When Worlds Collide or: Why Xenogenetics is Terrifying

                Recently, I saw the film “The Green Lantern” in theaters. For those of you who don’t know, the Green Lantern is a DC Comics franchise. The story revolves around a large intergalactic peacekeeping force known as the Green Lantern Corps. The Green Lanterns come from all over the universe and are made up of thousands of different alien races. All of them, though, wear the green power ring of willpower which they can use to materialize anything they can imagine, from brick walls to hamburgers. The plot of the film involves one of these Green Lanterns, Abin Sur, who crash-lands on earth and gives his ring to a human named Hal Jordan, who spends the next couple of days being made fun of for being a human and then saving the entire universe. Also, he’s played by Ryan Reynolds.

Yummy.

                There is a scene in the film in which Dr. Hector Hammond (in the long-standing tradition of comic book character name alliteration) has the opportunity to examine the dead body of the alien who crash landed earlier on. Hammond (played by Peter Sarsgaard) remarks at the end as to how remarkable it is that the alien would be humanoid, which he attributes either to convergent evolution or a common ancestor. Later on his head swells up, he develops psychic powers, and he threatens the life of Blake Lively, but his point remains very interesting.

Oh, Blake. Who'd ever want to hurt you?

                The possibility of extraterrestrial life has captivated mankind for centuries. With billions of trillions of planets in the universe, the probability that life exists solely on Earth is impossibly small.  Chances are, life exists elsewhere in the universe; probably a lot of elsewheres. Life from planet to planet could be billions of years apart in their own evolutionary paths (assuming that anywhere that life exists in competition would also foster evolution) and could on some planets be as primitive as bacteria or so advanced that we seem like bacteria to them. More important, though, than how advanced extraterrestrial life is, is what it is made of, and what it might look like.

My guess.

                Before we look into alien life, however, let’s take a look at how we came to be the way we are. The history of life on Earth is probably about as old as the Earth itself (4.5 Billion Years old, next month). The first fossilized bacteria are about 3 Billion years old, and there’s geochemical evidence to support the presence of life as far back as 3.8 Billion years ago. Before then, there’s a really big grey area where a bunch of rocks and water suddenly produced the first organism, the Last Universal Ancestor (LUA, to his friends). How this happened is up for debate, with the most predominant theories all having really cool names. The first major theory is the RNA World theory, which sadly does not refer to a molecular biology-themed amusement park but rather to a “pre-life” world in which RNA ruled supreme. The notion is that water, ultraviolent light, and the various compounds making up earth’s crust were enough to produce a few ancestral strands of RNA, which has the ability not only to contain genetic information and replicate, but also to act as a ribozyme, a protein-like molecule which can metabolize other compounds. These are both roles which RNA fulfills today in one form or another (mRNA molecules contain genetic information which is decoded by ribosomes which are essentially giant ribozymes which make all the proteins necessary for life). With enough active RNA, larger and larger ribozymes could be formed and DNA, the much more stable genetic molecule could evolve to take over and eventually give way to cellular life. Some scientists believe that this process was only possible under primordial conditions while others believe that it continues today. Of course, any pre-RNA which would arise today would be eaten by something almost immediately, which makes it a tricky theory to test.

Mmm Mmm Good.

                The second major theory is that life did not originate here at all, and that the planet was early-on contaminated by microorganisms, either by alien visitors (who I suppose sneezed or something) or by a meteor. There is some evidence to support this, as nucleotides (the parts of DNA that store the genetic information) have been found inside meteorites. Now, you might be asking yourself where these microorganisms might have originated from. Well, the scientific community reckons that it had to originate someplace and that it probably did so by something close to the RNA World theory. Return to Dr. Hammond and the purple alien who gave Van Wilder the magic ring. If in fact DNA came to this planet from someplace else, then life that evolved on that planet would have a very similar starting point to us. DNA survives best under some very precise conditions (temperature, pH, biochemical environment, etc.) and if extraterrestrial DNA-based life was going to survive, it would have to do so in an environment which is at least somewhat similar to ours. Given the same primordial matter under similar conditions, it is entirely possible that alien life would evolve along similar a similar path as life here did. Would this result in a purple humanoid? Perhaps, though factors such as ocean coverage, temperature, amount of sunlight, and gravity might make them look a little bit less like Temuera Morrison in a costume.

