Thought of the day
Gaia Hypothesis
This will serve as an introduction to the Gaia hypothesis;
It is a review (published in 1989) of James Lovelock's The Ages of Gaia
What is the hypothesis of Gaia? Stated simply, the idea is that we may have discovered a living being bigger, more ancient, and more complex than anything from our wildest dreams. That being, called Gaia, is the Earth.
More precisely: that about one billion years after it's formation, our planet was occupied by a meta-life form which began an ongoing process of transforming this planet into its own substance. All the life forms of the planet are part of Gaia. In a way analogous to the myriad different cell colonies which make up our organs and bodies, the life forms of earth in their diversity coevolve and contribute interactively to produce and sustain the optimal conditions for the growth and prosperity not of themselves, but of the larger whole, Gaia. That the very makeup of the atmosphere, seas, and terrestrial crust is the result of radical interventions carried out by Gaia through the evolving diversity of living creatures...
posted by Wayne Smallman at Monday, March 28, 2005
Link: 'Thought of the day'
10 Comments:
And the answer to the obvious question is, no, I'm not some New Age type.
I'm a spiritual person, but not religious.
I'm a great believer in human kind, but I have little faith in man.
Confused?
Hopefully, or this article isn't going to travel very well, now is it?
As long as this super-creature is not conscious, I do not see any contradiction.
Look at it this way: if earth was not modified in this way, perhaps life as we know it would not exist, and we wont exist. So it is like the anthropic principle: we can propose Gaia only because we exist! Perhaps Mars also had a similar thing going, but it did not work, and hence no Martians there to discover their own Gaia.
It's worth reading Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth by James Lovelock.
While at times a little meandering in the fine-grain discussion of chemical process and the like, there are some profound insights into life and a route to understanding the origins of religious belief -- which is in all likelihood a misinterpretation of the vast and complex mechanical pattern that is Gaia.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
~ Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )
Could we not adapt that same comment to instead read: any sufficiently complex biological mechanism or process is indistinguishable from magic?
"any sufficiently complex biological mechanism or process is indistinguishable from magic?"
What is the difference between a 'technological innovation' and a 'biological innovation'? Just that the former is a conscious effort on part of intelligent creatures, the latter is a trial-by-error process through evolution.
So yes, you are right. The fact that we are living, thinking beings is surely magic! No wonder religion is so successful in invoking god's 'wonders'.
Earth is a planet. It's ecosystem is a complex biological machine (that we don't fully understand the workings of).
This book and theory seems to be an attempt to understand that complex biological machine from a different angle.
The author makes things difficult for himself from the beginning by talking about Earth as 'living' (too many people with too many different definitions of 'life'), and calling the theory 'Gaia' (which is inexorably associated with New Age and poorly thought out beliefs).
Quote from a good article about the theory:
"While the Gaia Hypothesis attracted a lot of interest, it also received a great deal of criticism. Lovelock had attached great weight to the idea that the Earth seemed to regulate itself. Some took this to imply that the Earth was behaving with a sense of purpose, that it was a teleological being.
Teleology, from the Greek word telos (purpose), asserts that there is an element of purpose or design behind the workings of nature. It is part of a very old debate between mechanists who believe that nature essentially behaves like a machine, and vitalists who believe there is a non-causal life force. Critics thought Lovelock was saying that the planet had a life force which was actively controlling the climate and so on. However this wasn't Lovelock's intention. He stated that 'Neither Lynn Margulis nor I have ever proposed that planetary self-regulation is purposeful ... Yet we have met persistent, almost dogmatic, criticism that our hypothesis is teleological.' (1991)."
The 'self-regulation' mentioned is a property of the system, not a purposeful determination.
The book tries to get you to look at the definition of 'life', but it in no way proposes a conscious being.
I think the book is interesting, but not life-changing. I'm definitely in the mechanists camp.
Lovelock knew that his theory would get hijacked to an extent, but he more than made up for this by unintentionally antagonizing the environmentalists by being luke warm to the idea that pollution is a significant threat.
I can empathize with the guy because he says what he knows, and he knows that some people just don't want to hear what he's got to say because it offends their sensibilities, regardless of the merit or the logic.
Ironically, it is because of the name he chose that the theory itself got a luke warm response from the wider scientific community.
Now, the Gaia Hypothesis has been broken down into various Earth Sciences -- which was a condition of the acceptance of the theory into mainstream science.
Regardless of the proposal of the Gaia Hypothesis Hypothesis, you'll find that Lovelock has been happy to let the scientific community dismiss the more theological issues in return for more scrutiny being made towards the mechanics of the biosphere in a more inclusive, holistic fashion, rather than in isolation; which has been the case for some years.
In the end, there's probably no one right answer to the bigger question of whether Gaia 'lives', what is important is that we now have a dialogue and an more purposeful collection of scientific disciplines that Lovelock feels weren't quite right beforehand...
Without his critics, Lovelock would not have revised and refined his theory to become less teleological and more scientific.
Darwin understood the value of listening to his critics, and he took it upon himself to seek them out and correspond with them. It was this criticism that helped him work out the kinks of his theory of evolution.
Lovelock did often make reference to Darwin, so I imagine he was either aware of the similarities, or he made a conscious effort to be more like him.
I've yet to read The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth.
Actually, I've got quite a few books I need to work my way through...
I don't think Lovelock has been particularly welcoming of criticism.
I like Lynn Margulis's version of Gaia better thank Lovelock's. I find his too overarching and simplistic.
I've only read the one book of his so far, but I've definitely not sensed his displeasure of his critics.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
He quotes reams of criticism and passages from competing theories, all in a very open-minded way...
Post a Comment
<< Home