The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter by
Fritjof Capra, HarperCollins, 拢18, ISBN 0 00 255499 2
AS THE dust jacket reminds us, Fritjof Capra wrote the 1980s bestseller
The Tao of Physics. This book inspired a cult following among those seeking
a 鈥渟ynthesis鈥� of Western science and Eastern religions and philosophies. Now,
two decades later, comes The Web of Life鈥攁 鈥渘ew synthesis of mind
and matter鈥�. A tall order, to be sure. Lest readers doubt where the author is
coming from, we are told up front that 鈥渢he spectacular advances of molecular
biology鈥� of the past half-century have not brought us closer to answering the
tantalising challenge that forms the title of Erwin Schr枚dinger鈥檚 seminal
1944 monograph, 鈥淲hat Is Life?鈥�
Sadly, I must report that the half-month I have spent reading The Web of
Life has not brought me any closer to answering Schr枚dinger鈥檚
question. Why the rather pessimistic evaluation? Not because the book fails to
inform of new work on the interface between biology, computer science and
ecology. The main problem is that Capra confuses understanding with metaphor. He
tells us that a genuine understanding of life is being achieved by the more
metaphorically inclined scientists of our present age鈥攖he physical chemist
Ilya Prigogine, the mathematician Beno卯t Mandelbrot, and the biologists
Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, to name but four of Capra鈥檚
heroes鈥攗sing the 鈥渘ew language鈥� of complexity theory, dissipative
structures and autopoetic, or self-regulating networks.
Advertisement
What the book does accomplish in its 320 equation-free pages is to build the
argument that everything in nature鈥攊ncluding not just the animate but also
the inanimate鈥攊s connected to everything else. As Lovelock and others have
noted, our planet is a 鈥渟uperorganism鈥� in the sense that its systems are cyclic
and interconnected: the activity of Earth鈥檚 organisms can influence the
structure of its atmosphere, which, in its turn, changes the organisms. Others
have emphasised the symbiotic relation of all organisms and the environment that
nurtures them, but Capra gives us a nice historical account of feedback
mechanisms that begins with the interactions of mathematicians Norbert Wiener
and John von Neumann and engineer Claude Shannon at the Macy conferences in the
1940s.
The extra element that may please some readers and annoy others is that Capra
places himself and his own views inside much of the argument. For example, we
are told 鈥渢hat most of us . . . subscribe to the concepts of an outdated
worldview鈥� and that 鈥渨e are now at the beginning of such a fundamental change of
worldview in science and society, a change of paradigms as radical as the
Copernican Revolution鈥�. We are admonished that the necessity of this change of
worldview 鈥渉as not yet reached most of our corporate leaders, nor the
administrators and professors of our large universities鈥�. Further, Capra informs
us that 鈥渢he new concepts in physics have brought about a profound change in our
worldview; from the mechanismic worldview of Descartes and Newton to a holistic
ecological view鈥� and that 鈥渄eep ecology鈥� (the chapter title) has toppled the
Cartesian point of view.
Capra swiftly follows this by asserting that physics has lost its role as the
science providing the most fundamental description of reality. As the paradigm
shifts, physics is out, and the life sciences are in. But is physics the culprit
or the saviour in this Brave New World? The rest of the book clarifies the
answer to this question: those aspects of physics that are 鈥渕echanistic,
reductionist, or atomistic鈥濃�攖hat is, Newtonian and Cartesian鈥攁re
bad, while those aspects that are 鈥渉olistic, organismic, or ecological鈥� are
good. So systems theory and complexity theory could potentially prevent
physicists from destroying the planet.
What about the biologists? Curiously, some life scientists fare as badly at
Capra鈥檚 hands as physicists do. Their failing is reductionism: 鈥渕ost biologists
have become fervent reductionists鈥� and 鈥渕olecular biologists have led to a
severe distortion of biological research鈥�.
Capra then illustrates his main point鈥攖hat the whole appears to be more
than the sum of its parts with a series of generally well-written chapters. For
example, he gives a nice description, with photographs, of how fluid in a Petri
dish can suddenly develop a remarkable hexagonal array of B茅nard cells
when it is gently heated from below. Capra鈥檚 style is engaging: this pattern
formation is described as a 鈥渟pectacular example of spontaneous
self-organization . . . in which millions of molecules move coherently鈥�.
Another chapter describes fractal geometry, but here I disagree with Capra鈥檚
interpretation of the significance of applying fractal concepts to real objects
in nature. Capra states that fractal geometry represents a 鈥渟hift from quantity
to quality鈥�. This is eloquent, but not quite what I believe, which is that
fractal geometry allows us to quantify random objects and thereby compare
experiments with models at more than a mere qualitative level.
We are also taught that in physics, disorder increases鈥攁s when a bag of
sand containing separated black and white grains is shaken. In biology, however,
order increases鈥攁s when a single cell develops or a species evolves.
Readers may be tempted to infer that physics is doomed to inadequacy. What Capra
fails to tell us is that if the black and the white grains differed in size as
well as colour, then a mixed bag of sand will spontaneously self-segregate. This
is the 鈥淏razil nut phenomenon鈥�, familiar to all who have opened a can of mixed
nuts to discover that the large ones are on the top. Such examples, where order
increases in physical systems, can also be explained using classical concepts of
physics鈥�-one hardly requires a 鈥淣ew Physics鈥� here.
Moreover, physicists can demonstrate other forms of order growing out of disorder.
For example, Hernan Makse and his collaborators have discovered spontaneous
self-stratification in which a random mixture of large and small grains forms
alternating layers when poured into a heap.
So, rather than physics leading to the opposite of biology, it is just
possible that physics鈥攃lassical physics 鈥攃an help to elucidate the
very self-organised biological phenomena that Capra wants to understand.
Another example of spontaneous pattern formation that Capra might have chosen
to describe is the model of diffusion limited aggregation. In this model, you
simply place a 鈥渟ticky seed鈥� at the centre of your computer screen, then release
random walkers from the edge of the screen, one by one, allowing each to
continue until it touches the seed or the edge of the growing cluster. The
resulting patterns formed by aggregates of 100 or more particles bear striking
resemblance to natural and biological phenomena ranging from snowflakes to
neurons.
The Web of Life is an engaging introduction to holistic science as
it has developed in the past half-century鈥攚ith a nice emphasis on ecology.
But perhaps the overriding impression given by the book is its attempt to indict
reductionist science in all its myriad forms. Read by itself, it could fuel the
antiscience forces who would love to believe that many of the ills of the world
are brought on by a reductionist world view. But I can imagine inspired school
or undergraduate classes reading, and enthusiastically debating, the relative
positions of The Web of Life and a tough no-nonsense defence of
reductionism such as Creation Revisited by Peter Atkins (Freeman,
1992). Such a debate could be stimulating indeed.