Just a simple alien trying to make his way in the universe.

                Another point that Dr. Hammond brings up is the possibility of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution is the process by which organisms take two separate paths but end up at the same place. Take the mangrove for example. The mangrove is a type of tree which is able to grow in salt water (which most plants dislike). While there are several different species of mangrove tree, many of them are only very distantly related. This is because different kinds of trees eventually evolved a similar system of salt tolerance, which results in unrelated mangroves looked very, very similar. The notion brought up in The Green Lantern stipulates that, in a situation in which life on two different plants evolved completely separate from one another, evolution would end up producing very similar end-products (in this case, sentient humanoids with thumbs). The idea behind this is that something about a particular physiology (in this case, sentient humanoids with thumbs) is so effective at survival that it would naturally predominate in any competitive environment, in much the same way that the sphere (being the shape with the highest volume-to-surface area ratio) is the preferred shape of planets, suns, and bubbles. It just works. This theory holds up particularly well if DNA would originate as the genetic information molecule on other planets as well.

Note: not all organisms with thumbs are necessarily sentient.

                The chances of DNA, an incredibly complex molecule, originating on two separate planets are actually pretty slim. It’s possible that life only works with DNA (we certainly have never found a living thing that didn’t have or depend on DNA for survival), and that only planets which evolve DNA are capable of supporting life. It is also possible, however, that any number of other molecules could serve as carriers of genetic information. For example, our DNA is carbon-based. Carbon is electronically similar to Silicon, which forms similar structures with oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. On, say, a highly volcanic planet with an average temperature of 1000 °C, a silicon-based molecule might fare much better than DNA, and give rise to a variety of silicon-based life forms. Even if we stick with carbon, there are many ways of diverging from our own DNA. Earth DNA consists of four nucelotides, but there’s no reason why alien DNA couldn’t use six or eight or even use a completely different four. It’s also completely possible that any number of other completely foreign molecules could serve a similar purpose as our own DNA. The implications of this are mind-boggling. Evolution could occur by completely different mechanisms. Cells could potentially evolve quickly within organisms rather than slowly from generation to generation. Any number of scenarios are possible.

On Candyplanet, the DNA is made from candy.

                Return to Ryan Reynolds at the alien crash site. Let’s say that whatever landed there, while friendly, is based on a completely different genetic system. And let’s say that the molecules as a result of that system are highly toxic to DNA-based life (DNA is kind of fragile, and the only reason why it isn’t destroyed by proteins is because evolution does not favor such a suicidal system). When Ryan gets to close and Abin Sur breathes on him it could result in a quick, horrifying, and generally painful genetic breakdown of Ryan Reynolds’ entire self. And who’s to say that whatever microbes kill him don’t consume his organic matter, multiply, and kill off the rest of the planet, too? Granted, this sounds extreme, but an organism’s molecular genetics is responsible for every protein and chemical in the body. Everything on Earth uses DNA and so we all have similar biochemistry. Mix that with a completely different system, and there’s bound to be some sort of adverse reaction. Suffice it to say, if we ever do encounter alien life, it’s as likely to kill us by breathing on us as it is by shooting us with ray guns. If this makes you sad or scared about the future of our species in the vast and lonely universe, here’s a photo of Ryan Reynolds to cheer you up.

Still Yummy.

Our Friendly Neighborhood Overlords or: It’s a Small World, After All

                In 1870, John D. Rockefeller and a few of his closest friends founded a company called Standard Oil. By 1872, this company had more or less destroyed the competition in Ohio as well as in most of the Northeastern United States. However, at the time, State laws had been put into place to prevent companies from becoming too large, as this was seen to stifle competition and could lead to unfair business practices should a single company establish a monopoly. Of course, anybody who could form a monopoly on a product as necessary as oil would undoubtedly become fabulously wealthy, an idea which seems to have appealed to Mr. Rockefeller. So, for the next several years, the founders ran their separate companies (which at this time were technically only in partnership, despite the fact that they shared shares) until, in 1882, they combined all the companies together and secretly gave all the shares to nine Trustees (including Rockefeller and his brother) who effectively controlled the vast majority of oil in the United States by buying up or shutting down the competition. The loophole worked so well that it was copied by several other industries, including United States Steel, who became even larger.

