“Comparison Is the Thief of Happiness”

“Comparison is the thief of all happiness,” says former NFL star Joe Ehrmann in denouncing the pressures on boys to “be a man,” in the film The Mask You Live In.* Messages overt and covert from fathers down to video games leave males of all ages struggling with loneliness and fury. Similar pressures, certainly, weigh on females and most other human groups. Comparing ourselves to others haunts and hurts us all.

comparison (fitzvillafuerte.com)

(fitzvillafuerte.com)

But there’s a catch: Comparison brings pleasure as well as pain. In How the Mind Works, psychologist Stephen Pinker concurs with the popular wisdom that “people are happy when they feel better off than their neighbors, unhappy when they feel worse off….You open your paycheck and are delighted to find you have been given a five percent raise—until you learn that your co-workers have been given a ten percent raise.” Happiness often lasts no longer than the tingle of the flattering comparison that brought it on.

So it bothers me when people trumpet happiness as the self-evident goal of life itself. They talk of happiness as the normal state that people can pursue, find, and remain in, as if it were a job or a house. “Are you happy?” can be an inquiry into flaws or failures. I remember my surprise decades ago when a friend casually mentioned that perhaps happiness is not the goal of life. The possibility had never occurred to me.

We can look elsewhere, beyond comparison, for the roots of happiness and distress. Separating the two meanings of happiness is a useful step. One meaning is calm satisfaction, as in “Are you happy with your life so far?” The other is the emotional flush of joy or excitement, as in “happy dance.” Another direction is the practice of mindfulness, a path to contentment and joy that does not depend on comparison to others.

For me, the evolutionary perspective is also enlightening. If unhappiness comes in so many ways while happiness remains so elusive, a reason may be that for any organism, many more things can go dangerously wrong than can go blissfully right. Pinker: “There are twice as many negative emotions (fear, grief, anxiety, and so on) as positive ones, and losses are more keenly felt than equivalent gains….[P]eople’s mood plummets more when imagining a loss in their lives…than it rises when imagining an equivalent gain….[H]appiness tracks the effect of resources on biological fitness. As things get better, increases in fitness show diminishing returns: more food is better, but only up to a point. But as things get worse, decreases in fitness can take you out of the game: not enough food, and you’re dead” (392).

So it’s not that happiness eludes us soley because comparisons steal it or we are incapable of finding it. It’s that we come into life in the first place equipped with alarm bells for all the gritty dangers and with only a selection of pleasures.

 

*Teddy Roosevelt is credited with the original version: “Comparison is the thief of joy.”

The Pioneers: Archaea and Bacteria

For many years I shared the common belief that living things fall into three or four basic categories. Besides plants and animals, one or two others groups with names that varied over the years—Bacteria, Protists, Prokaryotes— consisted of creatures too small to see.

phylogenetic tree wikipedia

In this evolutionary genetic tree, animals and plants, in the upper right corner, are not the main limbs.         (Wikipedia)

Today there are still three categories, called Domains, but they all refer to types of cells. The only familiar name is Bacteria. Plants and animals are now small dots in the huge Domain of Eukaryotes (you-CARRY-oats), meaning cells with a nucleus.

The third Domain is the Archaea. Archaea are like Bacteria in that they have no nucleus and are simpler, smaller and older than Eukaryotes. I’ve known so little about Archaea that I wasn’t sure how to say the word. Either AR-kee-ah or ar-KY-a is acceptable. That noun is plural; the singular is AR-kee-on, an Archaeon, sounding faintly of Star Wars.

So how are these Archaea so different from Bacteria that they get their own subdivision of living things? Biologist Carl Woese in 1977 argued they are indeed a different form of life. He showed that in much of their chemical make-up and their genetic sequencing, Archaea not only are distinct from Bacteria but are in some ways closer relatives than Bacteria to the Eukaryotic cells that form plants and animals.

I’ll describe a few features that Archaea and Bacteria have in common and then some features that are unique to Archaea. The information, from Wikipedia and elsewhere, is quite specialized and my renderings of it are admittedly general and selective.

Both Archaea and Bacteria are small, unstructured, and simple compared to the Eukaryotes that came after them. But one achievement they both share has been to try out nearly every possible chemical or environmental source possible to get their energy. Sunshine, salty water, temperatures ranging from volcanic to polar, even radioactive settings—varieties of Bacteria and especially Archaea have found ways to draw energy from, and live off of, these and many other environments.

