If the earth is a "living organism" is that metaphorical or literal? Does it matter? What part of the organism are humans? One answer to that question is found in the Gaia hypothesis, which was presented by James Lovelock, a British chemist, in his 1979 book, Gaia. He says that “if you are someone wanting to know for the first time about the idea of Gaia, it is the story of a planet that is alive in the same way that a gene is selfish. It is not the biosphere alone that [does] the regulating [of life on earth] but the whole thing, life, the air, the oceans, and the rocks. The entire surface of the earth including life is a self-regulating entity and this is what I mean by Gaia.… [When I started to write this book] I began more and more to see things through [Gaia’s] eyes and slowly drop off, like an old coat, my loyalty to the humanist Christian belief in the good of mankind as the only thing that matters. I began to see us all as part of the community of living things that unconsciously keep the Earth a comfortable home, and that we human beings have no special rights only obligations to the community of Gaia.”
The idea of Gaia, that the earth is in some sense alive, was
initially, and perhaps today, rejected by earth scientists. Lovelock speculates
that it is because the idea was born of insight and not from reasoning; that it
is irrational. Its basic, rational, idea is now treated under the field of
geophysiology, which purges any reference to mystical notions of Gaia the Earth
Mother. But this is precisely what appeals to me (as a disciple of Spinoza’s
God, a/k/a Nature). I am now studying Parmenides and Plato, and they tell us
that true knowledge and understanding can only come from insight. That truth is
found in the insight we find in mythology. Loveloch says that the insight he
most enjoys is that we humans are as significant for the further evolution of
Gaia as were the plants. We, like the first plants, are heavily polluting to
the rest of life. This is not an aberration. It is a natural consequence of
releasing something as powerful as oxygen or intelligence. We should see that
our pollution is much more than combustion products like CO2. Intelligent
animals like us also excrete information in its many forms. Perhaps dogma, spam and certainty are among
the smog that chokes the world of ideas?
One book that made a strong impact on me was The Power of
Myth (1988), a transcription of a series of conversations between journalist
Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell (died 1987), the world’s foremost authority on
mythology. Campbell said that “the only myth that is going to be worth thinking
about in the immediate future is one that is talking about the planet, not the
city, not these people, but the planet and everybody on it. That’s my main
thought for what the future of myth is going to be.”
‘Climate change’, ‘global warming’ and all the other ways we
refer to the crisis facing us are rational concepts that require rational thought to appreciate. We need to have a name
with emotional appeal. We need that myth about the planet. I propose we work
with Gaia, and the understanding that comes from the insight that reflecting on
Her and seeing the world through Her eyes brings.
10/27 This post
10/26 Posted segment of presidential debate
10/28 Comment on DQ why do they continue to support policies that
favor deep water drilling and extraction?
10/29 Posted Greta Interview
Week Ten Point Total – 5
Ten Week Cumulative Point Total – 50
I agree that we need a more emotional and visual connection to the topic, the movement and the overall threat we are facing. When I think of the world though, I do not really believe that it is alive itself. I like to think of it as a place that we make alive, not only humans but every living organism there is on the planet. While we are the ones destroying it now, there was a time that I believe that we all coexist with each other, and that is something I see when I think of the life of the planet. The beauty of nature, the diversity, the difference in every layer this beautiful planet is made up off.
ReplyDeleteI do agree we need to give something a name, but I don't know if this is going to do it. I really like Gaia though, it has something fantasising and dreamy, it makes us think of the earth as more than just a necessity to survive.
Lovelock continues to spin the tale of Gaia. He just turned 101 in July.
ReplyDelete"James Lovelock is best known as the father of Gaia Theory, the revolutionary idea that life on Earth is a self-regulating community of organisms interacting with each other and their surroundings. An independent scientist who eschews the academic establishment, he has variously been described as a maverick, prophet of doom, environmental philosopher and Gandalf. This month, he turns 101, but shows little sign of slowing his intellectual output. A paperback version of his latest book, Novacene, will shortly be released and he is working on a follow-up.
Fourteen years ago, you predicted that extreme weather would become the norm and the world would see more disasters in 2020. The first half of this year has seen a global pandemic, the first temperatures over 100F in the Arctic Circle, immense fires in Australia and Siberia, and plagues of locusts in Africa and South America. Do you feel vindicated as a scientist or disappointed as a human that your apocalyptic words have proved prophetic?
It’s all pretty obvious really, but you never know when you have got things right until quite a long time afterwards because a surprise can turn up. Besides, I’m not a scientist really. I’m an inventor or a mechanic. It’s a different thing. The Gaia theory is just engineering written very large indeed. I mean you have got this ideal rotating ball in space, illuminated by a nice standard star. Up until now, the Earth system has always kept things cool on the Earth, fit for life, that is the essence of Gaia. It’s an engineering job and it has been well done. But I would say the biosphere and I are both in the last 1% or our lives.
Is the virus part of the self-regulation of Gaia?
Definitely, it’s a matter of sources and sinks. The source is the multiplication of the virus and the sink is anything we can do to get rid of it, which is not at the moment very effective. This is all part of evolution as Darwin saw it. You are not going to get a new species flourishing unless it has a food supply. In a sense that is what we are becoming. We are the food. I could easily make you a model and demonstrate that as the human population on the planet grew larger and larger, the probability of a virus evolving that would cut back the population is quite marked. We’re not exactly a desirable animal to let loose in unlimited numbers on the planet. Malthus was about right. In his day, when the human population was much smaller and distributed less densely across the planet, I don’t think Covid would have had a chance...
If Gaia theory were better understood, could it be the basis for a creed that fills in the gaps that religion used to fill in terms of living well, living for others, living for future generations?
I think in a way you are right. Nobody fully comprehends Gaia and that includes me, but it’s an easier thing to understand than God and religion. You just have to take those for granted. But with Gaia you can go out in the world and start measuring things...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/18/james-lovelock-the-biosphere-and-i-are-both-in-the-last-1-per-cent-of-our-lives