Deep-sea mining

Bacteria from the ocean floor can beat superbugs and cancer. But habitats are at risk from the hunger for marine minerals

A. When Professor Mat Upton found that a microbe from a deep-sea sponge was killing pathogenic bugs in his laboratory, he realised it could be a breakthrough in the fight against antibiotic-resistant superbugs, which are responsible for thousands of deaths a year in the UK alone. Further tests confirmed that an antibiotic from the sponge bacteria, found living more than 70 metres under the sea at the Rockall trough in the north-east Atlantic, was previously unknown to science, boosting its potential as a life-saving medicine. But Upton, and other scientists who view the deep ocean and its wealth of unique and undocumented species as a prospecting ground for new medicines, fear such potential will be lost in the rush to exploit the deep sea's equally rich metal and mineral resources.

B. 'We're looking at the bioactive potential of marine resources, to see if there are any more medicines or drugs down there before we destroy it for ever,' says Upton, a medical microbiologist at the University of Plymouth. He is among many scientists urging a halt to deep-sea mining, asking for time to weigh up the pros and cons. In' sustainability terms, this could be a better way of exploiting the economic potential of the deep sea,' he argues. Oceanographers using remotely operated vehicles have spotted many new species. Among them have been sea cucumbers with tails allowing them to sail along the ocean floor, and a rare 'Dumbo' octopus, found 3,000 metres under the Pacific Ocean, of the coast of California. Any one of these could offer lifesaving potential. Upton estimates it could take up to a decade for a newly discovered antibiotic to become a medicine - but the race towards commercial mining in the ocean abyss has already begun.

C. The deep sea contains more nickel, cobalt and rare earth metals than all land reserves combined, according to the US Geological Survey. Mining corporations argue that deep-sea exploration could help diversify the supply of metals and point to the fact that demand for resources such as copper, aluminium, cobalt for electric car batteries and other metals to power technology and smartphones, is soaring. They say that deep-sea mining could yield far superior ore to land mining with little, if any, waste. Different methods of extraction exist, but most involve employing some form of converted machinery previously used in terrestrial mining to excavate materials from the sea floor, at depths of up to 6,000 metres, then drawing a seawater slurry, containing rock and other solid particles, from the sea floor to ships on the surface. The slurry is then 'de-watered' and transferred to another vessel for shipping. Extracted seawater is pumped back down and discharged close to the sea floor.

D. But environmental and legal groups have urged caution, arguing there are potentially massive and unknown ramifications for the environment and for nearby communities, and that the global regulatory framework is not yet drafted. 'Despite arising in the last half century, the "new global gold rush" of deep-sea mining shares many features with past resource scrambles - including a general disregard for environmental and social impacts, and the maginalisation of the indigenious peoples and their rights,’ a paper written by Julie Hunter and Julian Aguon, from Blue Ocean Law, and Pradeep Singh, from the Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, Bremen, argues. The authors say that knowledge of the deep seabed remains extremely limited. The surface of the Moon, Mars and even Venus have all been mapped and studied in much greater detail, leading marine scientists to commonly remark that, with respect to the deep sea, "We don't yet know what we need to know"'

E. Scientific research - including a recent paper in Marine Policy journal - has suggested the deep seabed, and hydrothermal vents, which are created when seawater meets volcanic magma, have crucial impacts upon biodiversity and the global climate. The mineral-rich vents and their surrounds are also home to many well-known animals including crustaceans, tubeworms, clams, slugs, anemones and fish. 'It is becoming increasingly clear that deep-sea mining poses a grave threat to these vital seabed functions,' the paper says. 'Extraction methods would produce large sediment plumes and involve the discharge of waste back into the ocean, significantly disturbing seafloor environments,' the paper continues. 'On deep sea vents, scientists are clear,' says Dr Jon Copley of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton: 'we don't want mining on them.'

