Protocell Revisited

It Was RNA 

It is time for me to adjust my neural brainwaves to a frequency in concordance with a 'sensible' scientific topic. While it is true that I have previously presented a post on the highly vexed topic of Abiogenesis, this topic is so controversial, immeasurably complex, and convoluted that it is worth a second look.

For me, the evolution of early life is a fascinating topic, but not as interesting as the original formulation of life itself. When we find evidence of early life in the rocks, that life is already highly complex and highly evolved. But if we look back further in time, what did the first ‘life’ look like? And more importantly, how did this first primordial life come about? Is it possible somehow to resurrect, in a Mad Scientist’s test tube or surreal dream, the very first proto-life, and if so, would we recognise it as such? Now that IS a question. 

I've discussed LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) before. It is the organism that gave rise to all life on Earth as we know it. LUCA, it is conjectured, was hanging around deep water thermal vents 4 billion years ago. There is a common misconception that LUCA was primitive and the only creature in town. But LUCA had already evolved a complex metabolism with enzymes, RNA and ribosomes. And it was not alone but highly likely part of a complex interweb of organisms. These diverse cells would have formed an enclosed ecological system.  

Darwin was well aware that although his theory of natural selection was a wonderful descriptor of how species can change over time, he was at a total loss as to how life came to be. He imagined a 'warm little pond' where all the chemical precursors of life were present. How those precursors came about and how they interacted to produce the first protocell was a concept behind his ken. Since Darwin, we have come a long way in understanding the conditions present on primitive Earth 4.5 to 3.5 billion years ago. Furthermore, our knowledge of biochemistry, genetics, geology and palaeontology has improved in ways incomprehensible to the great man. 

It is likely that 'life' first came about, not in Darwin's 'warm little pond', but on the rim of volcanic vents deep within our primitive oceans a little over 4 billion years ago. I place 'life' in parentheses as the entity that subsequently developed further to give rise to all life on Earth was not alive in any biological sense, at least as we understand it today. We must suspend our concept of life and substitute the notion of proto-life instead. The first proto-life would be extremely primitive, perhaps just a lipid sphere containing a jumble/jungle of inorganic and organic compounds that had the ability to break apart due to dynamic physical processes in its environment. 

Of course, conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago were vastly different from what we see today. The atmosphere was dominated by carbon dioxide, water vapour, and methane; oxygen was not a component. The oceans were a mix of salts and inorganic chemicals; however, hydrovolcanic vents would be a rich source of chemical reactions as they spewed forth sulphur, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen-rich gases.     

Three conditions would have to be met for the formation of proto-life. Clearly, a stable, relatively quiescent environment is required if chemicals are to be localised. Free-floating chemicals at the rim of hydrovolcanic vents would be dispersed by thermal currents, and concentration would be impossible. Therefore, some form of compartmentalisation would have been necessary. This could be achieved by the formation of lipid bilayers. Lipids have the interesting feature of having a hydrophilic domain (water-loving) and a hydrophobic chain (water-repellant). Lipids spontaneously form bilipid chains in a water environment, which naturally coalesce into water-containing spheres. However, in seawater, lipid vesicles will not form in the presence of salts such as sodium and calcium. This is a problem for the hypothesis of life first appearing at the sites of hydrothermal vents.  However, recent evidence has shown that lipid vesicles can form in the presence of salts if the water temperature achieves 70ºC and the pH increases to 12. A hot alkaline environment readily occurs around oceanic hydrothermal vents.

The presence of lipid spheres achieves several important functions. First, it offers a stable enclosed system, separate from the ebb and flow of the external environment. Second, the lipid bilayer allows molecules to enter and leave. Third, a primitive form of 'replication' may ensue. Continuous addition of lipids by physical forces will result in enlargement, and once a critical stage is reached, and in the presence of physical agitation, the spheres will spontaneously bud off 'daughter' sphere configurations.

Life, in any form, requires energy. Even the most primitive present-day bacteria have a complex metabolism (glycolysis) for the production of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). ATP is the energy currency of all living cells necessary to stave off the inevitable march of entropy. The cells of more complex organisms (eukaryotes) also harness the powers of glycolysis for ATP production, however. in addition, there is a second mechanism (Krebb's cycle), localised in the organelle, mitochondria, that continues with the initial oxidative process started by the glycolysis that ends up producing a great deal of ATP, or potential energy in the process. Clearly, the first protocell did not have the complex metabolic machinery for energy production as outlined above. It would have been reliant on the energy belching forth from the hydrothermal vents. In the presence of heat, carbon dioxide and free hydrogen, energy is released in addition to the formation of complex carbon chain chemicals. By harnessing the energy and organic compounds, it has been hypothesised that a primitive chemical 'metabolism' may have actually taken place.

Finally, a means of genetic transmission is required. Nucleic acids, particularly ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid fulfil this role. Of the two, RNA is more easily produced, forms single chains and is inherently unstable. A primitive RNA molecule may have provided a genetic blueprint for replication and mutation. The ferment of the hydrothermal vent environment is not an environment conducive to nucleic acid generation, and therefore, an alternative source is required. There is the possibility that organic compounds were imported through the medium of stellar objects. Complex chemistry can occur in the vast reaches of space. Bombardment by intense solar radiation provides the energy to generate organic compounds from simple elements. Analysis of meteorites has revealed a complex and diverse array of organics and nucleic acids. The possible role of extraterrestrial bombardment in providing life's precursors should not be underestimated. The early Earth was severely pelted by comets, asteroids and comets during the 'Heavy Bombardment' phase of its existence. Indeed, it is conjectured that much of Earth's water was provided by comet impacts.   

