The Gaia Hypothesis: New Age Myth, or the Future of Environment Policy - Essay Example

The Gaia Hypothesis: New Age Myth, or the Future of Environment Policy The term 'Gaia,' which is Greek for 'Earth Mother,' often conjures up images related to New Age spirituality or pseudo-scientific thinking. The Gaia hypothesis, however, may be seen as a concept that is teleological in essence and that seeks to explain certain fundamental realities about the nature of the planet's ecosystem. This paper argues that Gaia is not merely a hypothesis that exists at the periphery of scientific thought, but rather a revolutionizing concept that has affected environmental policies and sociological contexts as well. The Gaia hypothesis was proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in 1972. In his writing on the concept Lovelock observed that although the name given to the hypothesis (which was suggested by the novelist William Golding) did refer to the ancient Greek scientific/ theological myth, it was for him and the other scientists who supported the theory the name of a scientific hypothesis which suggested that the Earth's climatic and atmospheric conditions were such as to best support the life that was found on it. Lovelock writes: "The Gaia hypothesis as first postulated supposed the Earth to be alive in the sense that a superorganism is alive" (8). He is, however, careful to add that "the Earth is alive in a limited sense" (9). The Gaia hypothesis is often looked upon by scientists with skepticism, not because of Lovelock's thinking but because the concept was quickly picked up by New Age thinkers as the basis for a new religion that worshipped 'Mother Earth.' Samantha Smith in an article on the hypothesis describes a scenario at a meeting of Pan worshippers in Boulder, Colorado, in 1985: The group was asked to tune in to the crystal matrix frequency (Mother Earth's heartbeat) and to relax. Many went into trance-like states. As people felt they were being filled with the Earth's energy, they became vocal, with sounds rising and falling rhythmically. Some swayed and some fell down on the ground and began writhing. They were then 'brought to silence.' (Smith 2006) Despite such pseudo-religious reactions that seem to have become firmly ingrained into the popular imagination, many scientists think that Gaia proposes a viable theory regarding "an integrated atmosphere" that is "no momentary knee-jerk reaction"(Moore 165), but a constructive and holistic manner of portraying the environment which can positively influence the ways in which we relate to the planet as an organic whole. The Gaia hypothesis is an excellent basis for management policies based on the environment. As Peter H. Raven says, "According to the Gaia hypothesis, Earth is capable of self-maintenance" (106). The idea of efficient maintenance is therefore seen to be inherent in the ecosystem itself, creating a pre-existing structure which may be emulated for the well-being of both life on the planet, as well as the planet itself. In the light of the issues raised by depleting resources and the dangers of global warming, it is clear that a proactive process of natural resource management needs to be initiated soon. Raven suggests that the Gaia hypothesis creates a constructive and efficient theoretical framework for improving the scientific understanding of issues, making the best possible scientific information and expertise more accessible to policy- and decision-makers, and improving the public's understanding of ecological topics. (Raven 64) Norman Myers in his 1990 book Atlas of New Worlds insisted that the protection of the Earth was something that should mandatorily be made a part of the international legal system (60). Scientists like Myers believe, despite comments by others such as the opinion that the Gaia hypothesis is merely a "a lifeboat ethic" (Kohak 135), that Gaia is an important aspect of environment ethics. Environment policies are increasingly being constructed around the idea that there needs to be a system of environmental ethics according to which international laws are formulated, which should be ubiquitous and based on a common need to recognize that there is a global need for protection of the ecosystem and maintenance of the biosphere and the facilities it provides living beings with. As Raven has pointed out, the management of the ecosystem is in some ways the concern of environmental scientists as well as of governmental or policy-making authorities: Although the choice to implement a proposed solution is almost always a matter of public policy, environmental scientists play key roles in educating [] government officials [about] how humanity interacts with other organisms and the nonliving physical environment. One goal of environmental science is to improve our understanding of how humans alter [] natural processes. (Raven 23) The manner in which human beings interact with the world on an everyday basis, therefore, is an intrinsic feature of critical understanding into the processes that function on the planet. For example, it is possible to "examine industrial pollution from an economist's viewpoint, as a policy-making failure" (Raven 43). Failure in human understanding can and has directly impacted the planet's ecosystem. Lovelock and others are convinced that the Gaia hypothesis should be made a key component in the creation of environmental policies. In an illuminating passage, lovelock points out how the methods of scientists are different from those of law- and policy-makers: Scientific hypotheses are best tested by the accuracy of their predictions; the establishment of a fact of science does not greatly affect the Universe, only the wisdom of scientists. By contrast, facts in law are tested in an adversarial debate and established by judgment. The establishment of a legal fact alters society from then on. At the best of times, and even with near certainties, science and the law do not mix well. (Lovelock 157) Lovelock suggests, therefore, that policy-makers might