John D. Rockefeller, circa 1900.

Around the turn of the century, Rockefeller retired and kept all of his shares and in 1911, the United States sued Standard Oil for having violated the Sherman Act (which was pretty much written so that the United States could sue companies like Standard Oil) and won. As a result, Standard Oil was forced to split up into 34 separate companies, effectively killing the monopoly on oil in the United States (They tried this with US Steel, too, but they failed). The largest of these eventually grew up to become Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, and Amoco. Exxon and Mobil merged in 1999, and Amoco turned into BP. If those names sound familiar, it’s probably because ExxonMobil and Chevron are the 2^nd and 3^rd largest companies in the United States and BP is the 4^th largest company in the world. Luckily, though, antitrust laws and international cooperation helps to keep these mega-corporations in check and separate. Only, you know, not really. Chevron and BP share several thousands of miles of pipeline and members of the ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips (the 4^th largest company in the US) boards of directors all sat on the board of the Peterson Institute forInternational Economics (a think-tank which researches ways of fostering massive international business ventures by looking at new strategies and ways around potential obstacles including US law). 

Above: The weekly meeting.

And if you think that is scary, you don’t even want to hear about where your sunglasses came from. Among the top brands of sunglasses are such well-known names as Oakley, Ray-Ban, Vogue, and Persol, as well as those from designer labels like Chanel, D&G, DKNY, Ralph Lauren, Prada, Tiffany, and Versace. For those of us who don’t want anything too fancy, we shop at standard retailers such as Sunglass Hut, LensCrafters, and Pearle Vision. Or, if you’re really cheap like me, you just pick up a pair at Sears or Target. Whatever your choice, it doesn’t really matter. Every pair of sunglasses from every name I just mentioned (and dozens more around the world) is made by one single company: Luxottica. These guys completely dominate the sunglasses market; making, distributing, licensing and selling the vast, vast majority of the sunglasses in the world, including generics. By licensing around half of their brands from designers and other companies, Luxottica avoids prosecution, while still making and selling the sunglasses at prices ranging from $2 to $500 apiece for frames and lenses made in the same facilities. 

Yup, those are Luxottica, alright.
You can tell because they're sunglasses.

And if you think that is scary, you don’t even want to hear about where your corn comes from. And if you say the answer is “seeds,” well, you’d be right. Corn does come from seeds and for centuries farmers would collect the seeds from the corn which survived the weather and the pests and plant those the next year, ensuring an even healthier and more prosperous harvest the next year. This worked well for the bulk of human history. So well, in fact, that today, corn can be found in an incredibly wide range of products, including breakfast cereals, soda, chips, margarine, ketchup, chewing gum, beer, toothpaste, wallpaper, cardboard, spark plugs, shoe polish, ink, whiskey, fuel, and even diapers, among many, many more. It’s a product that, thanks to massive government subsidies, is one of the most important and valuable commodities in the world. 

Soylent Green: now made from Corn.

Another interesting point is that corn is actually used in the production of a weed-killer known as Roundup, which is actually sprayed on, you guessed it, corn. Roundup was introduced by a biotech company called Monsanto in the 70’s and by 1980 it was (and remains) the top-selling herbicide in the world. This is because Roundup is really, really good at killing plants including, you guessed it, corn. Now, normally, something like that would be the hallmark of a poor business strategy, but the folks at Monsanto are also the developers and patent-holders on a genetically-modified corn seed which is immune to Roundup, meaning that farmers who use this seed in conjunction with Roundup will have highly abundant and healthy crops year after year. So healthy and abundant, in fact, that farmers who don’t use Monsanto’s products can’t compete with farmers who do. So many farmers use Monsanto’s products that 80% of all corn in the United States is patented by Monsanto. And because the seeds are patented, farmers are legally not allowed to collect the seeds and re-plant them each year. They have to buy from Monsanto and if by accident some seeds should fall off and sprout the next year, farmers can be sued for pretty much the whole farm.  Heck, if their seed blows onto somebody else’s farm, they can sue them. That means that literally 25% of every product at the grocery store (and a whole lot of products in a whole lot of other stores) is at least partially controlled by a single, massive corporation. So what else is new?

