Le Hasard et la Nécessité by Jacques Monod is a philosophical account of the life sciences, particularly molecular biology, and explores whether the boundary between the artificial and the natural can be logically categorized. The author attempts to distinguish between the two concepts through criteria such as regularity, repetition, and rationality, but through various counterexamples, he shows that this is not possible. Life is defined as a unique entity that possesses characteristics of both artifacts and natural objects, and the author explains that life has immutability and rationality.
This book is concerned with explaining the life sciences, especially molecular biology, from the perspective of natural philosophy. Chapter 1, “D’étranges objets,” is an introduction, and rather than presenting big concepts, the author uses logical thinking to explain man-made, natural, and living things. An example is an automatic calculator, and the author sets up logical criteria for distinguishing between man-made and natural objects, which the calculator uses to determine whether a particular object is man-made or natural.
This book was difficult to understand the first time I read it. This is because the author points out errors in places that most people don’t think about. For example, we intuitively categorize knives and scissors as man-made and people and grass as natural. However, the calculator is supposed to judge based on logical criteria, not intuition. The first criteria are “regularity” and “repeatability”. Since artificial objects are created with intent, they are produced in many identical forms and have regularity and repeatability. However, this criterion alone cannot explain counterexamples such as crystals, which are also regular and repeatable among natural objects. There’s also the problem that our judgment can change depending on whether we’re observing from a microscopic or macroscopic perspective. In the end, the author concludes that there is no logical distinction between artificial and natural objects.
The author’s intention in bringing up life through this discussion is to illustrate that life has regularity and repetition, but it also has characteristics that are different from those of ordinary artifacts. In addition to regularity and repetition, life also has the properties of immutability and synthesis. Invariance refers to the maintenance of genes across generations, while purposefulness is the property that an organism’s organs appear to be designed to perform a specific function. For example, the eye is designed to take in images. The authors emphasize that although living things have immutability and purposefulness, not everything that has immutability and purposefulness is living.
In Chapter 1, the author argues that it is difficult to make a logical distinction between artificial and natural objects. To summarize, artifacts and natural objects cannot be categorized by objective criteria, and the line between artifacts and natural objects is blurred by unusual entities such as life. The authors use a thought experiment to examine whether an automated calculator can logically categorize two random objects on Mars as artificial or natural. He concludes that automatic calculators are unable to make this distinction, and that the logical distinction between man-made and natural objects is difficult to make.
I largely agree with the authors. While we may intuitively recognize the distinction between artificial and natural, it is difficult to clearly define what is natural and what is artificial when approached logically. For example, something like a molecule or an atom can be an artifact if it was created by a superintelligent being. We also tend to think of artificial objects as those created by living things and natural objects as those that cannot be created by humans. However, these intuitive judgments lack evidence, so I agree with the author. However, the way the book is presented leaves something to be desired. Since the book deals with natural philosophy as well as life sciences, I feel that a more rigorous deductive argument is needed rather than inductive reasoning. The author concludes with counterexamples for some of the criteria, but not all of them, leaving open the possibility that there are others that can be logically categorized.
I believe that the principles and rules of the universe are a different level of knowledge, and humans are limited in their ability to fully understand them. In the dictionary, an artifact is defined as a man-made object, but today, with biotechnology enabling us to create even living things, the boundaries between artificial and natural objects have become even more blurred.
At first, it was difficult to understand why Chapter 1 was included in this book, but after reading and summarizing it several times, I was able to understand the author’s intention. From a molecular biology perspective, chemicals such as adrenaline and pheromones are both natural and artificial, as they are produced by living organisms. The author seems to be trying to resolve this philosophical ambiguity through the lens of molecular biology.
