The Cranky Philosopher’s imagination having been set alight, prepare for enlightenment. But, contrary to what you might have been told in the past, the light won’t be red.

The world’s oldest profession is: trade. A cranky assertion, no doubt; so, please allow the Cranky Philosopher to shine some light on it.

The dictionary (Oxford Languages) definitions of trade and profession are, unsurprisingly, human-focused ─

Trade: “1. the action of buying and selling goods and services; 2. a job requiring manual skills and special training.”

Profession: “1. a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification; 2. an act of declaring that one has a particular feeling or quality, especially when this is not the case.”

These definitions serve our everyday needs well enough, and also justify the popularly held conception of “the world’s oldest profession”. Cranky philosophers, however, relish in delving deeper beyond what pops into the eye. Let’s consider what a doyen in the study of trade had to say – Adam Smith, who in his seminal 1776 tome on economics, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, saw trade as having emerged from the division of labour. The Cranky Philosopher has emphasized certain parts below.

“This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given, or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts.”(Smith, 2002)

Before discussing the other emphasized parts above, let us take note of the quote “common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals”, which Smith further illustrated by the following statement:

“Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal, by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that.”

Whilst Smith’s statement was most likely true at his time, it behoves us to make a reassessment today in the light of advances in science and technology a quarter of a millennium later. For example, with the aid of artificial intelligence driven Microsoft Designer, it took the Cranky Philosopher only a few seconds to see one dog make an exchange of one bone for another with another dog.

Now, this doesn’t come as a surprise to the Cranky Philosopher, after having shared part of his life with several Siamese cats. Occasionally, one of them would trundle up to the Cranky Philosopher with some freshly caught prey in mouth, and drop it at his feet. The cat would then look up at the Cranky Philosopher, utter a pleading meow, pick up its prey and drop it again. This behaviour was remarkably reminiscent of barter at a bazaar, where a trader would address a prospective customer, pick up some of his or her wares as an offer, and put them back again. The language of trade has remarkable similarities across species. In the case of the cats and the Cranky Philosopher, the trade always proceeded favourably. The cat received a huddle and got to eat its prey.

The Cranky Philosopher might be rapped over the knuckles for his personal experience not constituting scientific proof – fair enough. Nonetheless, he feels encouraged to delve deeper into whether trade, in some elementary sense of “… [to] exchange one thing for another”, does not perhaps extend back to beyond the emergence of the human species. To again quote Smith: “… not originally the effect of any human wisdom…”, but: “… one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given …”. Note the use of “… in human nature …”, which allows speculation about a propensity that might predate the human species, and has been inherited through the course of evolution. An ominous foresight, considering that Smith’s insights predate Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century.

Enter Joshua Lederberg, with his astounding discovery that bacteria exchange DNA, the genetic code of life-forms. In brief, the study of the genetic code shows that cells need proteins to operate, and that the code for making proteins is stored in DNA and RNA. This store of the code of living forms also permits the transmission of that code from one generation to the next. However, such generational transfer was not the subject of Lederberg’s experiment, but a phenomenon that he termed bacterial conjugation (http://www.dnaftb.org/18/index.html ).

Edward Tatum had made in his laboratory mutations in the bacteria, Escherichia Coli (E. coli), to further study the “one gene, one enzyme” phenomenon, and in 1946 he was joined by Joshua Lederberg. The bacterium E. coli can normally synthesize all the nutrients it needs. For example, E. coli has enzymes that bind and convert precursor molecules into essential nutrients like the amino acids methionine , proline , and threonine, as well as the vitamin biotin. The mutant strains Tatum had made, however, were unable to synthesize some of these nutrients. For example, Mutant#l had two genetic mutations that made it unable to synthesize the amino acid methionine or the vitamin biotin. It was still able to make all the other amino acids and vitamins. On the other hand, Mutant#2 had two genetic mutations that made it unable to synthesize the amino acids proline or threonine, but could still make the others as necessary. The two mutant strains were allowed to grow together for some time on a plate that was supplemented with the nutrients that each the crippled mutants, respectively, required to survive. Thereafter, individual bacterial cells were isolated and allowed to grow on a bacterial plate without any supplements. The survivors reproduced and established a visible colony on the plate, and must therefore have had all the genes needed to make all their required nutrients. Effectively, the two mutants must have exchanged with each other those DNA molecules that each of them respectively possessed, whereas the other did not and was in need thereof.