And every month, they send this guy to punch farmers in the face.

                Anti-trust laws were written at a time in history when the Industrial Revolution made it possible for single companies to control, under the right circumstances, entire markets. In the name of capitalism, the free market, and the American way, politicians spent decades fighting large companies in order to protect smaller ones. And it’s worked. A surprisingly low number of mega-conglomerates are found guilty of or even tried for breaking competition law. But that’s not because they’re behaving any better, it’s because, like these companies here and many more, they’ve found loopholes in the system along the way. But what should really scare you is the fact that these corporations no longer need to find loopholes. Consider the case of Microsoft, which was sued in 1999 for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act (which it won in an appeal). James Cash Jr. is a member of the Microsoft Board of directors. He also sits on the Board for Wal-Mart (The largest company in the world). Also on this board are Steven Reinemund (Pepsico, ExxonMobil, American Express) and James Breyer, who sits on the board for Dell Inc. Also running Dell are William Gray (Pfizer, Jp Morgan Chase, Prudential Financial), Michael Miles (American Airlines, Time Warner) and Alan G Lafley (Procter and Gamble) and Sam Nunn (The Coca-Cola Company, Chevron). Mr. Lafley and Mr. Nunn also sit on the board for General Electric alongside their good friend, none other than James Cash Jr. These are all massive corporations which dominate their respective markets, and they’re all being run by a mostly anonymous superclass of high-powered individuals who sit on multiple boards and exert incredible influence. Many of these people, like former US Senator Sam Nunn, are in politics and go back several administrations. Many of them are in academia, the deans of some of the nation’s most prestigious schools of business and economics. These are the top 1% of the top 1% of the top 1% of the world and they’re the ones running the show. 

Me doing research for this post.

                What does this mean for us? Well, on the one hand, it means that the future is bright for mega-corporations. They already exert the influence of small nations and don’t have to play by the same rules. The future will very likely be full of even larger corporations which will mean more corruption, more unfair treatment of consumers and laborers, and the like. On the other hand, it means security. The fact is, many of the smaller companies that have come out in the past few decades have only been successful because they’ve been able to make use of the resources from larger companies (getting their products sold by Wal-Mart, using cheap corn, taking out risky loans from financial firms). These companies also drive the massive world economy which, while not too hot at the moment, is responsible for providing us with the high standard of living we’ve grown accustomed to. On the other other hand, several of the world’s largest corporations in the financial district (like Fannie Mae, Goldman Sachs, etc.) are responsible for such NON-secure things as the worldwide economic crisis.

"Did I do that?" ~ Fannie Mae CEO

                What can we do? We can buy local, reducing shipping costs which propel energy companies to seven of the ten biggest companies in the world. We can support small businesses, which will help foster competition and keep people like the farmers who refuse to use Monsanto seeds in business. We can stay informed, and learn where our products are coming from before we make our decisions about where to buy, who to vote for, or which university studies to consider. Above all, we can try really, really, really hard to get into that superclass because, frankly, it sounds pretty sweet. 

*Sigh*

Creative Bankruptcy or: The Inevitable Death of Hollywood

                In 1986, the world of comic books changed forever. DC comics published Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen. In a time when the comic book industry was moving away from the superhero genre and, more specifically, the classic heroes of the so-called Golden and Silver ages, these two comics brought public attention back to the industry and to the superhero. Comics began to sell at blockbuster levels and it would only be a few short years before Hollywood began to make superhero movies again. Unfortunately, this event occurred alongside the economic boom of the early ‘80s which, for those of you who haven’t seen the film “Wall Street,” was a time during which businessmen would leverage their own grandmother for enough to ride the subway. Then they would jump the turn styles and keep the money. Smart men invested in energy and financial institutions. Very smart men would use LBO’s to buy and sell entire companies. A couple of geniuses, however, invested in comic books. Comic book speculation during this period of time was rampant. Here’s how it all went down.

