The
following outline and text show how I prepared the article “Flowers, Man, and
the Meaning of Life – Part I”, which was published as the lead article in The
Tar Heel Universalist, Vol. 56, No. 10, June-July 1991. I first developed the outline, and then
wrote text within it to express my ideas. Part II, never published, would have continued expressing the
outline.
Author's Note: I credit an essay, "The Meaning of Flowers", in the March 1991 World Monitor with the introductory material and inspiration for the following article.
Why does a peach taste delicious? Why is a flower attractive to the eye? Shall we simply thank God for these gifts of beauty and delight? Certainly it is right to do so, for we are fortunate indeed to receive them. But the scientist is not satisfied with simply accepting the gift; instead, he chooses to look more deeply, to inquire whether this beauty is perhaps rooted in a more elemental beauty. And perhaps in so doing, we may learn more about ourselves, and our relationship to the universe.
If we look at the record of plant evolution, we find that fruits and flowers have only lately come on the scene. They represent the most complex and most successful method to date for plant survival in a changing world. In the beginning were the algae, and they knew nothing of such things. The algae, lacking sexual reproduction, could only passively replicate themselves in endless repetition. Variations in their species only arose through accidents or mistakes, primarily the result of gene-altering radiation from space. Over time, these variations culminated in the development of sex, which allowed the mixing of genes and the natural selection of superior traits.
The mosses and ferns were the earliest plants to reproduce sexually. They did so by distributing spores to the wind. These spores can be viewed as an early type of seed, lacking a protective hard coat and nutrient supply. Much better equipped to withstand a harsh environment were the seeds of the gymnosperms that followed, pine cones being the best known example today. However, the extra protection given these seeds also weighed them down, so that they took root only a short distance from the parent tree. To travel farther distances, and thereby increase the chances of surviving changes in the local environment, it was necessary for the plants to strike a bargain with the endlessly mobile animals. In exchange for transportation of their seeds, the plants offered the animals a concentrated source of food energy: fruit.
Fruit served several purposes. It was a more effective source of protection and nutrients for the seed, but it also presented a tempting target for the animals. Animals that consumed the fruit would not digest the hard-shelled seeds contained in the fruit, but would carry those seeds long distances before unwittingly depositing them on the ground, together with a bit of fertilizer. Not all plants utilized fruit: some plants developed burred seeds to catch on the fur of passing animals, while others developed wings that could carry the seed long distances on the wind. But in fruit we see the first symbiotic relationship between plants and animals.
Let's explore this symbiotic relationship further. It is symbiotic because it benefits both the plants and the animals, rather than being a destructive competitive relationship. The plants produce food energy in the form of fruits and nuts, and then trade this energy to animals in order to gain transportation. By always staying in one place, the plants are able to concentrate their excess energy into fruit. The plants can afford to give this energy away, because they do not need to use it for mobility, as do the animals. Although the plants' lack of mobility offers poor chances of individual survival if the local environment changes, their ability to use animal transportation to spread their seeds over a wide area more than offsets this lack of personal mobility by maximizing the long-term survivability of their species.
In contrast to plants, animals concentrate more on individual survival, and less on species survival. Animals rely on their adaptability and mobility to cope with a changing environment. As toolmaker and tooluser, man modifies and exploits his environment to his advantage. Again, he maximizes his short-range individual survival chances, at the possible cost of his long-range species survival if he transforms the environment beyond his ability to cope with it.