Green - 11/16/22

 One of the most interesting topics in class thus far was introduced by Gary Snyder and gone into depth by Professor Redick: DNA changing with our environment. I have looked into the science of this in CNU’s Biology classes, but never considered it on an ecological level. In a purely scientific standpoint, looking at how DNA changes in regards to genes and population pools, a larger pool of DNA is better. Having more genes to provide organisms with more of a chance is better. More organisms in the breeding pool means that for those with genetic issues, the healthy genes can make their lives easier and generally ensure a better chance of survival for them. Less DNA means that these mutations and genetic issues are more prevalent, and more likely to carry on for generations as there are less options to breed with. Generally, more genes are better. But, in the view of this class, let us look at DNA as having “genetic knowledge”.

    The idea of “genetic knowledge” was introduced in class, and is incredibly important in its scope. DNA changes with its environment: a species of mouse that lives in a hotter and hotter climate will generally produce offspring favored with lighter coats to dissuade heat, a species of terrapin living in brackish water that reaches further inland from sea level rise will see their water becoming more fresh as it mingles with inland lakes and rivers. DNA creates the organisms we see everywhere, highly specialized for their environment. What does this mean when the environment changes? The genetic knowledge mankind held so long in a generally calm and temperate world will be entirely useless in a world fueled by heat and strange weather patterns. Those of us without adequate “knowledge” will die off, the gene pool shrinks, and the knowledge will be rewritten. This is why Snyder says that “we cannot commute with the forces of nature in the laboratory.”, the lab cannot ever adequately mimic the various factors that come into play outside of it, the factors that alter life.