The Extravagance of Biological Systems

The history of life on earth is mainly the effect of a wild exuberance …

—GEORGES BATAILLE, “Laws of General Economy”¹⁰⁹

There are many points of contact between biodiversity studies, chaos science, and the new evolutionary paradigms, but one of the most significant common threads running through these three disciplines is a recognition of the profound extravagance of natural systems. Chaos physicist Joseph Ford speaks of an “exciting variety, richness of choice, a cornucopia of opportunity,” in the patterning of physical systems, while fractals and “strange attractors” are described as “bizarre, infinitely tangled abstractions” with “prickly thorns … spirals and filaments curling outward and around … infinitely variegated.”¹¹⁰ Edward O. Wilson, one of the premier theoreticians on biodiversity, talks about “the engine of tropical exuberance,” in which “specialization is … pushed to bizarre, beautiful extremes” and where “in the fractal world, an entire ecosystem can exist in the plumage of a bird.”¹¹¹ Ornithologists studying the complexity of birdsong marvel that “the diversity of modes of singing amongst birds is so great that it defies explanation” and are left “to puzzle over the resulting richness and variety that evolution has created.”¹¹² Entomologists are awed by the “spectacular diversity of complex structures” in the most minute of forms, such as the sperm-reception sites of insect eggs or the “morphological exuberance,” “extravagance,” and “apparently superfluous complexity” of insect genitalia.¹¹³ Evolutionary theorists grapple with the enigma of “the luxuriant tail feathers of peacocks, the lion’s mane, and the flashy dewlaps and throat colorations of many lizards … just a few of the extravagant … features for which evolutionists have sought explanations ever since Darwin advanced his ideas.”¹¹⁴

To formally recognize this “extravagance,” and also to consolidate some of the converging ideas in these disciplines, we propose the concept of Biological Exuberance, after the work of noted French author and philosopher Georges Bataille.¹¹⁵ Bataille has presented, in his theory of General Economy, a radical revision in the way we think about the flow of energy in both natural and cultural systems (or “economies”). According to his view, excess and exuberance are primary driving forces of biological systems, as much if not more so than scarcity (competition for resources) or functionality (the “usefulness” of a particular form or behavior). Bataille’s fundamental observation is that all organisms are provided with more energy than they need to stay alive—the source of this energy is, ultimately, the sun. This surplus of energy will first be used for the growth of the organism (or larger biological system), but when the system reaches its limits of growth, the excess energy must be spent, expressed in some other form, “used up,” or otherwise destroyed. The typical ways that such energy is “squandered,” Bataille observes, are through sexual reproduction, consumption by other organisms (eating), and death.

Life on this planet is above all characterized by what Bataille calls “the superabundance of biochemical energy” freely given to it by the sun. The challenge confronting life, then, is not scarcity, but excess—what to do with all this extra energy. Virtually all outpouring of activity, both (pro)creative and destructive—the development of baroque ornament and pattern (or its distillation into concentrated minimalism), the wanton consumption of animal and plant foods (or mass starvations in their absence), the extreme elaboration of social systems (encompassing both “complex” and “simple” forms), the florescence of new species and the extinction of others, the cycles of burgeoning and decaying biomass—all of these can be seen, ultimately, as mechanisms that “use up” or express this excess energy. According to this view, life should in fact be full of “wasteful,” “extravagant,” and “excessive” activities. Bataille also extends his theory to systems of human economy and social organization, including an examination of various attempts to “control” or channel this outpouring of exuberance, often by artificially creating scarcity.¹¹⁶ Phenomena as diverse as Aztec sacrifice and warfare, potlatch among Northwest Coast Indians, Buddhist monasticism in Tibet, and Soviet industrialization are all revealed to have unexpected properties and interconnections under this analysis.

This theory turns conventional ideas about the world on their head. In spite of its unorthodox perspective, though, it accords startlingly well with a number of observations that scientists have been making for many years (and not just the obvious ones, such as that solar energy is the driving force behind all life and movement on this planet). We have already seen that scientists in such diverse areas as chaos theory, biodiversity studies, and post-Darwinian evolution have been forced to confront the unmitigated extravagance of natural systems, in all their “splendor and squalor.”¹¹⁷ Yet researchers who do not necessarily consider themselves to be part of these “new” streams of thought have independently come to similar conclusions. This is particularly true with regard to the three “expenditures” that Bataille’s theory singles out—sexual reproduction, eating, and death.