More or Less. I'm not an economist.

                It all started when people began to buy more and more comics. Supply-and-demand takes over, and in two years the price of a comic book nearly doubles. Publishers and their smart investors realize a cash cow when they see one and more or less reinvent comic book collecting overnight. They spread the word that “rare” comic books are selling for thousands of dollars and simultaneously begin to introduce gimmicks such as holographic covers, polybags, glow in the dark panels, embossing, etc. Meanwhile the overall quality of the writing and art began to dip because of how many new “rare” comics were being mass-produced by the publishers. And comic readers became comic collectors and bought a dozen of each in hopes that they would someday be worth even more. And the cycle continues. The only ones who make money are the ones who sell their comics to other speculators and, of course, the genius investors who got out before the whole thing came crashing down. From 1993-1997, two thirds of comic book stores close. Publishers are either run out of business or are bought up. Marvel Comics declares bankruptcy. Batman is crippled and Superman dies. Literally.

Everybody came to the funeral, except Clark Kent.

                Today, the cost of comic books has doubled twice since the ‘80s, and while Art Spiegelman won a Pulitzer, the industry is at its lowest point in generations. And yet companies like DC and Marvel have fully recovered and are now making more than ever. But how can this be? Simple: These comic book giants don’t really make comic books anymore. In 2000, the film X-Men hits theatres and is quickly followed by a decade of superhero movies, each one a blockbuster. The entire time, companies like Marvel are making a killing off of royalties, rights, and merchandising. In 2003, less than 25% of Marvel’s revenue came from comic books. Today, it’s less than half of that. Where the comic book industry should have been able to stabilize and recover, the sudden explosion of the internet bubble moved the world’s attention away from anything on paper. So while the superheroes might have survived, the comic book had never seen darker days.

Spider-Man 3. Top Grossing Film of 2007. We Let This Happen.

                Some of you who read the title might be asking yourselves “What does any of this have to do with Hollywood?” The answer, of course, is everything. Like any entertainment industry, the film industry rests on the backs of a few very powerful companies. The “Big Six,” as they are called, consist of Time Warner, Viacom, News Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Sony Corporation, and  Comcast/General Electric. Together they control 85.9% of every movie and television show you’ve seen or heard of in the last twenty years (And the rest is divvied up between CBS, DreamWorks, MGM, The Weinstein Company, Lions Gate, and Summit, with a tiny tiny amount left over for everybody else). From here on out, when I say “Hollywood,” I’m referring to these guys:

Casual Friday.

                The average feature film costs roughly sixty million dollars to make and makes on average about as much, which on the surface appears to be a pretty tough business. Of course, these are only averages.  When you start to look at particular genres such as, say, the superhero movie, you see that the movies cost almost three times as much to produce and that they make almost TEN times as much at the box office. That kind of a return is the sort of thing a genius might consider investing in. And invest they have. It is a story very similar to that of the comic book industry. As more and more people go to the movies, the cost of a movie ticket increases, and studios begin to produce more and more films (In 1986 there were fewer than 200 films released. In 2010, almost 900 films were released). They spend more on gimmicks (CGI, 3D) but they also can cash in on recognizable commodities such as A-List actors and proven successes like comic book superheroes. And people see more and more movies. And the cycle continues. Now we’ve caught up to the present. We haven’t seen signs of a crash yet, but that’s because we might not be looking in the right place.

They've started charging more for popcorn since they realized it came in 3D.