I'm making the whole process seem easy and inevitable, but there is a major problem. On its own, an RNA-based replication system is not enough. There has to be a conglomeration of molecules that can translate the RNA message into amino acids, the precursors for protein synthesis. Tis a chicken and egg conundrum. Which came first: RNA responsible for the genetic code driving protein production and replication or proteins necessary for RNA to do its job. Both are required to cooperate at the same time. According to the 'RNA World Hypothesis', a primitive RNA molecule fulfilled both roles. However, when it comes to the details, scientists are in disagreement. I have touched on this hypothesis previously, but only in a perfunctory manner. To do this hypothesis justice, it will require a blog post in itself- I'm working on it          

I do not wish to downplay the problems to be overcome or plaster over the glaring, gaping cracks in our understanding. Those of a religious bent are quick to gloat and shout: “God did it”. Is this the last bastion of God of the Gaps?-  or perhaps cracks? To say an invisible unknown entity 'does it' by means unknown is tantamount to magic and wand waving, and therefore, in the final analysis, no answer at all. I'm comfortable with the notion that we simply don't know how the first proto-organism got started. We are working on the problem and can be assured that if we do finally understand how it happened, it will be through the work of sound empirical scientific effort and not a consequence of theology. Nuff said, for now.  

Night of the Demon

                                      Who's a Pretty Boy, Den

This will be the first and most likely the last time that I discuss a film's merits, artistic or otherwise.

I'm taking time out from writing my usual drivel to comment on an old British black-and-white film from the 1950s: The Night of the Demon or Curse of the Demon as it was rebranded for the US audience. In addition to the name change, the film was truncated by 15 minutes. The Americans deemed it necessary to cut out a couple of subplots in order for the film to fit into their double-feature format. I've watched both versions and the unsullied version is superior and well worth its inclusion of minor distractions. 

I don't intend to summarise the plot, as you may well wish to view the film for yourself if you haven't already done so, and I do not want to curtail your viewing pleasure. In this post, my intention is to bring out a few highlights and comment in my inestimable style. Beware, there will be disclosures and perhaps the odd digression with the emphasis on 'odd'. You have been warned! 

Context

I first watched the film whilst young, at about the age of 7. I remember being transfixed and scared shitless, although I enjoyed the film immensely. Of course, at the tender age of 7, most of what transpired was lost on my fulminating brain. Role forward 51 years, I am now comfortably ensconced in rural New Zealand. My son lives and works in the capital city of Wellington about a two-hour drive from where we live. He is a busy man, and consequently, I don't get to see him as often as I would like. On those intermittent occasions when he comes to see his parents, we generally arrange what is colloquially called 'Gangster Night'. Tis a night where myself and second born retreat from our respective wives, leaving them to watch drivel in the living room whilst we become lodged in the lounge. We confer and select a film for our viewing pleasure. Our selection is of undoubted quality, gritty and usually comes with a body count. During the film, we consume fine ales, and afterwards, we comment and discuss the film in detail. On my son's last visit, I suggested Night of the Demon, a film that I had not seen for five decades.   

Filmy Bit

The film was directed by the acclaimed horror director Jacques Tourneur and starred Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins, and Niall MacGinnis. Although it is a British film, the male lead, Dana Andrews, is American. Post war British films of the 40s and 50s always seem to feature an American actor in the male lead role. This was no accidental quirk. British films of the era were produced for a dual market, and the presence of an American in a prominent role garnished the film to suit the American palate. At the time of filming Dana Andrews was a fading star and was bereft of the cachet he had had in the 1940's. That said, Mr Andrews acquitted his role competently and with due professionalism. However, gone was the sparkle of an earlier decade and an air of 'contractual obligation' was evident in his gait. Or perhaps he was getting old. 

The accolade of 'Star' must go to the Irish character actor Niall MacGinnis. In the film, he is the counterpoint to white hat-wearing Dana Andrews. He fulfils the role of the archetypal baddy, dare I say it, with veritable aplomb. Apparently, the character he plays, Julian Karswell, is loosely based on the 'Wickedest Man in England', Alister Crowley. Niall plays an occult leader for a group of local followers. His skill with the dark arts has given him immense power and wealth, and he resides with his mother in a grand, graceful mansion. There is a hint that although his dark powers have provided him well, there is always a foul debt ultimately to be paid. It is as if Karswell holds a wolf by his ears. Niall is the master of understated horror. There is evil in this man, but it is not overt, certainly not in the way of a Hollywood villain complete/replete with maniacal laughter. Karswell's projection of cultured menace is the perfect foil to Dana Andrew's initially uncomprehending and befuddled character (Dr John Holden). Evil comes in many forms, and there is something to be said for philosopher Hannah Arendt's concept of 'The banality of evil', but not in this case. Niall's projection is not banal in any respect. Evil is present, but it is not commonplace. Evil abides in all of us but, for the most part, is kept in check by the intellect. Dr Karswell projects a fractured, erudite intellect which extrudes an air of menace with quiet abandon. We are not witnesses to the banality of evil; on the contrary, tis more akin to the 'urbanity of evil'. As a digression, Niall McGinnis was a qualified MD and served as a military surgeon in the second World War. It is difficult to state which was the side gig, doctoring or acting as he had over 80 films in his filmography. A very underrated character actor, in my opinion.  

