WHAT IS GAIA? by James Lovelock

.

Most of us sense that the Earth is more than a sphere of rock with a thin layer of air, ocean and life covering the surface. We feel that we belong here as if this planet were indeed our home. Long ago the Greeks, thinking this way, gave to the Earth the name Gaia or, for short, Ge. In those days, science and theology were one; and science, although less precise, had soul. As time passed, this warm relationship faded and was replaced by the frigidity of the schoolmen. The life sciences, no longer concerned with life, fell to classifying dead things and even to vivisection.

Ge was stolen from theology to become no more the root from which the disciplines of geography and geology were named. Now at last there are signs of a change. Science becomes holistic again and rediscovers soul; and theology, moved by ecumenical forces, begins to realize that Gaia is not to be subdivided for academic convenience and that Ge is much more than just a prefix.

The new understanding has come from going forth and looking back to see the Earth from space. The vision of that splendid white flecked blue sphere stirred us all, no matter that by now it is almost a visual cliche. It even opens the mind's eye, just as a voyage away from home enlarges the perspective of our love for those who remain there.

The first impact of those voyages was the sense of wonder given to the astronauts and to us as we shared their experience vicariously through television, but at the same time, the Earth was viewed from outside by the more objective gaze of scientific instruments. These devices were quite impervious to human emotion, yet they also sent back the information that let us see the Earth as a strange and beautiful anomaly. They showed our planet is made of the same elements and in much the same proportions as are Mars and Venus, but they also revealed our sibling planets to be bare and barren and as different from the Earth as a robin from a rock.

We now see that the air, the ocean and the soil are much more than a mere environment for life; they are a part of life itself. Thus the air is to life just as is the fur to a cat or the nest for a bird. Not living, but something made by living things to protect against an otherwise hostile world. For life on Earth, the air is our protection against the cold depths and fierce radiations of space.

There is nothing unusual in the idea of life on Earth interacting with the air, sea and rocks, but it took a view from outside to glimpse the possibility that this combination might consist of a single giant living system and one with the capacity to keep the Earth always at a state most favorable for the life upon it.

An entity comprising a whole planet and with a powerful capacity to regulate the climate, needs a name to match. It was the novelist William Golding who proposed the name Gaia. Gladly we accepted his suggestion, and Gaia is also the name of the hypothesis of science which postulates that the climate and the composition of the Earth always are close to an optimum for whatever life inhabits it.

The evidence gathered in support of Gaia is now considerable, but as is often the way of science, this is less important than is its use as a kind of looking glass for seeing the world differently, and which makes us ask new questions about the nature of Earth.

If we are "all creatures great and small", from bacteria to whales, part of Gaia; then we are all of us potentially important to her well-being. We knew in our hearts that the destruction of a whole ranges of other species was wrong, but now we know why. No longer can we merely regret the passing of one of the great whales, or the blue butterfly, nor even the smallpox virus. When we eliminate one of these from Earth, we may have destroyed a part of ourselves, for we also are a part of Gaia.

There are as many possibilities for comfort as there are for dismay in contemplating the consequences of our membership in this great commonwealth of living things. It may be that one role we play is as the senses and nervous system for Gaia. Through our eyes, she has for the first time seen her very fair face and in our minds become aware of herself. We do indeed belong here. The earth is more than just a home, it's a living system and we are part of it.

[JKH: I love the idea that life "grows" good air like a cat grows fur! ...and for the same reason.]

WHAT DANGERS LIE AHEAD? by James E. Lovelock (1994)

. . Even if we reform immediately, we shall still see the Earth change and we, its first social intelligent species, are privileged to be both the cause and the spectators. The imminent change in climate is as large as between the last ice age and now.

To comprehend the magnitude of the change ahead, glance back to the depth of the last ice age, some tens of thousands of years ago. Then the glaciers reached as far south as latitude 35 in North America and to the Alps in Europe. The sea was more than 100 meters lower than now, and therefore an area of land as large as Africa was above water, and where plants grew. The tropics were like the warm temperate regions are now. In all, it was a pleasant world to live on, and there was more land. What will happen, as a result of our presence so far, will be a change as great as that from the last ice age until about 100 years ago.

To understand what has already begun and will develop in the next century, imagine the start of a heat age. Temperatures and sea level will climb, by fits and starts, until eventually the world will be torrid, ice free, and all but unrecognizable. Eventually is a long time ahead, it might never happen to that extent; what we have to prepare for now are the incidents of a changing climate, just about to begin. These are likely to be surprises, things that even the most detailed of big science models do not predict. Think of the ozone hole--this was a real surprise. The most expensive computer modelling and monitoring of the Earth's ozone layer failed to see or predict it. It was seen by observers looking at the sky with simple instruments. Surprise may comes as climatic extremes, like ferocious storms, or as unexpected atmospheric events. Nature is nonlinear and unpredictable and never more so than in a period of change.

