By Joe Cozart
We have made the tree ordinary by naming it. This is one of mankind’s oldest tricks. Give a mystery a noun and eventually everyone behaves as though the mystery has been solved. We know what a tree contains. We can discuss cellulose, lignin, chlorophyll, vascular tissue, root systems, genetics and photosynthesis with the solemn confidence of people who have successfully inventoried the furniture while remaining uncertain about the house. We can even reconstruct much of the evolutionary history that produced trees. Yet none of this quite answers the simpler and more disturbing question: What, exactly, is a tree?
The question becomes stranger the longer one considers it. Here is a living entity anchored permanently to one location, drawing minerals from darkness while constructing enormous structures out of air, water and sunlight. It communicates chemically, responds to injury, cooperates and competes with neighboring organisms, maintains relationships with fungi beneath the soil, reproduces, adapts, remembers environmental stress in biological ways and, depending upon the species, may outlive nations. We call it a plant because taxonomy requires somewhere to put it. Taxonomy, however useful, is filing. It is not necessarily understanding.
Then there is the inconvenient matter of geography on the largest possible scale. Trees appear perfectly ordinary because they surround us, yet as far as human observation has established, the universe has produced trees in exactly one known place: Earth. We have discovered galaxies, planets, organic molecules and environments where some ingredients of life may exist, but no extraterrestrial forest has yet appeared in a telescope. The oak outside the window may therefore be considerably more exotic than Jupiter. Jupiter merely looks exotic because it is far away.
Perhaps the real intellectual mistake is familiarity. Humanity tends to reserve wonder for things it has not seen before. A black hole deserves awe; an elm receives a municipal trimming schedule. Yet the tree may be the greater philosophical provocation precisely because it stands quietly beside us. We inherited its name from people who inherited another name before them, and somewhere along the way the label replaced the question. Tree became an answer when it was originally only a word.
We also do something else to trees: we make them mean whatever we need them to mean. One person sees shade, memory, permanence and beauty. Another sees obstruction, disorder, maintenance or something standing where it should not be. One culture may preserve an old tree as part of a property’s history while another may clear the same ground and begin again. The organism itself has not changed. Only the human interpretation has. That may tell us as much about ourselves as it does about the tree.
So the larger question is not whether we understand how trees function. Increasingly, we do. The larger question is what kind of phenomenon life has created here. Is a tree merely an organism, or is it a particular architecture of life that emerged under conditions so unusual that nowhere else we have examined has reproduced it? We do not know. And that may be the most interesting thing about the tree: not that science has failed to explain it, but that science has explained so much of it that we occasionally forget how extraordinary the remaining question is.
——— GMJoe™ ———
Clarity. Strategy. Sovereignty.™
Live Upstream.™
Books by Joe Cozart are available at: amazon.com/author/joecozart
GMJoe.org