do well to heed the thoughts of scientists, because science only creates its hypothesis on the basis of empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the opinion still exists that "the Gaia theory might not be as ecopolitically relevant as some people have thought." (Marshall 5) This ideological debate still continues in scientific circles. It may, however, be scientifically viable to suggest that there is a sound empirical basis for the Gaia theory. Michael Pidwirny suggests that the following example is an illustration of the theory's scientific soundness: The sun's energy output has increased by 30 % in the past 3.5 billion years. Yet, historical climate data indicates that the temperature of the Earth has only fluctuated by about 5 Celsius from the current average global temperature of 15 Celsius. [] These results indicate that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide must have been much higher in the past when the sun was less powerful. [] Some mechanism must have removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as the sun's output of radiation increased over the Earth's geologic history. This mechanism is the conversion of atmospheric carbon dioxide into fossilized organic matter (natural gas, oil, coal, limestone, and peat). (Pidwirny 1999) Therefore Gaia exists; not as a spirit or living entity, but as a natural mechanism, much like the orbits of the planets around the sun, that ensures that conditions in the biosphere are monitored by organic processes. The viability of the hypothesis does not prevent the topic of Gaia and environment policy from being, "often hotly, debated: Gala and global change [] Gaia shares much in common with the concept of the biosphere" (Samson and Pitt 101). The similarity of Gaia to the concept of the biosphere is often suggested by some scientists to confirm that the two are not so different than one can discredit Gaia without, in some manner, suggesting that the biosphere itself does not exist. Gaia is a practical and empirical hypothesis that "seems to be much more than an organismic metaphor" (Poole 72). It is to the credit of policy-making organization that many are now paying attention to environmental ethics in the making of laws and statutes that relate to everyday existence. "The US National Center for Atmospheric Research [is] already deeply involved in advocacy of policies to relieve global warming," and has evinced particular interest "in discussing Lovelock's ideas" (Turney 92), suggesting that policy-making is now turning towards a more holistic view of the manner in which our interactions with the environment should play a defining role in the establishment of laws. The legislative systems that currently exist do not follow models of organic growth, and the subsequent clash between natural laws and human policies seem to have been instrumental in creating conflict between the two systems in the past. Suggesting that the Gaia hypothesis may be used as the basis for not only environmental but also social policies, Stephen Beasley-Murray proposes the following argument to convince pragmatic nay-sayers: Cognition consists of logical connections in experience based on cause and effect. Objective thought in morality and science comes from acting out this reasoning within the environment (in morality, moral principles are reasoning within an experience such as love). If the consequences of action meet those expected by reason and those desired by the original feeling awareness (that drew one's attention to this aspect of the environment in the first place) then both science and morality have reasonable grounds for objectivity. (Beasley-Murray 2005) Therefore, using the examples of love and morality as two public concerns, Beasley-Murray suggests that the ideological divide between the polarities into which we have divided the world - right and wrong, scientific and moral, personal and public, and so on - may be circumvented by expanding our visions; by creating a conjunction of common concerns facing us as human beings, we might finally come to pragmatic decisions that will not be biased against 'moralistic' ways of thinking, because the political, the moral, the religious and the scientific are ultimately all part of the common corpus of humanity. Gaia need not be summarily dismissed, therefore, just because it seems to propose the ludicrous theory that the Earth is alive. It can prove to be a valuable theoretical module in future policies on how we manage our world. Works Cited Beasley-Murray, Stephen. "The Gaia Hypothesis: An Approach to Problem Solving in the Environment." Yale-New Haven Teachers' Institute. 2005. Retrieved 20 April 2006 from Kohak, Erazim. The Green Halo: A Bird's-eye View of Ecological Ethics. Peru, Illinois: Carus Publishing, 2000. Lovelock, J. E. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995. Marshall, Alan. The Unity of Nature: Wholeness and Disintegration in Ecology and Science. London: Imperial College Press, 2002. Moore, Peter. The Being ME - What It Means to Be Human. Chichester, Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2003. Myers, Norman. Atlas of Future Worlds. New York: Doubleday, 1990. Pidwirny, Michael. "The Universe, Earth, Natural Spheres, and Gaia." University of British Columbia. 1999. retrieved 20 April 2006 from http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/5d.html Poole, Michael W. Beliefs and Values in Science Education (Developing Science & Technology Education S.) Bristol, PA: Open University Press, 1995. Raven, Peter H. Environment (3rd Edition). Orlando, Florida: Harcourt College, 2001. Samson, Paul R, and David Pitt. The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change. London: Routledge, 1999. Smith, Samantha. "The Pagan Roots of Environmentalism. American Policy Center, United Nations. 2006. Retrieved 20 April 2006 from http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thepaganroots.htm Turney, Jon. Lovelock and Gaia: Signs of Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Read More