The Cranky Philosopher would call this a fair trade.

Hang on, you might ask – what about the “profession”? Well, here we’ll also have to look beyond what pops into the eye at first sight. Did the bacteria do something they were paid for? Not in the regular sense as understood by the human species – but, they were “paid” with their survival. Regarding “training” and “qualification”, let’s try to change our perspective from that of a human to that of a bacterium, and try to “see” things its way.

Let’s learn from Prof. Robert M. Hazen about his journey right back to the origins of life on Earth (Hazen, 2005). At the conclusion, he extols “the remarkable power of emergence to drive increases in the complexity of natural systems. The theory or emergence argues for an inexorable evolution of the cosmos, from atoms to stars to planets to life. Such emergent step arises from interactions among countless agents. Each emergent event produces an outcome that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Each emergent process is reasonable and sequential, and each step increases the degree or order and complexity.” Some remarkable steps on this journey are outlined hereafter.

In 1989, David Dreamer published results from his research on ancient lipid molecules, which led Hazen to the conclusion:

“David Dreamer’s great discovery taught us that one of life’s most basic requirements – the separation of the inside from the outside – appears to be an integral part of the fabric of the universe…Even before the formation of planets … essential raw materials for life were abundant in the deep freeze of space. The universe is littered with lipid molecules that are poised to organize spontaneously into cell-like structures.”

From this, the Cranky Philosopher would further conclude that the emergence of the “I” appears to be an integral part of the fabric of the universe, by far predating Descartes’: “I think, therefore I am.”

With non-philosophical sobriety, life may be defined as a chemical process with three definitive abilities: (a) to grow, which requires the ability to metabolize; (b) to evolve; and (c) to reproduce. Clearly, all of these are only feasible within the controllable confines of a cell. There exists some controversy about whether life emerged in cells that were first able to metabolize, or those that were first able to build a genetic code facilitating evolution and reproduction. The truth is very likely a cooperative chemical phenomenon, arising between metabolism and genetics. Whilst this would require the parallel emergence of two chemical systems, it stands to reason that a cooperative coupling of metabolism and genetics emerged early in the history of cellular life. The emergence of complexity, instead of progressive chaos, is hardly imaginable without cooperation as a necessary factor – when considering “cooperation” in a very elementary sense underlying the complexity of our current understanding thereof.

The Cranky Philosopher wishes to rest his case with the above. From the viewpoint of a bacterium, “looking” back to its origins, its progenitors have trained extensively to qualify themselves to exchange DNA. With the benefit of hindsight a quarter of a millennium after Smith, perhaps trade didn’t so much emerge from the division of labour than from just simply – “elementary, my dear Watson” – cooperation.

The Cranky Philosopher hopes that politicians, who generally don’t like to think the way economists do, will take note.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

The need for a vision arises, if nothing else, from “Gaia” suffering a clearly evident immediate circulation problem (water circulation) and slowly choking to death due to long-term reducing levels of carbon dioxide.

The long-term tendency is not the same as the short- to medium-term phenomenon of carbon dioxide increase due to (relatively short-lived) fossil fuel exploitation and the resultant global warming, which we are currently getting so excited about. The long-term reduction is largely due to carbon dioxide being trapped in rock, which due to the reducing volcanic activity as the earth core continues cooling down, is being recycled ever less. High carbon dioxide levels, which now lead to global warming, also result in faster permanent trapping of this indispensable ‘food’, without which life as we know it cannot exist. This means that we need to cut carbon dioxide levels down to the pre-industrial era levels, because this is where nature had found a level of long-term balance, and keep them there. This in turn means weaning our energy production off the use of any form of carbon, including “bio-fuels”, as an energy carrier.

However, to resolve the (water) circulation problem, we will need an abundant and cheap supply of energy – energy to restore and increase the circulation to ensure for Gaia a healthy life. We cannot afford to continue with our current irresponsible leeching on this circulation by damming up rivers and pumping underground reservoirs dry. We will need to restore the circulation by obtaining water from the sea – the very same source from which nature ultimately feeds Gaia’s circulation. But, because we need more water than nature can provide by its own means, we need to boost the circulation by desalination. And, to really improve the circulation to healthy levels, we need to claw back from the deserts one of nature’s main means of keeping up the circulation – forests. To be able to do so, we need even more water – that is, even more energy.

