The Overall Purpose of Human Life on Earth - Essay Example

Humans have wondered about where we came from, what made the Earth the way it is and how we interact with our environment. The earliest thoughts and questions regarding our place in the planet date to thousands of years ago when eastern mystics and western philosophers began to speculate about the origins of life and what it means to be human. When one considers the Vedas of India and the works of Aristotle and Plato, we find numerous references to metaphysical musings and logical deductions. Similarly, the two ideas that are being discussed in this paper, the “Anthropic Principle” and the “Gaia Hypothesis” are attempts to understand the bigger picture of our place in Earth and our place in the Cosmos. The following paragraphs discuss these two topics in detail and express my preference for the Gaia Hypothesis over the Anthropic Principle. I set out the reasons for such a choice and elucidate my understanding of the two ideas. Given the close relationships between science and religion that these ideas bring forth, it is not surprising that there is a certain theological element inherent to these ideas. The Anthropic principle posits the idea of a creator who has ensured that the “physical constants” required for life and the emergence of humans remain in perfect balance so that the overall purpose of the creation of humans takes center stage in this theory. The Gaia hypothesis on the other hand, posits the view that the Earth is a self regulating ecosystem and hence the notion of a creator is synonymous with nature itself and there is no separate “guiding hand” other than the symbiotic processes that the interaction of nature and life produce (Roszak, 120). The point here is that while the Anthropic principle accords primacy to humans or man in the creation and stops with the emergence of humans in the planetary time scale, the Gaia hypothesis accords primacy to the continuity in human evolution and at the same time the continuity in the conditions required for such evolution remain the same. The point here is that the Gaia hypothesis does not stop at the emergence of humans and instead, goes on to describe the natural “checks and balances” which a self regulating Gaia (which is likened to a living organism) engenders to make life on Earth hospitable (Roszak, 145). The Anthropic Principle talks a lot about how certain physical constants like the presence of Carbon and the interaction of the nuclear forces with the electromagnetic forces prevent Helium from becoming stable or Hydrogen ceasing to exist. These physical constants have been determined according to cosmological events that were not accidents but were the result of careful consideration by an all powerful creator (which I have alluded to earlier). The point that I disagree with the Anthropic Principle is this conception of the creator where the grand purpose behind evolution is the emergence of man. This comes too close to the “Intelligent Design” idea and that is something that I am not entirely comfortable with. However, this is not to say that I am disavowing the Anthropic Principle entirely. Just that when compared to the Gaia hypothesis which cautions humans against tampering too much with nature so as to not disturb the fine and delicate balance that sustains all of us. This cautionary warning is very much in place as Global Warming and Climate Change are being disputed as something that cannot be manmade when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter (Chmielewski, 3). The self propelling engine that the life on our planet is another idea that the Gaia hypothesis puts forward. The fact that life on Earth has been around for millions of years (though recorded history is only a few thousand years old) and that the continuity of life on Earth is due to the Gaia regulating itself is something that appeals to me rather than the primacy of humans as the central point as is the case with the Anthropic Principle. The point here is that I am one of those people who marvel at the wondrous complexity and rich diversity of nature and to think that we humans are the only reason for the coming together of the forces of the cosmos is something that I do not agree with. When one considers the disastrous effects that we have wrought upon the ecosystem of the earth because of the inherent tendencies in Judeo-Christian thought that nature is there to be conquered, it is time for us to adopt the beauty of the Gaia hypothesis (Roszak, 152). The other aspect that the anthropic principle falls short in my scheme of things is that it ascribes all of the efforts or the forces in the Universe conspiring to produce life on Earth. This reasoning does not do justice to the possibility of conscious life on other planets in the cosmos (though I do not want to sound like a “new age” aliens’ theorist). The point is that the possibility of such a life has neither been discounted nor ruled out and hence, the Gaia hypothesis (which is the result of the experiments that James Lovelock and his team conducted to probe for life on other planets) is something that is palatable in view of the emerging approach in physics and cellular biology. When one pays attention to the Gaia hypothesis, the feminine aspects of balance and regulation are apparent whereas the Anthropic Principle tends to favor men. The fact that unless we take steps to stop the destruction of the natural ecosystems on earth, we are bound to lose many of our species is something that makes me favor the Gaia approach (Chmielewski, 4). The “mind of god” that is so appealing to physicists and philosophers tends to be given importance in the anthropic principle which is based on life and mind being inherent in the Universe from the beginning. Though the idea of deducing the “mind of god” is appealing, the fact that the Anthropic principle considers life and mind to be present from the beginning is something that I am not comfortable with (Davies, 30). Given my preference for self regulating complex adaptive systems where the symmetry and balance inherent in nature point us towards the “global brain” that connects all life on earth, I find the ideas of Gaia hypothesis more acceptable. The idea of a creator separate from nature is what has dogged science and philosophy and the Cartesian emphasis on the thinking self being different from nature has haunted science for the last three hundred years. Ascribing life and the emergence of life to the creator is one thing and to consider such a creator as distinct from nature is another. I firmly place myself in the Gaia camp where the creator is very much part of the creation and the axiom, “Thou Art That” (which means that you are god source) is applicable in this respect (Krech, 80). Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses and it is the comparison and which theory I am comfortable with is the topic for this paper. The overall purpose of human life on Earth is to be in harmony with nature and not disturb Mother Earth’s natural processes. It is with this view that James Lovelock wrote his bestseller, The Revenge of Gaia, which put forward the theory that unless humans change their ways of living and consumption, the self regulating Gaia would be thrown out of kilter. In conclusion, it would be better if we accept that we are part of a rich tapestry of intricate evolution that gives us powers which we must use responsibly. References Chmielewski, Andrzej. Earth’s organism in amiable Universe. Warsaw: Free Press, 2008. Davies, Paul. The Mind of God. New York: Allen Lane, 2006. Krech, Shepard. Encyclopedia of World Environmental History. New York: Routledge, 2004. Roszak, Theodore. The Voice of the Earth - An Exploration of Ecopsychology. New York: New Society Publishers, 1992. Read More