F. The oceans occupy around 70% of the planet and are relatively unexplored, says Mike Johnston, chief executive of Nautilus, a Canadian underwater exploration company: ‘It makes sense to explore this untapped potential in an environmentally sustainable way, instead of continually looking at the fast depleting land resources of the planet to meet society's rising needs.' Those leading the global rush to place giant mining machines thousands of metres below the sea surface say the environmental impacts will be far lower than on land. But critics say exotic and little-known ecosystems in the deep oceans could be destroyed and must be protected. 'Mining will be the greatest assault on deep-sea ecosystems ever inflicted by humans,' according to hydrothermal vent expert Verena Tunnicliffe, at the University of Victoria in Canada. She argues that active vents must be off-limits for mining to protect the new knowledge and biotechnology spin-offs they can deliver, and that strict controls must be in place elsewhere.

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27-40, which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.

The Unselfish Gene

A psychologist gives his view on how humans became self-centred

There has long been a general assumption that human beings are essentially selfish. We're apparently ruthless, with strong impulses to compete against each other for resources and to accumulate power and possessions. If we are kind to one another, it's usually because we have ulterior motives. if we are good, it's only because we have managed to control and transcend our innate selfishness and brutality.

This bleak view of human nature is closely associated with the science writer Richard Dawkins, whose 1976 book The Selfish Gene became popular because it fitted so well with - and helped to justify - the competitive and individualistic ethos that was so prevalent in late 20th-century societies. Like many others, Dawkins justifies his views with reference to the field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology theorises that present-day human traits developed in prehistoric times, during what is termed the 'environment of evolutionary adaptedness'.

Prehistory is usually seen as a period of intense competition, when life was such a brutal battle that only those with traits such as selfishness, aggression and ruthlessness survived. And because survival depended on access to resources - such as rivers, forests and animals - there was bound to be conflict between rival groups, which led to the development of traits such as racism and warfare. This seems logical. But, in fact, the assumption on which this all rests - that prehistoric life was a desperate struggle for survival - is false.

It's important to remember that in the prehistoric era, the world was very sparsely populated. According to some estimates, around 15,000 years ago, the population of Europe was only 29,000, and the population of the whole world was less than half a million. Humans at that time were hunter-gatherers: people who lived by hunting wild animals and collecting wild plants. With such small population densities, it seems unlikely that prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups had to compete against each other for resources or had any need to develop ruthlessness and competitiveness, or to go to war.

There is significant evidence to back this notion from contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, who live in the same way as prehistoric humans did. As the anthropologist Bruce Knauft has remarked, hunter-gatherers are characterised by 'extreme political and sexual egalitarianism'. Knauft has observed that individuals in such groups don't accumulate property or possessions and have an ethical obligation to share everything. They also have methods of preserving egalitarianism by ensuring that disparities of status don't arise.

The !Kung people of southern Africa, for example, swap arrows before going hunting and when an animal is killed, the acclaim does not go to the person who fired the arrow, but to the person the arrow belongs to. And if a person becomes too domineering, the other members of the group ostracise them, exiling the offender from society. Typically in such groups, men do not dictate what women do. Women in hunter-gatherer groups worldwide often benefit from a high level of autonomy, being able to select their own marriage partners, decide what work they do and work whenever they choose to. And if a marriage breaks down, they have custody rights over their children.

Many anthropologists believe that societies such as the !Kung were normal until a few thousand years ago, when population growth led to the development of agriculture and a settled lifestyle. In view of the above, there seems little reason to assume that traits such as racism, warfare and male domination should have been selected by evolution - as they would have been of little benefit in the prehistoric era. Individuals who behaved selfishly and ruthlessly would be less likely to survive, since they would have been ostracised from their groups.

It makes more sense, then, to see traits such as cooperation, egalitarianism, altruism and peacefulness as innate characteristics of human beings. These were the traits that were prevalent in human life for tens of thousands of years. So presumably these traits are still strong in us now.

But if prehistoric life wasn't really as brutal as has often been assumed, why do modern humans behave so selfishly and ruthlessly? Perhaps these negative traits should be seen as a later development, the result of environmental and psychological factors. Research has shown repeatedly that when the natural habitats of primates such as apes and gorillas are disrupted, they tend to become more violent and hierarchical.

So, it could well be that the same thing has happened to us. I believe that the end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and the advent of farming was connected to a psychological change that occurred in some groups of people. There was a new sense of individuality and separateness, which led to a new selfishness, and ultimately to hierarchical societies, patriarchy and warfare. At any rate, these negative traits appear to have developed so recently that it doesn't seem feasible to explain them in adaptive or evolutionary terms.