Peggy Cummins is the film's 'almost love interest.' She is attractive in a well-groomed secretarial way, very British, even though she is Irish and strictly opposite to the Hollywood vamp of the 1930s and 1940s. Tis ironic as Miss Cummins is mainly remembered for playing a femme fatale in the 1950 crime film noir, Gun Crazy. In Night of The Demon, Peggy's main plot role is to provide an adroit intellectual counterpoint to Dr Holden's hard scepticism.

 Hal E Chester, the producer, and the director Jacques Torneur had significant artistic differences during the film's production. Tourneur envisaged an imaginative horror film with the portrayal of the titular demon left for the viewer to conjure in their own fertile or otherwise imagination. However, in the final cut, the demon became manifest at the beginning and end of the film. Considering the technology of the time, the portrayal of the huge lumbering bat-faced demon was reasonably good. However, I agree with Tourneur that some things are best left to the imagination. The weakest moment transpires when our doughty hero, Dr Holden, grapples with the cat cum leopard. It is clear that our protagonist is wrestling with a stuffed animal. That said, with the use of shadow and adept camera work, Tourneur saves the scene from outright farce. just. 

For me, the best scenes occur during Karswell and Holden's meeting in the British Museum's library; Holden's marrow-chilling 'run through the woods' after breaking into Karswell's home. There is something 'Wolfmanesque' as the clouds cut out the full moon, and lastly, there is the unforgettable Niall MacGinnis—in fact, any scenes in which he is part.

I remember, vaguely a British horror series presented sometime in the late 60s (Mystery and Imagination). One of the stories presented was The Casting of the Runes which had a similar plot run to the film discussed. Both the film and episode, of course, were adapted from a short story by M. R. James entitled Casting of the Runes.  I remember very little about the episode, although I recall the featured demon was winged- I could be wrong. Sadly, all the episodes from the series seem to have been lost. 

That's enough for now. I'm happy to write further film reviews in my characteristic, jumpy, quirky and idiosyncratic vein if my regulars consider my meanderings along this route favourable. Regardless of opinion, I would like to hear your thoughts.       

Oscar Smiled

''The only thing worse than having a big fat arse is having no arse at all''

I'm sure my discerning and cultured readers are familiar with the works of the Irish raconteur and self-acclaimed genius Oscar Wilde. He lived a charmed life for the most part and was greatly admired for his ready wit and repartee. However, things didn't go well for poor Oscar after he buggered the son of the Marquis of Queensbury. In those days (1890s), the practice of putting yer winky up another man's arse (arse) was not only a sin but a grave crime. Though Oscar put up a spirited defence at his trial (x2), he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to 2 years of hard labour (1895-1897) to be spent at Reading Gaol. During his incarceration, he wrote the 'Ballad of Reading Gaol'.  Apparently, the work was inspired by the fate of a fellow inmate who was charged with the murder of his faithless wife. The chap in question was a member of the Queen's Guard, and was duly hanged for his crime. In this spirit, I have penned a poem dedicated to an old acquaintance of mine, entitled 'The Ballard of Lugless Douglas'. As I recall, Dougy (for it is he) was not over-endowed with intelligence. As Douglas was virtually unemployable, he was forced to rely on his wits to travel through this veil of tears we call life. This, of course, was a calamity of the first order as poor Doug could not read or write. Interestingly, and like many dullards, he considered himself a self-proclaimed expert on all and sundry. His lack of cerebral matter had a serious and doleful influence on his life, and he was oft the target of the local constabulary and the law courts. However, his downfall occurred not because of a brush with the law but as a consequence of not paying an instalment from a loan from the local unlicensed 'Money Lender', 'Razor Eric'. For most of us, the name 'Razor' would be a clue that perhaps it would be best not to enter a business relationship with this gentleman.  Sadly, Dougy, at this stage in his life, was denied the conventional means of legal credit, and usuary was not a word that abided in his limited lexicon. Read on, gentle reader, to hear of Douglas' sanguinary fate.    

Although my version may lack Oscar Wilde's artistic brilliance, its virtue lies in its brevity.

   The Ballard of Lugless Douglas.

                    He wore his scarlet shell suit,             

      Stained with beer and food,

              And nicotine stained his hands

              When they found him on the road,

              The poor man had lost an ear,

              And the bloody stump did exude.

              He tottered amongst the drunken men,

              An earhole was rent and tore;  

              A knotted hanky was on his head,

              An orifice spewing gore;

              But I never saw a man

              Spewing forth such bright red ichor.

             I never saw a man who bled

             With such wistful aplomb

             Upon the street that night

             And nowhere a soothing balm,

             Yet, at every pump of blood, that vent

             A bloody mess did he become.

             He walked, with staggered step,

             Within a world of pain,

              And wondered where his ear had gone

                    It had disappeared down the drain,

             When a low voice whispered so,

            ‘Dougie will never hear again.’