This is an occasion when we cannot look to Gaia for help. If the present warm period is a planetary fever, we should expect that the Earth left to itself would be relaxing into its normal comfortable ice age. Such comfort may be unattainable because we have been busy removing its skin for farm land, taking away the trees that are the means for recovery. We also are adding vast blanket of greenhouse gases to the already feverish patient.

Gaia is more likely to shudder, then move over to a new stable state, fit for a different and more amenable biota. It could be much hotter, but whatever it is, no longer the comfortable world we know. These predictions are not fictional doom scenarios, but uncomfortably close to certainty. We have already changed the atmosphere to an extent unprecedented in recent geological history. We seem to be driving ourselves heedlessly down a slope into a sea that is rising to drown us.

We must, in our own interest, recognize that our planet is at least as important as we are. If we continue to pollute and destroy for narrow self interest, we could bring about the end of the Pleistocene and the dawn of a new hot Earth. The future depends on decisions made now on the supplies of food and energy. We must moderate our passion for human rights and begin to recognize the rest of life on Earth. Individual risk, such as of cancer from exposure to nuclear radiation, or to products of the chemical industry, are to be prevented, but they are no longer the most urgent concern. First in our thoughts should be the need to avoid perturbing Gaia and exacerbating its present natural instability. Above all, we do not want to trigger the jump to a new but unwanted stable climate.

Among the things we must not do is cling to the illusion that we could be stewards of the spaceship Earth. Stewardship implies that contemporary science can fully explain the Earth, and that people are willing and able to work together to keep the Earth a fit and comfortable place for life.

These assumptions are naive, like expecting the passengers of a plane, whose pilot had died, to land it safely with no more help than the pilot's manual. Does anyone believe that we, intelligent carnivores prone to tribal genocide, could, by some act of common will, change our natures and become wise and gentle gardeners, stewards, taking care of all of the natural life of our planet?

It takes a lot of hubris even to think of ourselves as stewards of the Earth. Originally a steward was the keeper of the sty where the pigs lived; this was too lowly for most humans and gentility raised the steward so that he became a bureaucrat, in charge of men, not only pigs. Do we want to be the bureaucrats of the Earth? Do we want to be made accountable for its health? I would sooner expect a goat to succeed as a gardener as expect humans to become stewards of the Earth. There can be no worse fate for people than to conscript them in such a hopeless task; to make them responsible for the smooth running of the climate. To make them responsible for the chemistry of the oceans, the air, and the soil. Something, that until we began to dismantle it, Gaia gave free.

I have written as an independent scientist, and it may seem that by stressing the need to take care of the Earth, I am indifferent to human needs. Nothing is further from my mind; I want my grandchildren to inherit a world that has a future for them. To make sure that this happens, we first need to recognize that human rights are not enough, and to survive, we must also take care of the Earth. There is no tenure for anyone on this planet, not even a species. [p.p. 114-116]

From INTERPRETING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE (1994) Published by Earthscan Publications Limited. Edited by Tim O'Riordan and James Cameron; ISBN 1-85383-200-6. Available from Island Press, Phone: 800-828-1302 or 707-983-6432; FAX: 707-983-6164

One General Response.

First, let us say that it's probably foolish to contradict the great man himself. He's vastly more knowledgable than I. With that in mind:

* Our main difference with Mr. Lovelock is that we are more wary of any change to the environment. We can't guess at what secondary/tertiary effects might come from something that seems very benign. Nukes, CFCs.... What was thought of as more benign than carbon dioxide?! He says he knows that the effect of radiation is no more dangerous than breathing O2, which is a carcinogen and teratogen, forms hydroxls that damage DNA... but I'm reminded of Arthur Clarke, who said that the scientist claiming an impossibility is almost certainly wrong. There's always something we don't know. Besides, a doubling of the danger is significant!
The human body evolved to have defenses against Oxygen (heck, every living thing of the last four billion years did!) But we've had very little exposure to radiation, hence little chance to evolve counter-measures (if there are any).

He cites many differences of humans on the Earth, as vs cancer in the human body. Yes, there are obvious differences, but our effect on Gaia can, basically, be compared to the effect of cancer on humans. C'mon. At our current over-population, we break down vital life-supporting systems of the Earth, same as an over-population of cancer cells in the body! Seems comparable.

Another item... not a machine, but the genetic manipulation of plants. More food will let the problem go on longer and get bigger. In the end, more people will die than if it had not been done.

HOME PAGE

Previous Essay: Exerpts from book: "Gaia, the growth of an Idea".

Exerpts from Lovelock's book, Healing Gaia.