Contemplating the Microcosmos

I began thinking about this when reading Timothy Good's Need to Know. The book mentions several instances of alien body recovery and a strange detail about what appears to be alien metabolism. Witnesses to some recoveries, including Aztec, speculate that exposure to the earth's oxygenated atmosphere may have killed the ETs.

When considering the probability of alien life forms, we often use the size of the universe as a factor. We are one small planet in a small solar system; there are billions of stars and billions of planets orbiting them. That earth is the sole locus of life in the cosmos seems not only improbable but absurd, given the sheer immensity of space.

But as we look outward for arguments in support of ET life, so may we look inward at a different, and to me more compelling rationale, for the existence of alien life: the earthly microcosmos. The biodiversity of bacteria alone utterly dwarfs that of the world visible to the naked eye. The shapes of single-celled organisms, their fundamental makeups and component parts (prokaryote vs. eukaroyte for instance), and especially their modes of metabolism, are wildly divergent and varied compared those found in other kingdoms; bacteria constitue one third of the known taxonomic kingdom, and protists make up another.

Look to the famous archaebacteria who live in extreme environments, like those who live on the vents of the ocean floor and utilize hydrogen sulfide for energy. In fact, the diversity is so great that almost any organic molecule can be used to fuel life by some organism somewhere. And bacteria make up the great majority of earth's biomass. Indeed, the bacterial cells on a human body outnumber the number of cells composing the body itself. Is there any greater evidence for the tenacity and prevalence of life in the universe, even if it's the universe of a single, small planet in an out-of-the way galaxy?

Take this a step further and consider the work of biochemists like the brilliant widow of Carl Saga, Lynn Margulis, who argue that single-celled organisms are themselves the products of evolution, with their organelle constituents once having been separate bioentities that developed a cooperative relationship within the protective skin of a naturally-occuring lipid sphere. Or Richard Dawkins, who changes the perspective and argues that humans are a conglomerate of cooperating bacteria so entrenched in interdependence that the single cells can no longer live on their own.

These are not original ideas, and they don't "prove" anything, but they're intriguing. Any feedback about them would be appreciated.

that's a very interesting subject

Private microorganisms the spectator is confronted with the microorganisms, which appear on the body - in this case on the artist's body - and are shown cultivated in specific environments. The spectator sees what is daily hidden to his/her eyes, but constantly present on him/her. The appearance of the microorganisms also surprises him/her as the quantities of the microorganisms are so huge, that they endanger him/her. The microorganisms, he/she lives with, live their own life and are autonomous to the scary level. Something that used to be a part of the body, that used to help to maintain the balance of the organism, becomes a threat to it. The spectator's reaction to the situation is spontaneously negative. Party because it is unusual, but mainly because the spectator is confronted with the real and enormously rich micro cosmos, which he/she does not know, does not trust and is in fact unpredictable as concerns the consequences for his/her organism if it comes in touch with it. It is a dangerous environment, from which his/her organism cannot defend itself.