So far, we have lots of (fragmented) plans for energy and water supply, which all lack real vision, even less so a coherent one.

It is true that we must engage in saving energy and water as a short- to medium-term necessity, because we need time to build up to the energy and water supply capacity that we REALLY need – however, this is NOT a vision. ‘Saving’ would ultimately be a recipe not for saving, but for killing, Gaia.

Ultimately, not having to save requires an abundant supply of clean, but ‘dirt cheap’, energy. Ultimately, we are likely to find that for this purpose we will have to tap into the limitless energy coming to us from the sun. This is so, because in the longer term the only energy source that will prevail in carrying us forward to our vision is that which we can exploit at the lowest marginal economic cost.

To procure the energy and water supply that we need from the lowest marginal cost source, capital outlay should be the least of our concerns. Capital is getting ever cheaper, and with the right policy measures, we can ensure that it will get a lot cheaper in future, particularly in developed countries. For one thing, particularly in the latter countries, the population is fast ageing, requiring them to push the cash returns that they need from their investments for retirement further into the future. We need to get to a realisation that future cash flow returns are the justification for making an investment now.

There is still a vast scope for efficiency improvement, which means vast economic growth potential. We have just begun “pumping” brain power around the world with the WWW. We have to grow our economies through efficiency and sustainability, not by artificially inflating prices on stock markets with their capacity for new investment being extremely limited due a lack of political vision for growing that investment potential through expansive public policy. This would include sweeping aside the snivelling “savers” and “poverty alleviators”. What we need is growing prosperity, for the sake of the whole community of life on Earth, not myopic views of ‘saving’ and ‘alleviation’.

So far, we live off the energy of the Earth. Now we must switch to using the energy of the sun – see the visions of Michio Kaku for future generations, whose advancement is measured by their capacity to harness energy.

Now we must create a WWW of energy and “pumping water into the sky”, to claw back a healthy water circulation for Gaia. Clearly, thus, energy and water supply must become a coherent long-term strategy. This would have vast potential for creating new jobs and new wealth, but old attitudes must die first.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

Said toddler had noted that Saturn in his third house meant a constrained breadth of understanding of the world. However, with his Jupiter in opposition to his Saturn, he also had been thinking about how he could expand the breadth of his limited understanding.

And so, one day, as he was doodling on his keyboard (actually, he had always dreamt of becoming a concert pianist, but then found it more than a challenge he could handle to just wrap his clumsy crab claws around the keys of an electronic keyboard), he was zapped by a stroke of lightning from Uranus, trine his Jupiter. Eureka! he was going to ask bearers of the various sun signs a simple question (God loves simplicity!), which he believed everyone would be able to relate to in his or her own sun-kissed way. He was going to ask them:

“What’s so amazing about grace?”

Here is a selection of the responses he received:

Aries: “I don’t need any grace. I’ll deliver the job on time. I give you my word on that!”

Taurus: “Well, let me tell you, there is nothing amazing about this year’s grazing! If we don’t get any good rains this season, I don’t know how my cows will survive next year.”

Gemini: “We’ll have to give this question some thorough consideration. For a start, we need to understand that the word ‘grace’ has two vastly different meanings …”

Cancer: “You might well ask! I’ve noticed that everybody’s always huddling around Grace; but, if you ask me, there’s nothing amazing about her. I’m just as good as she is, but everyone’s always ignoring me … sniff!”

Leo: “If you REALLY want to know, just watch me!”

Virgo: “It’s an ideal of the mind, which we manifest on Earth.”

Libra: “Without grace, there could be no justice.”

Scorpio: “The amazing part is that those who get it, are the ones who least deserve it.”

Sagittarius: “There, by the grace of God, out into the world we go …”

Capricorn: “Please fill in this form here, write your question in the space provided here, and sign the form down here. Now, please hand the form in at the counter over there, and you will be provided with a response in due course.”

Aquarius: “I know exactly what you mean! It’s the dolphin kids. Yeah, right, I’m telling you – it’s the dolphin kids! They truly ARE amazing!”

Pisces: “If you’ve been through what I’ve been through, then nothing amazes you anymore. So, I don’t know – you tell me.”

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025