                                                

             

             Dear me, the poor man

             Suddenly began to reel,

            And Dougie’s ear had been struck orf

            With the finest burnished steel;

                          And through the red mist,                

            The stump appeared like fresh-cut veal.

            Don’t feel sorry for Dougie       

            For Dougie has been a sinner

            Penance did not abide in him

           And thus his ear became a rat’s dinner,

           A fate he truly deserved,

           The fate of a severed pinna.

So endeth the Ballard of Lugless Douglas

Dr Kipling Makes Exceedingly Good Hypotheses, Perhaps

Scientists Attempt to Produce Two Identical Snowflakes- Not There Yet Fellas 

I've written about the Drake equation previously. This simple equation attempts to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilisations in the galaxy. Dr Drake proposed his famous equation during a coffee break at a conference in 1961. To be fair to Dr Drake, his off-the-cuff formula was not designed to be taken too seriously. His hastily framed equation was meant to stimulate discussion concerning the possibility of advanced alien life within our Milky Way galaxy. The equation, as originally proposed, contained nine terms, and at the time, seven of the terms were unknown. Therefore, depending on input data, it was possible to generate a vast range of possibilities. As a serious equation of scientific merit, it was not. However, in the public mind, it has taken on a significance way above its original intention. The general public should hold its head in shame. Dr Drake has been exonerated. ,  

Most Astrophycists, and scientists in general, consider that due to the presence of billions of stars within our galaxy and the appreciation that most host orbiting planets, it is almost inevitable that there are intelligent technological civilisations 'out there'. The number of civilisations is open to speculation, but generally, most pundits place the number in the thousands or millions. To suggest that we might be alone in a cold, insentient universe is akin to heresy, a display of arrogance and hubris by feeble-minded insular humans. With all that said, it cannot be denied that we have absolutely no credible evidence for the existence of any extraterrestrial civilisation in our galaxy. Speculation and hypotheses are fine, but for knowledge to progress, we need data, and currently, that is sadly lacking.    

A British Astrophysicist, Dr David Kipling, has decided to look at the problem from a different angle. What follows is taken from his seminal paper: 'An Objective Bayesian Analysis of Life’s Early Start and Our Late Arrival' published on an open access platform: PNAS. May 18, 2020, 17 (22) 11995-12003. After reading through the paper, I have to admit that the general reader may be put off by the mathematical treatment of the problem and the technical jargon employed. I will endeavour to summarise the paper and present its key elements and conclusions without emphasising the mathematical/statistical notation present in the original paper. This, hopefully, will aid clarity as I suspect most readers are unlikely to be aware of Bayesian statistics and some of the 'mathematical niceties' proceeding from the analysis. On occasion, the paper lapses into pure logic and, therefore, has no appeal to most. Frankly, I am not equipped with the high level of statistical education necessary to fully appreciate the chain of reasoning provided in the paper. However, I am familiar with Bayesian statistics as I've used the technique to calculate genetic risk in patients. A brief digression is in order.

In my professional experience, the technique was useful for calculating the risk of an individual having a particular genetic disorder based on prior 'risk' knowledge. Risk may be updated as new data becomes available. This technique is applicable to conditions that do not conform to classical simple genetic inheritance and is relevant to polygenic conditions where a number of genes represent risk factors or modifiers. A good example of such a condition is schizophrenia or cancer. Back to the paper. 

Initially, the paper deals with setting the time parameters regarding the 'First Emergence of Life' and the advent of the 'Intelligent Observer' The analysis specifically relates to Earth's condition and represents a hypothetical rerun from the conception of life and its appreciation due to the emergence of the 'Intelligent Observer'. By subjecting various time parameters to Bayesian analysis, it is hoped that the results will shed light on the statistical probability of life's inception and the subsequent evolution of intelligent organisms. This analysis may be further extrapolated and applied to other planetary systems within our galaxy and provide a degree of statistical validity for the presence or absence of extraterrestrial civilisations.

Findings and Conclusions

Different models are compared while admitting that the true timing for life's emergence is controversial, with estimates varying wildly. Even taking into account the difficulties in determining the correct time scale, a rerun utilising a variety of time parameters was remarkably consistent in predicting life's early start in Earth's history. As soon as conditions became stable and conducive to supporting life, biogenesis became almost inevitable.    

Earth came into being 4.5 billion years ago, and life has been detected in the fossil record dating back to  3.5 billion years ago. Although these organisms were simple prokaryotes, they were capable of complex metabolic processes, indicating that they had evolutionary antecedents. Thus, life's inception through abiogenesis occurred (origin of life) millions of years previously. Admittedly, this 'first life' and its preceding proto-life have left no mark within the fossil record. This negative observation does not negate their original existence. Given the right conditions, the inception of life is likely a rapid process. The other observation made is that the evolution of intelligence seems to appear late in Earth's development, suggesting that is not an inevitable phenomenon. The implication is that if Earth's 'time clock' was reset, the formation of life would be virtually inevitable. However, the evolution of an intelligent species able to harness technology is less certain. 

