When the work of the Life Construct was first contemplated, it was believed that there would be a certain amount of fragility of the beings created under the Construct. Much would depend on the environment that the Life form was in, but it would also depend on the nature of the Life, the action the Life engaged in, and the myriad of chemicals that the Life was exposed to. It was felt that, to an extent, each of these areas would be a tradeoff; it was felt that Life could be made that was resistant (or impervious) to all of these possible factors, but that would almost certainly mean that every Life would likely be long (with respect to Time), and the experiences and lessons that were to occur in the Life would be extensive – an increase in memory capacity, but also the chance of accumulating Karma to a level that may be counterproductive for the Soul.  The fragility of Life, at least to an extent, would be a goal, one that would require a relatively precise and finite environment for the given Life to exist (or reside) in. 

Subtilties present a slightly different set of concerns, mainly concerning the interactions of the body (and its processes) with the environment, which would include an environment that would be inherently changed by the actions of the body itself. It was understood that there would also be an opportunity for groups of bodies, as the societies in which those bodies formed, could create an evermore complex set of factors that could adversely influence Life. And while  efforts were made to try to accommodate many of the different environmental factors and possibilities that could occur, the leadership the Life Construct felt that some of these possibilities could lead to situations in which the experience would ultimately be of value to the development of the Soul. The Leadership concluded that some of these could be used as a means to terminate Life, should there be a need to help balance karma. 

When discussing the fragility of Life, one question that arrises is why is there a need for it to be so fragile? Could physical beings be more ‘robust’? The short answer is yes. But it is not quite as easy as it may seem. There were a number of ways in which the Life Construct could have made Life less fragile; instead of a relatively ‘soft’ outer skin, a body could have had a hard shell, or exoskeleton. The are many insect that have an exoskeleton, and a number of reptiles, like turtles and tortoises. All seem to be limited in size or speed of movement, but they remain vulnerable in other ways and areas. But exoskeletons, particularly on larger beings, is impractical; speed and agility is an essential element for most predators, and an exoskeleton decreases both aspects too much. A hard outer shell would also limit an ability for many plants to absorb sunlight and grow quickly enough in a growing season. They would also inhibit speed, agility, and buoyancy for many aquatic species. 

Another option was to increase the quantity of redundant systems in a body, to the point that the duplicate systems would be able to compensate for a significantly greater number of issues that could be resolved. But each system would require its own support network (which may require another Soul in the body), and the addition of the necessary systems would require a larger host body; but this may well not address the associated vulnerabilities of the exterior skin.

It is possible a hybridization of these two could provide a viable alternative; after the redundant systems, the exoskeleton, while offering limited protection over a harder shell, could help with the vulnerabilities of a softer skin.  A compromise was selected for some species: scales.  They function as a pseudo shell, but offer significantly greater movement. This was used on many aquatic species, some animals, and limited biped species. (Both scales and an exoskeleton were impractical for any species that bore live young of significant size, due to the inability to protect the fetus prior to birth.)

The subtilties of Life presented another entire set of issues. The chemistries of Life were considered sensitive – it became apparent that small deviations or inclusions of Life’s chemistry could have significant (but not necessarily adverse) results. This was compounded when many chemicals began to react with other chemicals – and the by products created metabolites within the body.  The weed killer Glyphosate is one example; it is known that its metabolites include oxalates, the main element in many kidney stones. Oxylates are only one metabolite; other metabolites are responsible for cancers, reproductive issues, and a host of other issues within a body. There are many other examples of chemical traces having an adverse impact on processes of Life – not from a macro perspective, but a micro perspective, at the level of an individual organ, or a specific reaction within a portion of an organ. 

There was an attempt to make many of these errant reactions more difficult (or at least their effects to be minimized) , and during the initial trials of Life, they met with success.  But as “Life” became more complex, and the environments that supported Life became far more dynamic (and more of these chemicals appeared), the efforts to allow for clearing of them were stopped; many of the chemicals were not natural, so the decision was made to include all aspects of the presence of these chemicals in the work of Karma. If beings were to create these chemicals, then the Souls that made and used them would fall to the rules of Karma – the use of these chemicals, even unknowingly, was something that the beings should have realized (by the Energy signature) would lead to a great imbalance. The rules of Karma offered the solution. The greater the use of these ‘un-natural’ chemical combinations, the greater the imbalance in both the environment and the bodies of individual lives. This became the ideal solution; it eliminated the requirement for significantly augmenting bodies to assist in the elimination of these chemicals, but it also allowed for a wide variety of ways to achieve balance for their use – from Cancers (for those most directly exposed to them), to the longer term harm to the environment (for the ‘casual user’ of these chemicals, remedied by a change in attitude regarding their use by societies at large). It was the application of Karma that allowed for all of this.

Although the fragility of living beings was initially deemed a possible concern, it ultimately did lead to the beings that could move freely to be more cautious in their actions, and it allowed for the development of predators, important to help establish and allow for a balance of species and life forms to occur.