Another similarity is that Archaea and Bacteria don’t reproduce sexually; two cells don’t mingle their genes to form a new individual that is slightly different from the parents. Instead, individual cells just multiply themselves by two and then divide to form identical clones. But despite their reproductive sameness, they had—and have—a different trick for switching up their DNA. A Bacterium or Archaeon can pump some of its DNA into another cell. Or a cell can just pick up a bit of DNA floating near it. No merging, no swapping, just fresh ingredients. It’s one reason that antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals can spread their immunity to other bacteria so quickly.

archaea hot springs yellowstone nationa park (earth-chronicles.com)

Archaea at home in a Yellowstone hot spring.       (earth-chronicles.com)

This gene-sharing is called lateral gene transfer, and it has an interesting feature. It doesn’t have to take place between members of the same species. For animals and plants, successful sexual reproduction almost always takes place within one species. But DNA can be transferred from any Bacterium or Archaeon to any other variety in those Domains if the conditions are right. If plants and animals could do that, the mind boggles. You might see squirrels transferring some of their DNA into dandelions. Or vice-versa. Such promiscuity makes it easier, I think, to imagine how Bacteria and Archaea have evolved in so many different kinds and colors in so many different environments.

Despite their similarities, though, Archaea are distinct from Bacteria in notable ways. Archaea were first discovered in extremely hostile environments where Bacteria fear to tread: geysers, intensely salty water, even thermal vents at 251 degrees F, the hottest place any organism has been found living. Another feature is that, while some varieties of both Archaea and Bacteria get their energy from light, Archaea do it their own way, through a process unrelated to the photosynthesis that Bacteria passed on to plants. Importantly, too, only Archaea produce methane, essential to organic decomposition. Finally, while many Bacteria can make us sick—think Lyme, Cholera, Syphilis—Archaea may be nicer; no pathogenic Archaea have been discovered, so far.

Archaea and Bacteria had the Earth to themselves for well over a billion years. Then about 2 billion years ago, Eukaryotes appeared, evolving from their single-celled predecessors but larger and internally more developed. By then, Archaea, like Bacteria, had carried out much of the groundwork for living, pioneering what it takes to survive in different conditions, experimenting with energy sources, trying out each other’s genetic parts.

And they succeeded. They didn’t fade away after the sophisticated Eukaryotes began evolving into countless large species. Today, the total mass of Archaea and Bacteria on earth is at least equal to the mass of all the plants, animals and other organisms together. They got the basics right.

Cyanobacteria: R-E-S-P-E-C-T

We owe cyanobacteria our respect. And they might deserve our fullest gratitude as well if it weren’t for one nasty trait.

For starters, if we are to believe that our elders deserve respect, cyanobacteria certainly qualify. They date back 3.5 billion years, almost to the earliest signs of life. But they are not only old. They are interesting, they seem uncomplicated, and they are powerful and successful. They are single-celled, though many live connected to each other in colonies and filaments. They are primitive; unlike the cells of younger species, they have no nucleus. And they have not only survived all this time; they have thrived. Their species number at least two thousand that have been described and at least twice that number in total. Most are blue-green—“cyan”—but their various pigments also account for the colors of pink flamingoes and the Red Sea.

cyanobacteria (https-::i.kinja-img.com:gawker-media:image)

(gawker)

Cyanobacteria gave us oxygen—and continue to do so. For the first two billion years after the earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago, the atmosphere contained almost no oxygen. But the blue-green pigment in cyanobacteria is a mix of green chlorophyll and a blue pigment both of which turn sunlight and carbon dioxide into sugary energy for the cell. Oxygen is the waste product—and early cyanobacteria produced so much of it for so long that it accumulated in the atmosphere and eventually supported larger, more complex cells, including ours.

Just as important, atmospheric oxygen spawned an ozone layer that reduced the lethal levels of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. It’s that filtering that allowed early plant and animal life to finally move on to land after three billion years in the water.

Cyanobacteria made plants themselves possible by becoming part of them. Some other early bacteria engulfed cyanobacteria and then, because of cyanobacteria’s efficient energy production, turned them into one of the pieces of organic machinery enclosed within a plant’s cell. We see them today as the greenery of plants—the chloroplasts—that power them and keep them reaching for the sun.

Cyanobacteria are handy with another gas in addition to oxygen. They convert nitrogen in the atmosphere into a form that plants and animals need for such building blocks as proteins and DNA. Natural nitrogen fertilizer.

pond scum wikipedia

(Wikipedia)

Cyanobacteria often go by the name of blue-green algae. But they’re not algae. Algae is an informal term for many water-borne organisms that contain  chlorophyll but lack stems, roots, or leaves. Seaweed is algae. Cyanobacteria are bacteria—simple cells, often strung together, without nuclei.

As for that one nasty trait, cyanobacteria can kill you. Especially in freshwater ponds and lakes, blooms of cyanobacteria looking like blue-green paint slicks may be toxic to nerve and liver systems, depending on the species. The poisons may work their way into the food chain, pets may eat them, water-skiers may absorb them. The result can be respiratory failure, Parkinson’s, ALS. Not often, but too often. Respect.

Reading about cyanobacteria on the Internet, you get a glimpse of a life-form from an inconceivably ancient world that is woven throughout the air, water, and soil of our own time. We are in their debt for the breath we take, the food we eat, for our living on solid ground.  We stand on their countless, tiny shoulders.