                Japan’s animation industry, while not quite as lucrative as Hollywood, is every bit as prolific. Or, rather, it was every bit as prolific. Over the past few decades, a significant fraction of revenue for most of the major anime studios came from offshore marketing to western and American markets. Nearly every successful commercial anime has a subtitled and/or a dubbed version of it in English among other languages.  And with western markets several times larger than domestic markets, Japanese studios which could make use of these markets became the most successful during a period in which the industry had been in decline. Similar to the comic book companies of the ‘80s, the anime companies of the ‘90s found an eager market with very deep pockets (recall all the money from the dot-com bubble, if you will). Programs such as Pokémon, Dragon Ball, Sailor moon, among numerous others became worldwide successes. And, in what should now be an all-too-familiar pattern, geniuses at the anime studios began to realize that they could be making a lot more money if only they were to produce a lot more anime. And produce they did. From 1995-2005 there was an explosion in the anime industry which featured studios buying up the rights to several titles which had small cult-followings. Nearly every successful manga was adapted into an anime series (some into more than one) and series were produced with literally hundreds of episodes. All the while, in order to keep up with production, the quality took a dip. Animation was outsourced to cheaper markets, sometimes mid-series, and what few artistic gems were produced were drowned out in a sea of mediocrity. Recently, partially as a result of the ongoing worldwide recession, foreign anime DVD sales are way down. Many studios have stopped subtitling or dubbing some series entirely. Some of the largest studios are scaling back across the boards and profits are down even domestically. Finally, with the emergence of internet “fan-subbing” and illegal downloads of anime series by western markets, the DVD-focused studios are hurting these days.

Quality does matter.

                While economics could have predicted the rise and fall of the comic book and the anime, just as it seems to suggest a grim future for Hollywood, it does not entirely explain the difficulties faced by these industries. It was perhaps unhappy coincidence that the comic book bubble should crash just as the world was leaping onto the internet superhighway or that anime should begin to falter just as torrents and file-sharing reach their peaks. Or perhaps the economy is not without a sense of irony. Either way, what put the nails in the proverbial coffin in both cases are the advancement of technology and the abandonment of business models. Comic books as a product are selling at their lowest levels in years because most people are more interested in what is online than what is on paper. The anime industry is withering because it is no longer practical to sell 400 episodes on 20 DVDs. The greatest threat facing the video game industry (whose in-depth analysis is another day’s blog entry) is Angry Birds, for goodness’ sakes. As technology progresses, entertainment must evolve. And it does so, gradually. But an economic crash is analogous to a meteor strike and the largest and oldest companies, the proverbial dinosaurs, are the most affected. What does survive these periods of near-extinction are the smaller, more nimble companies. Today, independent comic book and graphic novel studios are self-publishing electronic copies of their work, available on the iPad and other tablet computers. In Japan, independent and smaller studios are moving away from series to focus on very high quality features, which have proven to be highly successful both in Japan and overseas. And while DC, Marvel, and Anime’s analogue to the “Big Six” still control most of their respective industries, public attention and consumer money is moving towards the little guys.

Yup. That's pretty much how it went.

                A Hollywood blockbuster makes five hundred million dollars because it utilizes technology that costs a hundred and fifty million dollars to use. That’s its advantage. The smaller pictures, while lacking CGI and 3D, still cost a significant amount of money to produce with cameras, lighting, sound, and every other technological component audiences have come to expect. But that won’t last forever. 2009’s Best Picture winner, The Hurt Locker (while not a commercial success) cost around 11 million dollars to make. At the same time, 2004’s Primer cost only $7,000 to make, but ended up grossing nearly half a million dollars. That means that while Iron Man made four times what it cost, Primer made SEVENTY times what it cost. The reason why all of this is possible is because technology is moving faster than even business can. The technical capabilities of the cameras used to film Star Wars are more than doubled by your average cell phone. It will not be long before people with innovation, creativity, and talent can produce feature-quality films on the most modest of budgets. And when that happens, Hollywood won’t need to wait for an economic crash. The big studios have been slowly sacrificing quality for volume over the last few decades and they’ve been able to do so because they have the technology to back it up. Once anybody can get that technology, the “Big Six” will only be necessary for the most expensive of films. For the rest, it will be the independent studios (whose meager share has been growing over time) who take over because, as long as the ticket price is the same and they can’t tell the difference between the technologies, people are going to pick the movie they think is better.

They made it for $7,000. In their spare time. And it's about time travel.

               And that is how Hollywood will die and how the worldwide entertainment industry (including television, books, music, video games, and anything else you can buy) will change forever.