scarce moisture, there's life. In the radioactive remnants of the Chernobyl disaster, there's life. Not only is there life in these places, but a diversity of life adapted to thrive in places where most species can't even exist.

If space abhors a vacuum, so too does biology. Ecological niche theory describes how organisms, and broader taxonomic groups, respond to their physical environments. It also entails the degree and characteristics of how organisms interact with each other. Prevailing theory suggests that if a niche exists, life will fill it. Riley's work collects a vast amount of research that strongly supports this notion, but in my opinion, it also suggests something more.

Life strives. Life multiplies and diversifies, seeking out and and inhabiting new places. In fact, through the responses and interactions with surrounding environments, organisms often create new niches which can then be subsequently filled by new forms of life. There's an agency latent within the diversity of life, and this agency creates the potential for life to evolve.

Of course, it would be impossible to discuss the ecology of life in Earth's harshest conditions without mentioning the fact that those conditions are changing. Riley has an interesting perspective on the fact that our planet's climate is changing. While recognizing the threat of global climate change, Super Natural argues that life's resilience and creativity are reasons to be hopeful. All the evidence suggests that life is likely very difficult to eradicate from the planet. Although the same cannot be said for human life, specifically.

In fact, I think this is Super Natural's shortcoming. Riley neither identifies the economic drivers of global climate change and environmental degradation, nor addresses the full ramifications. For life to remain diverse, and thus resilient, the conditions under which it exists must also be diverse. But capitalism is homogenizing our planet: blanketing it in evermore CO2, removing its forests, paving its countrysides, covering it with industrial agriculture, and polluting every surface with plastic. These factors, I believe, present much greater risks to life on Earth than Riley permits.

Nonetheless, I think Super Natural is a testament to everything about life's existence that's crucial to protect. The secrets to how some of these organisms survive under enormous pressure may hold untapped potential to improve human life. And even if not, our existence is simply richer because of theirs. For that reason, I enjoyed reading this one.

A long but interesting history on the period known as the Renaissance, when many of the things that make up modern society, from science to humanism, came out of nowhere: of course not. As the author (a historian and fantasy writer) shows, many of the things and ways of thinking that came out of the Renaissance build on what people did in the Middle Ages (no longer the Dark Ages). These changes would continue into the Enlightenment, and then into the modern world.

The book starts by looking at one particular place: Florence. In an era where most places were ruled by royalty, Florence stood out by being a republic, officially ruled by 'elected' people. But even then, this was no modern democracy: only the elite of the elite could be elected and even then, they were subjects of patronage to various wealthy families, most notably the House of Medici, who 'called the shots' when it came to making (or gaming) the rules to their advantage.

But Florence is only a city, and can be conquered by rival cities or countries. One way to counter this was to make Florence indispensable, by promoting ancient studies and the arts and spreading them far and wide. Other rulers began to accept that acquiring culture and learning from Florence were 'better' ways of showing they were superior to their betters. This gave Florence influence and access to the 'great powers', gaining protecting in return.

The author then shows us the lives of various people during the Renaissance period, mostly from Florence, to give us a view of what life was like for elites (written history usually focus on the elites, few on the peasants) at the time. And life at that time was rough and full of intrigue and conflict. We see the rise and fall of the Medicis and the influence of Florence, and parts of the 'Great Game' as France, the Popes in Rome, the various city states of Italy (Venice, etc.) strive to gain control of Italy and of Europe.

In all of these struggles, the idea that 'there has to be a better way' starts to gain strength and are covered in a section that covers one of the most 'notorious' people in the Renaissance period: Niccolò Machiavelli. His writings on how rulers should rule would lead to modern Political Science. But at the time, his writings were a struggle to understand what the rulers of his time were doing to gain an advantage over others and what could be done to raise the condition of humanity as a whole.

The final section looks at just what the Renaissance really put forth: a lot of questions that need answers. These questions would gradually overturn the idea that ancient authority was always right, and that ideas need to be tested by questioning them and comparing them with evidence. This would lead to the idea of Progress.

Here, the author looks at current times and shows that the idea of Progress as a way to improve humanity is still a work in progress. Technological and social changes have improved mankind but also caused problems (like colonialism and racism). While much has changed, much still has to be done using concepts that rose during the Renaissance. And the author is optimistic that the future will get better, given time.