Commentary

What are we to make of this analysis? Dr. Kipling's statistical approach to the problem is undoubtedly interesting and novel. The main takeaway notion to be absorbed is perhaps we should not expect our galaxy to be teeming with extraterrestrial advanced civilisations. Simple life may be common, as biogenesis is highly likely to occur, but there are a number of important evolutionary steps that are crucial for the eventual development of intelligent agents capable of self-reflection and the building of rocket ships. It is sobering to contemplate that while life dates back 4 billion years, the first important step toward intelligence, the evolution to eukaryotes, had to await a further 2 billion years. This was a crucial step in the evolution of more complex multicellular organisms. Additional evolutionary steps required to achieve humanity were numerous and complex- well worthy of a future post (maybe).   

Intuitively, given the vast size of the galaxy and its contents therein, it is natural to assume there must be others 'out there' very much like us. But perhaps we really are special and mayhap unique. Dr Kipling, in a podcast, introduces the analogy of the snowflake. Each snowflake is structured so that its form is unique; no two snowflakes are alike, and the chance that this can occur is 1, followed by 768 zeros. In other words, essentially zero.   

Dr Kipling introduces a compelling approach to the great existential question: 'Are we really alone?' This approach is fascinating but suffers from the limitation of all approaches to this question—the lack of input data. Dr Kipling focuses on the only two parameters available to him: the 'emergence of life' and the emergence of the 'intelligent observer'. As with any mathematical technique, the quality and the quantity of the input data are crucial for the calculation of credible results. A reliance on just a single parameter (time) severely limits what can be achieved, especially when we are trying to extend the analysis to a different case, i.e. aliens. Notwithstanding the limitations of this approach, the good doctor demands applause for innovative critical thinking and introduces the reader to an alternative and thought-provoking narrative.

Spartacus (Third Servile War)

   "No, I'm Flaxen Saxon" 

When the average man is asked to name three characters from ancient Roman history, they will inevitably conjure the following folks in their head: Caesar (obviously), Nero and Spartacus. Sometimes Nero can be substituted with Caligula (wot no Hannibal?). These characters from history have insinuated their presence into the modern mind and secured their place in history. Of the three, Caesar's incorporation into the corpus is warranted upon a consideration of merit. We are looking at the rare (extremely rare) individual that has changed history through the dint of their character, intelligence and action. Nero has left, but a scratch on the historical path, and his inclusion on this list is underserved. With Spartacus, we have a different case. Spartacus is remembered not because he changed history or became a mad emperor but because he became a powerful, alluring idea and ideal. Read on and weep.

Three significant slave revolts impinge on our sense of Roman history. I have previously written about the revolt of 135 BC, entitled 'The First Servile War,' on this very blog platform. The second slave revolt remains but a spark within my restless, nay febrile/fecund brain. The first two 'Slave Uprisings' were confined to the island of Sicily. The Roman heartland/mainland was unaffected. This all changed with the third and last major slave revolt. 

The Romans had a problem. Like most ancient cultures, they operated a slave economy, and mainly due to success in war, Rome had a lot of slaves. So many slaves, in fact, that during the latter Republican period, slaves outnumbered the free population of the city of Rome and numbered a third of the total population of Italy. There was always a constant fear that the slaves would somehow come together, organise and overthrow their masters. This was not a hypothetical dilemma, as, by 73 BC, Rome had endured two significant slave outpourings. Now, in 73 BC, Rome was about to face the third slave uprising; the Spartacus Rebellion was the most significant, the most destructive and most successful.

We know little about Spartacus' early life. He likely hailed from ancient Thrace, a region now considered part of the Balkans. According to the Roman writer Appian, Spartacus was taken as a prisoner of war and sent to a gladiator school due to his robust physique. Plutarch gives a different version, claiming that Spartacus was in the Roman military but was charged with desertion and sentenced to the arena. Regardless of provenance, at the time of the revolt in 73 BC, Spartacus was ensconced in a gladiator training school close to the city of Capua. The training was harsh and cruel, designed to instil complete obedience and produce an accomplished gladiator for the amusement of the rich and poor alike. Spartacus, together with others, planned to escape and flee north. However, their plan was discovered. Knowing their fate was sealed, the men incited 78 others to violently revolt. Armed with kitchen knives and utensils ( sans egg timer), they fell upon their captors, wreaking havoc. After killing their tormentors and collecting a cache of weapons, they fled to the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. Once camped, Spartacus was elected as leader, with Crixus and Oenomaus as immediate underlings. They then began to systematically loot the region, encouraging enslaved agricultural workers to flock to the 'banner of freedom'.

The Romans were not impressed or especially worried and considered the slaves as more of a trifling nuisance than a major military threat. Consequently, their response was lacklustre and dilatory. A force of poorly trained militia was gathered under the leadership of Gaius Claudius Glaber and sent forth to deal with the problem. Glaber, with his force, surrounded the slaves, hoping to starve them into submission. However, Spartacus and his men used vine branches to climb out of the encirclement. Afterwards, they attacked the Roman camp from the rear, defeating the troops, plundering the camp, and further enhancing their weapon supply.