For instance, biologists have repeatedly remarked that sexual reproduction is costly, draining, dangerous, and yes, even “wasteful.” This is true not only for individual animals—who are often reduced to emaciated shadows of their former selves by the end of the breeding season because of the tolls of reproduction—but for entire populations. The insect world, in particular, is famous for its extraordinary orgies of “mating” activity involving hundreds of thousands of individuals at a time, who often perish only a few hours or days after hatching—sometimes without ever mating. So striking is this “costliness” that scientists have questioned why sexual reproduction should exist at all—not all animals reproduce sexually, after all. This is often posed as the long-standing “problem” or “paradox” of sex. Sexual reproduction is generally considered to be more than twice as “expensive” (energetically as well as genetically) as asexual reproduction, because of the “inefficiency” of having each parent contribute only half of the offspring’s genetic material, the lack of a male contribution to raising that offspring in many species, as well as the associated risks and energy expenditures of courtship and mating behaviors. Yet exactly this sort of “wastefulness” is expected in a pattern of Biological Exuberance.¹¹⁸

Biologists have also observed that eating—the consumption of one organism by another—is not a necessary component of life. Why, for example, don’t all species manufacture their own food the way plants do? In fact, compared to the efficiency (and self-sufficiency) of photosynthesis, much more energy is “squandered” when one animal consumes another or consumes plant material. In nature, death itself seems to be elevated to “lavish” proportions, often reaching a “profusion” of its own. Hundreds of baby turtles, after hours of struggling to break through their eggshells, finally reach the sea, only to be picked off by the waiting jaws and beaks of predators—just one of countless examples throughout nature. This “squandering” of life hasn’t escaped the attention of biologists, who usually speak of it in terms of the inexorable mechanics of the food chain—otherwise known as the “cruelty” of nature. Yet it, too, is part of an overall pattern of abundance or excess.

In addition to making scientific sense, the concept of Biological Exuberance also makes common sense—it is intuitively accessible. We can all think of examples of the “extravagance” of nature in our own lives—maybe it’s the overwhelming lushness and beauty of the plants in our garden, the endlessly varied patterns of snowflakes or frost on our window, the infinite and subtle hues of autumn leaves—or perhaps simply our dog or cat, one of many hundreds of different breeds and hybrids. The examples multiply when we turn our attentions to other areas of the natural world, or to human society. Appreciation of the diversity and “exuberance” of life is, of course, nothing new—scientists and artists alike have sung its praises throughout history. The brilliance of Bataille’s work lies not so much in his recognition of this concept, but in the importance he accords it. Conventional thinking regards the diversity and extravagance of life as the result or by-product of other, greater forces—evolution, the laws of physics, the progression of history, and so on. For Bataille, this relation is reversed: exuberance is the source and essence of life, from which all other patterns flow.

Most importantly, the concept of Biological Exuberance sheds new light on the phenomenon of homosexuality. If, as Bataille suggests, life is characterized by what appear to be “wasteful” activities, then what could be more “wasteful” than homosexuality and nonprocreative heterosexuality (and gender systems)? If sexual reproduction itself is a means of using up excess biochemical energy, then obviously sexual or social activity that does not itself lead to reproduction will be an even greater “squandering” of such energy.¹¹⁹ Homosexuality/transgender is simply one of the many expressions of the natural intensity or “exuberance” of biological systems. Contrary to what we have all been taught in high school, reproduction is not the ultimate “purpose” or inevitable outcome of biology. It is simply one consequence of a much larger pattern of energy “expenditure,” in which the overriding force is the need to use up excess. In the process, many organisms end up passing on their genes, but just as many lead lives in which reproduction figures scarcely at all. Earth’s profusion simply will not be “contained” within procreation: it wells up and spills over and beyond this …. Lives of intense briefness or sustained incandescence—whether procreative or just creative—each is fueled by the generosity of existence. The equation of life turns on both prodigious fecundity and fruitless prodigality.