Essays · Herbert Spencer
NOTE.
That our sociological beliefs must also be profoundly affected by the conclusions we draw on this point, is obvious. If a nation is modified _en masse_ by transmission of the effects produced on the natures of its members by those modes of daily activity which its institutions and circumstances involve; then we must infer that such institutions and circumstances mould its members far more rapidly and comprehensively than they can do if the solo cause of adaptation to them is the more frequent survival of individuals who happen to have varied in favourable ways. I will add only that, considering the width and depth of the effects which acceptance of one or other of these hypotheses must have on our views of Life, Mind, Morals, and Politics, the question--Which of them is true? demands, beyond all other questions whatever, the attention of scientific men. * * * * * After the above articles were published, I received from Dr. Downes a copy of a paper "On the Influence of Light on Protoplasm," written by himself and Mr. T.P. Blunt, M.A., which was communicated to the Royal Society in 1878. It was a continuation of a preceding paper which, referring chiefly to _Bacteria_, contended that-- "Light is inimical to, and under favourable conditions may wholly prevent, the development of these organisms."
This supplementary paper goes on to show that the injurious effect of light upon protoplasm results only in presence of oxygen. Taking first a comparatively simple type of molecule which enters into the composition of organic matter, the authors say, after detailing experiments:-- "It was evident, therefore, that _oxygen_ was the agent of destruction under the influence of sunlight." And accounts of experiments upon minute organisms are followed by the sentence-- "It seemed, therefore, that in absence of an atmosphere, light failed entirely to produce any effect on such organisms as were able to appear." They sum up the results of their experiments in the paragraph-- "We conclude, therefore, both from analogy and from direct experiment, that the observed action on these organisms is not dependent on light _per se_, but that the presence of free oxygen is necessary; light and oxygen together accomplishing what neither can do alone: and the inference seems irresistible that the effect produced is a gradual oxidation of the constituent protoplasm of these organisms, and that, in this respect, protoplasm, although living, is not exempt from laws which appear to govern the relations of light and oxygen to forms of matter less highly endowed. A force which is indirectly absolutely essential to life as we know it, and matter in the absence of which life has not yet been proved to exist, here unite for its destruction."
What is the obvious implication? If oxygen in presence of light destroys one of these minutest portions of protoplasm, what will be its effect on a larger portion of protoplasm? It will work an effect on the surface instead of on the whole mass. Not like the minutest mass made inert all through, the larger mass will be made inert only on its outside; and, indeed, the like will happen with the minutest mass if the light or the oxygen is very small in quantity. Hence there will result an envelope of changed matter, inclosing and protecting the unchanged protoplasm--there will result a rudimentary cell-wall.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.