A second armed troop led by Publius Varinus was hastily prepared and sent to attack these pesky but annoyingly persistent slaves. Again, the Romans had underestimated their enemy and the 'pesky slaves' quickly defeated the Roman troops sent against them. This victory encouraged more slaves to leave their masters and join Spartacus' rapidly growing army. At last, the Romans realised that they had a serious military situation, as by this time, Spartacus commanded a force of 70,000 ex-slaves. The senate decided to send both consuls (spring 72 BC) and their troops to deal with the rebellion. This response utilising the military resources of the two consuls, Gellius (erroneously called Publicola in some sources) and Clodianus, illustrated the grave threat Spartacus and his slave army posed to the Republic of Rome. In response, Spartacus devasted the region, laying waste to several cities (Nola, Thurii, Nuceria, and Metapontum) in the process. Spartacus, no doubt, realised that his luck would soon run out as Rome was mobilising its vast military resources against him and his merry band. No longer would Sparticus face barely trained militiamen, for now, he would have to face the battle-hardened soldiers of the legions. His force was a mixed bunch of slaves, of which many would have been of little utility in battle.

This host needed vast resources and food, and thus, he decided to split his slave army into two, with Crixus commanding the second group. His initial plan was to strike north, cross the Appenine range and from there, the band was to disperse with individuals striking out to return to their homes. A forlorn hope, I suspect. Though it has to be said, the whole enterprise was predicated on desperation with little to commend it. From the rational perspective, the slaves would experience a brief idyllic taste of freedom before death in battle or worse. Certainly, no rational man would have savoured falling into the hands of the Romans and their inevitable cruel retribution.

Troops under Gellius attacked Crixus and his army, defeating his contingent and killing Crixus. Meanwhile, Spartacus had miraculously defeated Clodinius and his troops and then turned to drive Gellius from the field. At this stage in the conflict, Spartacus made a critical error. Perhaps his victories had gone to his head. Whatever the reason, Spartacus disregarded his original scheme and, at the head of a large force of infantry and assorted cavalry, marched toward Rome. He encountered two more Roman armies on the way and defeated both. His tactical skill was undeniable, though ultimately, he lacked sound strategic vision. Even the military genius Hannibal shirked a march on Rome after his stupendous victory over the Romans at Cannae. By this time, the conflict had dragged on for nearly three years, and what had started as a simple and local slave revolt had now developed into a crisis of epic proportions. The Romans had had enough and placed their armies under the competent general, Marcus Licinius Crassus. During the initial clash of arms, a portion of Crassus' army exhibited cowardice, and as punishment, Crassus revived the ancient practice of decimation. One in ten of the men was selected by lot; thereafter, the rest of the troop beat their unlucky comrades to death with cudgels. Crassus was not soft. This terrible display of Roman justice served to encourage the others and to exhort Crassus' army to display great feats of courage in the coming, final battle. Spartacus abandoned his march to Rome as the way was blocked by Crassus and his armies. Instead, he marched south into the 'toe of Italy' to a region known as Bruttium. Spartus then negotiated with Cicilian pirates to arrange passage to Sicily for himself and his men. However, the pirates reneged on their end of the bargain, leaving the slaves in a desperate plight. Who would have thought that pirates lacked honour! Once Crassus arrived with his army, he hoped to pen in the slave army by building fortifications and earthworks.

However, at night and during a heavy snowstorm, Spartacus and his army managed to break through the lines. Spartacus then made the fateful decision to turn and fight a major battle. It is here that Spartacus lost his military acumen. Or, more likely, the odds were not in his favour, and Crassus was no military dullard. At the battle of the Silarius River, Spartacus was killed in the fighting, and his army was utterly defeated. Six thousand slaves were taken prisoner and crucified along the Via Appia and left to rot at the stake. Thus they provided a stark billboard to those travelling this busy byway. The message was clear: Don't fuck with Rome, or you will die horribly, horribly. Thus the Third Servile War' came to an end. As for Spartacus, his body was never found.

Throughout the ages, Spartacus has inspired the oppressed and disenfranchised. His motives have been widely debated. Was he a proto-Marxian proletariat revolutionary or something else? I conclude that he was 'something else'. What that 'something else' is open to much speculation. Modern interpretation through film, theatre, and literature often displays the disparate/desperate slave group as 'freedom fighters' railing against the oppressive and cruel Romans. Ancient writers err on the side of the prosaic: Spartacus and others merely planned to escape, disperse and head home. Their aspirations changed when their plan unravelled, and swift, violent action was the only option. It seems that the merry band of slaves became a rallying point for equally desperate folk in southern Italy, and I suspect Spartacus became the unwilling focal point for a horde. Did this sudden change in fortunes go to his head? He must have realised that there was strength in numbers, but did he appreciate its inherent weakness. People need resources, both food and weapons. Whatever the group dynamic was saying, I think Spartacus' ultimate aim remained the same: he just wanted to go home. Not all in his band shared this sentiment or goal. Some of his group were out for revenge and plunder- two processes difficult to disassemble. He must have known that whatever he did, the Romans would eventually prevail. Once the Romans finally realised that this was not a police action and engaged competent military leaders, the game was up. I don't see Spartacus as a man of high ideals, a man raging against the system. I see a man thrust into the limelight by the cast of the dice, by chance, a hero. He was a victim of circumstances of which he had little control. He did not write the script, but he was fully aware of the last page. In the end, I see a man who, unlike Caesar, was not about being part of history, just a frightened, courageous young man yearning to go home.    

