Thus, between growth in the living world and growth in the dead
world, the energy relations with the environment reveal a marked
contrast. Again, in the phenomena of combustion, there are
certain superficial resemblances which have led to comparison
between the two. Here again, however, the attitudes towards the
energy of the environment stand very much as + and -. The life
absorbs, stores, and spends with economy. The flame only
recklessly spends. The property of storage by the organism calls
out a further distinction between the course of the two
processes. It secures that the chemical activity of the organism
can be propagated in a medium in which the supply of energy is
discontinuous or localised. The chemical activity of the
combustion can, strictly speaking, only be propagated among
contiguous particles. I need not dwell on the latter fact; an
example of the former is seen in the action of the roots of
plants, which will often traverse a barren place or circumvent an
obstacle in their search for energy. In this manner roots will
find out spots of rich nutriment.
Thus there is a dynamic distinction between the progress of the
organism and the progress of the combustion, or of the chemical
reaction generally. And although there be unstable chemical
systems which absorb energy during reaction, these are
(dynamically) no more than the expansion of the compressed gas.
There is a certain
75
initial capacity in the system for a given quantity of energy;
this satisfied, progress ceases. The progress of the organism in
time is continual, and goes on from less to greater so long as
its development is unconstrained and the supply of energy is
unlimited.
We must regard the organism as a configuration which is so
contrived as to evade the tendency of the universal laws of
nature. Except we are prepared to believe that a violation of the
second law of thermodynamics occurs in the organism, that a
"sorting demon" is at work within it, we must, I think, assume
that the interactions going on among its molecules are
accompanied by retardation and dissipation like the rest of
nature. That such conditions are not incompatible with the
definition of the dynamic attitude of the organism, can be shown
by analogy with our inanimate machines which, by aid of
hypotheses in keeping with the second law of thermodynamics, may
be supposed to fulfil the energy-functions of the plant or
animal, and, in fact, in all apparent respects conform to the
definition of the organism.
We may assume this accomplished by a contrivance of the nature of
a steam-engine, driven by solar energy. It has a boiler, which we
may suppose fed by the action of the engine. It has piston,
cranks, and other movable parts, all subject to resistance from
friction, etc. Now there is no reason why this engine should not
expend its surplus energy in shaping, fitting, and starting into
action other engines:—in fact, in reproductive sacrifice. All
76
these other engines represent a multiplied absorption of energy
as the effects of the energy received by the parent engine, and
may in time be supposed to reproduce themselves. Further, we may
suppose the parent engine to be small and capable of developing
very little power, but the whole series as increasing in power at
each generation. Thus the primary energy relations of the
vegetable organism are represented in these engines, and no
violation of the second law of thermodynamics involved.
We might extend the analogy, and assuming these engines to spend
a portion of their surplus energy in doing work against chemical
forces—as, for example, by decomposing water through the
intervention of a dynamo—suppose them to lay up in this way a
store of potential energy capable of heating the boilers of a
second order of engines, representing the graminivorous animal.
It is obvious without proceeding to a tertiary or carnivorous
order, that the condition of energy in the animal world may be
supposed fulfilled in these successive series of engines, and no
violation of the principles governing the actions going on in our
machines assumed. Organisms evolving on similar principles would
experience loss at every transfer. Thus only a portion of the
radiant energy absorbed by the leaf would be expended in actual
work, chemical and gravitational, etc. It is very certain that
this is, in fact, what takes place.
It is, perhaps, worth passing observation that, from the
nutritive dependence of the animal upon the vegetable,