Skip to content

Elizabeth Engelman

Colonial Organisms: Systems Maps

I was finding it difficult to create a concept map of colonial organisms, because I think that my understanding of the definition of a colonial organism is still quite tenuous. I decided to start out with a boundary map to see if I could solidify my understanding a bit more.

As I continued working, I realized that though coming up with a definition of a colonial organism seems like it should be straight forward, but it wasn’t. Perhaps the complexity I was running into is because human understanding of all organisms exist within the implied context biology taxonomy. I have learned that colonial organisms are animals, but I kept wondering “what is an animal?”. The individual zooids that make up colonial organisms seems like pretty simplistic animals, so how are they different from moss, or bacteria?

I started to build out a biology taxonomy digram, but quickly learned that once you get to the phylum classifications, the tree expands a lot. I’m not sure that documenting all of the known phylum classifications will help me understand colonial organisms any better, so I stopped at the kingdom level, and discovered that animals are in fact separate from bacteria. This was a helpful discovery because one thing I wondered in my early research was why humans weren’t classified as colonial organisms, since we have bacteria in our body, could they be zooids? Apparently the answer is no, bacteria in our bodies are not classified as zooids, and therefore we are not colonial organisms.

 

Links to miro boards:

  • boundary map: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVPVNaV40=/
  • biology taxonomy: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVPVSZHYs=/
  • concept map: https://miro.com/app/board/uXjVPWOgdo0=/

Systems thinking and Genetically Modified food

Systems thinking and Genetically Modified food

  • Which system (type of stakeholder) that Easterbrook identified did you find your own understanding of GMOs most aligned with? Why? What are some of the stakes of these stakeholders?
    System 2, a system of research ethics and risk management most closely fits my understanding of GMOs, or rather the naive hope that all science operates from a system where essentially benefits of conducting a study outweigh any potential costs of the study. I think I identify most with this system, in an ideal world, this would be the system that takes into account a wide variety of stakeholders. For example, one would hope that in this Rothamsted GMO study, the risk assessment would consider all of the differing systems that Easterbrook identifies. I suppose potentially they did take them all into account, and decided it was worth the risk, but to Easterbrook’s observation, “The knowledge gain from this one trial is too small to justify creating this level of societal conflict”.

    To sum up the idea of the Principle of Complementarity, I understand this to mean that multiple things can be true at once. I appreciate system 2, because in theory, it takes that principle to heart and tries to come up with a diplomatic answer to a difficult question, and to take several different view points into account. However, I’d imagine that like most systems, this doesn’t operate without influences from other systems. So, in practice I can imagine that the idealist perspective I’m reflected on this system as being equitable and logical, is probably often skewed by influences from other systems – in this case I’m specifically thinking about capitalism.

  • Using your own topic for research, can you Identify 3 stakeholders (groups or phenomenon) with different perspectives, and then describe the system (the stakes) from which they are operating?
    1) A system of scientific research: By studying how colonial organisms came to be, science can gain a deeper understanding about evolution, different life types, and even the ocean ecosystem. This system would likely view the knowledge as worth the cost of causes damage to a small amount of these organisms.
    2) A system concerned with environmental preservation: In a similar vein as the article, there is a conflict between scientific inquiry, and preservation of the thing itself. For example with coral reefs, the process by which scientists gather specimens to study often irreparably destroy the organisms themselves.
    3)A system that is focused on tourism, and possibly education: This system may include aquariums that house colonial organisms, or companies that host tours of coral reefs with hopes of educating visitors, and making money.

Kinship: Response to Slanted Things and The Companion Species Manifesto Readings

As I go through the readings assigned specifically about kinship, I have a lot of ideas swirling around my head, and am struggling to get them organized enough to have an idea to write about. So I thought I’d just get writing and see what comes out.

  • With regard to colonial organisms:
    • In some types of colonial organisms, there are different zooid types, that have different jobs. Some are the protectors, some are the navigators, etc. At first I assumed that each zooid was equal with one another, regardless of their “job”.
    • I’ve been struggling a bit to understand the difference between colonial organisms, and organisms that live in a colony. My high level understanding of colonial organisms are organisms that are comprised of lots of smaller organisms (zooids). The zooids are attached to each other (I think), and would not survive without each other. Organisms such as coral are easy for me to identify as colonial organisms. But what about ants? They live in a colony, and I don’t think they would survive very well solo. But they’re not physically connected – is this a requirement to be considered a colonial organism?
    • After reading the introduction to Slanted Things by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, I couldn’t get the concept of Gaia out of my head, and Margulis and Sagan’s simple definition: “Gaia theory… views Earth’s biosphere (the place where life exists) as a single, self-regulating entity: the Earth is alive.” Could Earth be a colonial organism? Maybe my desire to have an exact definition of what a colonial organism is and is not really isn’t that helpful. Everything on earth is connected to each other in some way – even if it’s by air, and gravity, energy. And I think that all organisms on earth require some sort of relationship with another organism in order to survive.
    • “Strictly speaking, to be symbionts individual members of at least two species myst touch each other most of the time”
    • “… all living things on Earth are in physical contact through tis water, atmosphere and soils, and that they all dwell in a coating on the surface of a limited planet”
    • At some point, I began to wonder if there is any sort of hierarchy in the structures that zooids make. Are the navigators more important than the feeders for example? Is there any sort of subjugation amongst the zooids? Are the colonialist colonial organisms?
    • What does it mean to be an individual?
  • With regard to my guide project:
    • At first I thought I wanted to do something similar to the Parable of the Polygon by Nikki Case. I was thinking of showing the relationship between zooids in a colonial organism by allowing the user to drag shapes that represent different zooids around on their screen. But as the past few weeks have shown, time spent doing technical work in front of a computer is not something my life is lacking at the moment. Between Connections Lab and my day-to-day work, I am in front of a screen a lot! Maybe it would be beneficial to do something a bit more analog for this class.
    • I’ve been thinking about kinship in terms of connection, and one way that I understand connection is through physical contact with the work that I’m doing. This would lend itself to a more analog exploration.
    • As I was brainstorming some ideas for my guide, this Instagram post came up, which shows people making paper doll cats out of paper with brass fasteners to hold the joints together. Something with paper form, that are connected with yarn or something could be an interesting physical representation of what a colonial organism is.