Security

                                                  Greetings From Jo'Burg

Greetings From Fortress Flaxen

On the early morning of last Thursday at approx. 12.30 am., Mrs. S was taking out our three yappy, fluffy, white dogs for their final piddle. During the procedure, the dogs started to bark (not unusual) and alerted my wife to an intruder standing in the front garden about 15 metres away. Bravely but foolishly, she challenged the interloper and asked: ''What are you doing on the property''? The man turned his head in her direction but said nothing. She then hurried into the house and woke me up. At my age, I need my beauty sleep. I quickly put on a housecoat, grabbed a knife and flashlight, which I keep strategically under the bed and rushed outside. By the time I had entered the front garden, the interloper was nowhere to be seen. I did not think it wise to be prowling around my property in the dark, so I returned to 'Fortress Flaxen', locked the door and turned on all the interior and exterior lights. In the meantime, Mrs S phoned the police, and they arrived 20 minutes later. The two officers had a wander around the immediate garden area, and one of the officers challenged Ted, the alpaca, but nothing unusual was seen.    

Mrs. S provided the officers with a description: He was about 5' 10'' and wearing a motorcycle helmet. Of course, she couldn't supply any further details due to the darkness and situation. Interestingly, I didn't hear a motorbike when I came outside—perhaps I was too slow? The officers suggested that the potential thieves were looking for unsecured quad bikes, ride-on mowers, etc. This seems reasonable as we live on a large rural property. 

This episode obviously made us examine our current security and the means to improve and upgrade safety. The next day, I alerted our immediate neighbours about the incident. Our closest neighbour is a retired policeman who suggested several easy-to-implement safety measures.

In fairness, we live in a safe area not noted for crime; however, that is no excuse for complacency. We also need to tailor our security needs to our own particular circumstances. For context, our property lies at the end of an extended tarmac drive about 0.5 km in extent. From this drive, access can be gained to four properties, including our own. We have a typical 'farmer's style' gate about 10 feet in length. Normally, the gate is left unsecured and open. However, from now on, the gate will be secured with a chain and padlock. The house lies about 30 metres from the gate and is accessed by a gravel driveway. The house is surrounded by areas of managed garden. Our garden area is large in extent and comprises about 0.5 of an acre in total. Outside this area, we have several managed lawned fields. Adjacent to one field and the garden area, we have an acre of unmanaged pasture containing livestock. Currently, we own a single alpaca and sheep. Apart from the house, our other major security concern is the barn/shed. This building contains a number of expensive items, including two ride-on mowers. The shed is accessed from a gravel driveway that arcs off the main driveway and loops behind the property before terminating at the shed. This driveway also has a farm gate that was hitherto left ajar but is now secured. The shed itself is accessed via a door which is now permanently locked. These measures alone should deter thieves interested in stealing our ride-on mower, as two locked gates would need to be opened. We do not keep the keys to the mower in the shed, and therefore, to steal the machine, the thieves would have to drive a pick-up vehicle to the shed, gain access to the shed and load the mower on their transport. I suspect the barriers imposed would represent a severe impediment and deterrent.

Now we come to the house itself. Our home is a four-bed brick bungalow lying off-centre on the property. It is pitch black at night due to the lack of urban and external lighting. Due to the incursion, we decided to invest in external camera security- we already have internal security cameras. Four cameras have subsequently been fitted to encircle the property to ensure there are no blind spots. The cameras are fitted with night vision, a hefty spotlight, an alarm and two-way communication. The cameras can discriminate between the local wildlife (possums, rabbits and feral cats) and miscreants of evil intent. The images are crisp, and the system provides up to two years of video storage. Alerts are through our phones, and the various parameters offered are eminently customisable. 

Now it gets personal: unlike the US, gun laws in NZ are very strict, and firearms are not encouraged for home defence. As mentioned at the beginning of this tortuous post, I keep a knife close by at night. It is a robust weapon with a 7" blade and full tang. I've added to my nocturnal safety by including a pistol crossbow. It is quick and easy to load with attached mechanical assist and fires metal 6.5" winged darts. It is accurate to 20 metres and has a draw weight of 80lb. I am well versed in its use, and I'm going to assume that anyone entering my house at 2 am. in the morning is not there for a cosy chat. I suspect being hit by a crossbow bolt in the chest area is not conducive to further respiratory activity. I am forced to enact this extreme measure to ensure personal safety for myself and my family. This is especially relevant due to lengthy local police response times.

Am I being over the top, considering we do not live in South Africa or San Pao? As a digression: my son used to date a Brazilian girl whom he met on an exchange program. She lived in San Pao in a luxurious compound full of rich folk. When my son went to visit, he was shocked by the opulence and self-contained nature of the gated community. This starkly contrasted with the immediate outside world as most of San Pao is draped in a pall of desperate poverty. When they ventured away from their cloistered bubble of enchantment, they travelled by car with bodyguards. When the 'Brazilian Princess ' (for it is she) deigned to stay with us, she was astonished that we did not have servants. The upshot is that this 'beautiful bauble' (my son gets his taste in women from his dad) did not do a lick of work around the house during her stay, which pissed off Mrs S no end. Here endeth the digression/lesson.

Our ex-copper neighbour explained that it is a matter of security layers. The more effort you put forth to secure your property, the less likely you will be targeted by thieves. That said, professional, highly skilled thieves will put forth the effort if they think you own very expensive items. We do not come within the range of the super-wealthy, and the items available in our home are no different from most middle-class establishments. No fine art, jewellery or precious stones are within our humble abode.   

