Our friend James Lovelock extended the recognition of Gaia from an ancient myth to the forefront of Earth science in the space of fifty years…
Amazingly well done.
The Gaia hypothesis states that the temperature of the planet, the oxidation state and other chemistry of all of the gases of the lower atmosphere (except helium, argon, and other nonreactive ones) are produced and maintained by the sum of life.
We explored how this could be and found it to be true.
Yet how could the temperature of the planet be regulated by living beings? And these living beings are not even admitting they cause global warming due to their massive CO2 emissions.
But when the ignoramuses out there – usually found in government and business, deny global warming and climate change’s effects following from our industrial and business activities – speak, they emit more hot air and CO2 along with methane the other end, and it’s all indistinguishable for Gaia…
Yet here are some valid questions that the Gaia theory explains handily:
How could the atmospheric gas composition — the 20% oxygen and the one to two parts per million methane, for example — be actively maintained by living matter?
How can this Goldilocks balance be maintained through the synergy of all living things?
How can this harmonious chemistry that allows us to survive and thrive on this planet, be maintained despite our best efforts to tip it?
This is the reaction of Lynn Margulies on how life and humanity extends the effects of the environment, as it comes from her conversations with James Lovelock about Gaia:
” “It took me days of conversation even to begin to understand Lovelock’s thinking. My first response, just like that of the neo-Darwinists, was “business as usual.” I would say, “Oh, you mean that organisms adapt to their environment.” He would respond, very sweetly, “No, I don’t mean that.” Lovelock kept telling me what he really meant, and it was hard for me to listen. Since his was a new idea, he hadn’t yet developed an appropriate vocabulary. Perhaps I helped him work out his explanations, but I did very little else.
The Gaia hypothesis is a biological idea, but it’s not human-centered. Those who want Gaia to be an Earth goddess for a cuddly, furry human environment find no solace in it. They tend to be critical or to misunderstand. They can buy into the theory only by misinterpreting it. Some critics are worried that the Gaia hypothesis says the environment will respond to any insults done to it and the natural systems will take care of the problems. This, they maintain, gives industries a license to pollute. Yes, Gaia will take care of itself; yes, environmental excesses will be ameliorated, but it’s likely that such restoration of the environment will occur in a world devoid of people.
Lovelock would say that Earth is an organism. I disagree with this phraseology. No organism eats its own waste. I prefer to say that Earth is an ecosystem, one continuous enormous ecosystem composed of many component ecosystems. Lovelock’s position is to let the people believe that Earth is an organism, because if they think it is just a pile of rocks they kick it, ignore it, and mistreat it. If they think Earth is an organism, they’ll tend to treat it with respect. To me, this is a helpful cop-out, not science.
Yet I do agree with Lovelock when he claims that most of the things scientists do are not science either. And I realize that by taking the stance he does he is more effective than I am in communicating Gaia’s ideas.
If science doesn’t fit in with the cultural milieu, people dismiss science, they never reject their cultural milieu. If we are involved in science of which some aspects are not commensurate with the cultural milieu, then we are told that our science is flawed. I suspect that all people have cultural concepts into which science must fit. Although I try to recognize these biases in myself, I’m sure I cannot entirely avoid them. I try to focus on the direct observational aspects of science.
“Gaia is a tough bitch — a system that has worked for over three billion years without people. This planet’s surface and its atmosphere and environment will continue to evolve long after people and prejudice are gone.” “
Yours,
Pano
PS:
That Gaia is not a theory, nor a hypothesis — but rather the reality of our existence — is tested from the elementary fact that we are living with the host.
We are on a balanced budget – if you will – to find all that we require for the victual necessities for our lives but not to satisfy the “vacuous need” for extravagance and conspicuous consumption.
Because the bill comes due sooner than you think and the host will require balance and payment and if we are found wanting, she will shake us all off her hide and go on unperturbed to sustain all her other species. Those we are constantly bullying into submission and drive to extinction.
Because as Lynn says:
She is a tough bitch after all and can shake off her losers, rather quickly.
