Skip to main content

Thinking Small and Large - Peter Forbes ***

I've a huge amount of time for Peter Forbes as a writer. Both his The Gecko's Foot on the science behind some of nature's most remarkable abilities and Dazzled and Deceived on mimicry and camouflage in nature and human endeavour were brilliant. But I'm afraid I found it harder to engage with Thinking Small and Large. There's plenty of good stuff in it, but it didn't grab me in the same way.

The topic here is the fundamental importance of microbes to life on Earth. By microbes, he is referring to single-celled organisms including bacteria, archaea, algae, fungi, protists and viruses, though Forbes does also point how much even in multi-celled organisms (like us) the important stuff happens on a microscopic scale.

We start off by looking how we naturally incline to what we can see and directly experience - and how the common cultural idea that humans are in control of life on Earth (a concept that was originally down to divine intent, but now is more technological) leads us astray. Reading this feels a bit like being told off, which isn't a good start. We then get into theories of how life came into existence and, for instance, the importance of the Krebs cycle, so beautifully explored in Nick Lane's Transformer (Lane gets plenty of acknowledgment). From here we take on the role of microbial life in natural cycles, the formation complex cells (in part by absorbing microbes, notably mitochondria), and so forth.

Things are pulled together (circling back to the original telling off) with the dangers of 'sapioncentralism' - this is a little different from human exceptionalism which is when biologists moan that humans aren't special (which clearly they are in some ways). Rather it suggests that we shouldn't take our special nature to mean we are independent of or can ignore all other life, a viewpoint that, as Forbes points out, is distinctly undermined by the Covid pandemic, not to mention the vast numbers of ways that microbes are essential for the planet as a whole to function and to be habitable for us.

The final chapter is probably the most interesting, where we are told 'how bacteria can create a parallel, fossil-free carbon economy'. Here we see how single-celled protein could 'per unit land... reach an over ten-fold higher protein yield and at the least twice the caloric yield compared with any staple crop.' We then go on to see how good use of bacteria can enhance conventional crops, and, for instance, the use of bacteria to produce ethanol from waste gases (fuel that does produce carbon dioxide when burned, but at least it would have gone into the atmosphere anyway).

As that chapter demonstrates, there is plenty of interesting stuff in this book, and I'd encourage you to buy it - but aspects of it didn't work for me as a reader.

Hardback:   
Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...