Kinship: Colonial Organisms

Diving into the world of colonial organisms, one is hit with a myriad of scientific jargon straightaway: zooid, bryozoans, siphonophores, polymorphism and the list goes on and on! But what are they?

Colonial organisms (i.e. colonial animals, colonial-forming animals,  superorganisms) are animals that are made up of many individual organisms, of the same species, that are attached together to form a colony. The individual organisms are called zooids, and they are not able to live on their own, outside of the colony structure. The rely each other for survival.

There are some species where all of the zooids within the organism are identical clones of each other. There are other species where each zooids fulfills a different need for the organism as a whole: each category of zooid works together to make sure that the organism is protected, fed, is able to navigate, etc. Siphonophores, one type of colonial organism, have zooids that have evolved to catch food, other zooids work to protect the organism, and others still handle navigation and swimming so that the organism can move around. This idea of a species having different types or forms is referred to as polymorphism.

I found this paradigm particularly linked to the excerpts from adrienne maree brown’s Emergent Strategy. Several times brown brings up biomimicry, which is the “imitation of the models, systems, and elements of nature for the purpose of solving complex human problems.” She even uses the example of ant societies as one of the principles of emergent strategy where individuals act collectively to survive. While ants don’t fit the definition that of colonial organisms, in that they aren’t attached, they are certainly organisms that live in a colony and act for mutual benefit of their society.

As mentioned above, some colonial organism zooids produce identical clones of themselves. Corals, bryozoans and other species however create offspring which are genetically similar but not identical. These offspring are recognized by the parent colony as “kin cells” as Lara Beckmann notes in The Fascinating Lives of Colonial Animals. “Only cells with sufficient genetic similarity are accepted – others are not welcomed and will be rejected.” By evolving to combine with other colonies, instead of just reproducing identical zooids, these colonial organism species increase their genetic diversity. This may be why these colonies “grow faster, are more resilient against environmental threats, and that competition with less closely related neighbours is reduced”.

As I continue to explore colonial organisms within the context of kinship, I wonder if kinship that we see in human relationships is another early form of biomimicry, or is it another example of an evolutionary habit that the human species has adopted.

Emergent Strategy Response

Answers to Emergent Strategy Responses

Introduction 

“I often feel I am trapped inside someone else’s imagination, and I must engage my own imagination in order to break free” (18)

  • Q: Have you felt trapped inside of someone else’s imagination? How have you broken free?

I didn’t feel much from this line at first – I consider myself an imaginative person, and spend a lot of time in my own head. But as I read the rest of brown’s introduction and her love of science fiction, it occurred to me, that the time I spend thinking is kind of centered around what currently is rather than what could be. I am still working on ways to break free into my own imagination, but do feel that engaging in creativity helps – whether it be my own, or enjoying someone else’s work. Also, sometimes yoga or mediation helps me feel more connected to something greater.

Elements

  • Q: Without overthinking it: which of these elements brown describes most immediately feels evident as part of your creative work, and how? Or, if none of them do, which feels like one you might intentionally integrate, and why?

The element I first felt a connection to was Non-linear and Iterative, specifically focusing on the iterative piece. In my technical work, iteration is key. Everything I do is adding one small piece to my software, making sure I don’t break the other pieces of the system, and slowly building something new. I also identify with this way of thinking in my personal life, and seem to embrace iteration as a mean to problem solve. If there is something in my life that feels difficult or unsettled, I try to make a small change to see if I can feel some sort of improvement, before making bigger, drastic changes. brown’s inclusion of the work “non-linear” in this element also feels very important. I feel strongly that many experiences we have in life fit together in a non-linear fashion. The way we learn, grow, fall in love, etc. However, that non-linearity is sometimes difficult for our logical brains to absorb and follow. Oftentimes, I catch myself feeling unfulfilled, unsatisfied or despondent about changes in my life when I’m not able to plot them linearly. This is definitely something I’d like to work on, and explore more. I wonder if to better understand non-linear concepts, it is helpful to put them in the context of a greater system. Perhaps this is brown’s point