This week in class we are reading Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth by James Lovelock. In it, he puts forth what he calls ‘the Gaia hypothesis.’ Lovelock initially began developing this hypothesis while working at Jet Propulsion Laboratories, studying the atmosphere. He and another scientist developed a theory that “the only feasible explanation of the Earth’s highly improbable atmospher was that it was being manipulated on a day-to-day basis from the surface, and that the manipulator was life itself.” He develops this idea further: “The result of this more single-minded approach was the development of the hypothesis that the entire range of living matter on Earth, from whales to viruses, and from oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single living entity, capable of mainpulating the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and powers far beyond those of its constituent parts.”
The hypothesis centers around the idea of homeostasis on a planetary level, effectively viewing the entire planet as a single super-organism. The supports he gives for the hypothesis are centered around how relatively stable the Earth’s climate has been in the past 3.5 billion years at the chemical level. For example: oxygen has been present in the atmosphere within a range that makes the planet hospitable to life for essentially the entire lifespan of the planet. Same story with hydrogen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and the atmosphere’s other constituent parts.
The argument is compelling, however, I have at least a couple reservations. First, Lovelock states in the preface:
“Occasionally it is difficult, without excess circumlocution, to avoid talking of Gaia as if she were known to be sentient. This is meant no more seriously that is the appellation ‘she’ when given to a ship by those who sail in her, as a recognition that even pieces of wood and metal when specifically designed and assembled may achieve a composite identity with its own characteristic signature, as distinct from being the mere sum of its parts.”
Even with this disclaimer, I often find the hypothesis to be trying without assuming that the theory of a super-organism implies a will. The idea that the world continually works cooperatively at the molecular level, let alone within specific animal and plant ecosystems is a hard teaching.
Second, Lovelock seems to abhor specialists. Lovelock is making a general argument and draws on several branches of science: geology, physics, chemistry, oceanography, et al. I have come across this resistance to specialist expertise before in other books on aspects of ecology or sustainability; two immediate examples that spring to mind are Wendell Berry and Michael Pollan. And though I understand how having a holistic point of view may be beneficial, I do not always think it is an appropriate rhetorical strategy to decry the work of specialists that most of us ultimately depend on.
On the positive side, I do appreciate the novelty of the argument. Lovelock is completely bio-centric in his writing–humanity hasn’t even really factored into his hypothesis and I’m almost 100 pages through the 140 page book. Man is a product of the biosphere, but not its ends. To Lovelock, the Earth most certainly does not exist to serve man’s needs. And if humanity becomes detrimental to the overall needs of the biosphere, rest assured the Earth will adapt.
I have not finished the book yet, and I don’t know what his final conclusion may be. But he certainly has me intrigued.
Posted by theshortestverse 