It could be argued that owning three crappy/yappy dogs is our best defence against intruders. Although they are fairly indiscriminate and not customisable as to their response, they undoubtedly provide an effective early warning system. Anyway, folks, let me know your thoughts and approach to security issues.                  

The Problem With Academia. Part I

Makes a Great Serving Tray

There is a lot to discuss regarding the current academic system in the West, and most of it is not good. I've decided to pontificate upon some of the issues facing modern academia and set them out here for scrutiny and discussion. Today's contribution is a brief but pert foray into the commercialisation of higher education, and the problems engendered thereon. Further posts will delve further and consider the plight of those brave and foolish enough to attempt to enter and thrive in those 'Hallowed Halls'.

There is a misconception for those not in the know that the 'World of Academia' is somehow not part of the 'Real World'. Instead, this is a world of high academic principles and values. Where the meagre and sullied concerns of daily mundane life do not intrude. A lofty domain of pure learning and intellectual repose. A place of quiet contemplation, a meld of like minds. A philosopher's cave/enclave where shadows of the outside flit across a petrified vista. Okay, maybe this is fiction from a pre-medicated mind. But I'm sure you get the point.   

First off, I need to clarify: I am not an academic. While it is true I spent three years at an English University engaged in serious botanical research involving the much-maligned dandelion, I was never a tenured staff member. While working as a Human Geneticist in New Zealand, I lectured to Medical Laboratory Science students at Aukland University of Technology and organised and supervised practical sessions. In addition, as the departmental Training Officer, I mentored, trained and cajoled students, too many to recall, as they plodded throughout their semester dedicated to Human Genetics during the 4th year of their degree. All that said, I do have a kernel of understanding and knowledge of the 'Academic System' as it currently stands, and I'm painfully aware of its inherent deficiencies. I'll be using the British Higher Education system as my paradigm, but what I have to say here is equally relevant to the systems of the US and Australasia. 

There is much to be said about the relevance of undertaking and obtaining a degree in the modern setting. Back in those halcyon days, in the 1970s, when I embarked on my higher education journey, acquiring a degree from a British university was something of academic worth. When I was a lad, 8% of the population entered these venerated halls of higher education; today, the intake is 38%. This is in spite of the fact that in the 70s, undergraduate degree course fees were enswathed (stop waxing lyrical Flaxen!) by the government, and in addition, a grant was issued that covered student rent and basic living expenses. Fast forward to today, and the student is expected to fund the whole of their college adventure by whatever means. Not all parents put aside investments directed at funding their children's education. Regardless of how it is funded, higher education is expensive, especially if expectations extend to postgraduate training. 

Fifty years ago, a degree was a respectable academic achievement and widely recognised by prospective employers as a stamp of intellectual prowess and a passport to the professions. Today, a degree seems a prerequisite for most jobs that pay above the minimum wage. In 1974, a qualification earned at 16 (O'levels) was all that was required for employment as a biochemistry tech. Today, applicants for the same position require a degree in chemistry or biochemistry. 

Clearly, if everyone and his ferret (go shagger) are obtaining a degree, then its 'academic tariff' is bound to decline in worth. I also contend that the modern education structure enables the 'success' of students who, in previous decades, would not have been accepted for entry into the university system. It follows, therefore, that for 'everyone' to matriculate, academic standards suffer. Modern universities are businesses, and the students are their customers. As with any successful business, you must garner more customers to ensure economic success. Undergraduate courses cost the UK consumer about $9,000 annually, with international students paying appreciably higher fees. 

Over the years, I have taught a cadre of high-calibre students, but unfortunately, I have also had experience with a clutch of individuals who lacked the necessary intellectual mettle. Two international students are standouts. To bolster my argument, I am willing to relate the following anecdote: A young Chinese citizen I was teaching was susceptible to constant plagiarism. Her own writing suffered from a scatter of grammatical errors that made her work difficult to read and mark. To be fair, I did not penalise the student as long as I could identify the knowledge therein and the thread of the reasoning. Although projects submitted usually began with her idiosyncratic idiom, it soon switched to standard English prose with impeccable syntax. When I challenged the young lady in question, she vehemently insisted it was all her own work, even though there was a change in the font! It was a clear case of egregious plagiarism, even from a cursory inspection. She had the temerity to complain to her course supervisor that I was being unfair with the grades I allotted to her work. Fun times were had by all.

It appears that students are catching on to the ruse, realising that a university education may not be the pathway to a golden future. UK and US student admissions have declined this year; in particular, the number of foreign students entering English universities has shown a dramatic downturn. Foreign student revenue is the lifeblood of UK colleges, and this decrease will force approximately 40% of universities into deficit by the end of the year.

Historically/hysterically, a degree was seen as the passport to the fabled 'Middle Class' and, by extension, a better life. However, the middle class is no longer, and those careers deemed middle class have far too many applicants chasing too few opportunities. The irony, of course, is that those jobs traditionally viewed as 'blue collar' are at a premium these days (have you tried to get a plumber or electrician?), and subsequently, tradesmen are paid very well. Universities are churning out the future baristas, checkout operators and waitstaff. A change in attitude is necessary for societal change. The idea that the 'Trades' somehow confer inferior status must go. No longer is a university education necessary for financial success. Go forth and obtain an apprenticeship, young man! 

I will have more to say about the higher education system in future posts.