In deciding what to write this blog post about, I found myself looking at notes from a course i took last semester called “Introduction to Environmental Studies”.  The course, taught by proffessor Stephen Sharper,  provided me with a brief but widely spread representation of many of the theories and treatments for our current environmental problem. Some of these theories shape the way we approach this dilema so i think it is important to keep these in the approach to any of the environmental problems we face. Out of the several theories we learned about, there was one that stuck the most. It is the one that i felt the closest connection to and the one i will speak to you about for the next little bit.

Out of everything i’ve learned and theories i’ve studied so far, my favorite is the Gaia theory. Originally developed by John Lovelock in the 70s, this theory was developed in an attempt to find ways to identify life in other planets. Working under NASA, Lovelock was assigned to come up with a series of life defining characteristics thatscientist could use to look for life in outer space. In this procces, Lovelock discovered we know alot about everything in life, but barely anything about life itself, what it is and how it forms.

Not too many scientist had set out to define life, but the ones that did all came to the same vague conclusion

“A rough paraphrase might be that life is one of those processes which are found whenever there is an abundant flow of energy. It is characterised by a tendency to shape or form itself as it consumes, but to do so it must always excrete low-grade products to the surroundings.”

Along with Dian Hitchcock, another scientist trying do discover the potential for life in o other planets, Lovelock realized that the main characteristics of what we call life are very clearly present in our own atmosphere.

Earth’s highly improbable atmosphere was that it was being manipulated on a day-to-day basis from the surface, and that the manipulator was life itself. The significant decrease in entropy-or, as a chemist would put it, the persistent state of disequilibrium among the atmospheric gases-was on its own clear proof of life’s activity”

That is, our planet is a living organism. The planet itself as well as the atmosphere around it is a self adjusting combination of gasses and other elements that is able to maintain the perfect conditions for all of the organism within it (all life on earth) to survive.

A good way to picture this is to imagine the word as a body. The body adjust to the environment it’s in to maintain conditions inside it at a stage where the organs can work to sustain the body itself. Without well functioning organs the body canot function properly and it begins to break down. Without a chemically balanced atmosphere or solid screen from the suns radiation, the earth begins to get sick.

This make make you wonder, what is our position in this body? If we continue to deteriorate the earth’s main organs – the oceans, ozone layer, etc – like we are, we will become like a parasite to the worldly body. We are sickening the earth in a way that it cannot maintain it’s conditions, something like a fever, if it’s not controlled, the body will eventually cease to function.

At it’s origin, the Gaia hypothesis was a huge mess of long scientific words that not alot of people understood or agreed with, however, like other useful theories, it has proven it’s theoretical value and it is now shaping the way leaders in environmental sustainability act. With the help of author William Golding, Lovelock was able to express his idea in a way we could all understand, and also changed the name from “the hypothesis that the biosphere is a self regulatory entity with capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment” to “Gaia” as we refer to it today, the ancient Greek word for Mother Earth.

Like any other theory going through criticism and development it has changed since it;s original form, in Lovelocks words;

“We have since defined Gaia as a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet. The maintenance of relatively constant conditions by active control may be conveniently described by the term ‘homoeostasis’.”

Since i first hear about Gaia last semester I’ve noticed how applicable the theory really is. Analyzing the world around me it seems very real to me that we are part of something bigger, however, our potential to destroy ti is bigger than ever. I think it is important to understand this in order to appreciate what we have a want to preserve it.

At last, i’d like to leave you with one last quote found at the end of the first chapter in “Gaia”. Mother nature is everything we rely on and we must change out view from the mean dominant special that must conquer all to one that understand we must accept and communicate with our surroundings in order to survive.

“If Gaia exists, the relationship between her and man, a dominant animal species in the complex living system, and the possibly shifting balance of power between them, are questions of obvious importance… The Gaia hypothesis is for those who like to walk or simply stand and stare, to wonder about the Earth and the life it bears, and to speculate about the consequences of our own presence here. It is an alternative to that pessimistic view which sees nature as a primitive force to be subdued and conquered. It is also an alternative to that equally depressing picture of our planet as a demented spaceship, forever travelling, driverless and purposeless, around an inner circle of the sun.”

For those interested in more information about the Gaia theory you can visit these sites:

This was the reading we had about Gaia in my Environmental class:

Also use:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Gaia

  1. avatar Tim van Beek says:

    Dear Mateo,

    a quick feedback to your blog post:

    1) I like the choice of the topic, it is both relevant to ecology and not well known, at least not to non-experts.

    2) The first paragraph about how you found out about this topic is not likely to be of interest to a broader readership (a story like “this morning I saw a headline that reminded of that time when”…won’t be very interesting to people who don’t know you – yet.)

    3) When you include links, please keep the link itself short: It is hard to read italic underlined texts. Please explain why you include the link and why your readers should be interested in following them.

    4) I know quite a few people who get annoyed at spelling mistakes, they tend to interpret them as an example of sloppiness, so please take the time to check your text by yourself or let a friend proof-read it before posting it.

    • avatar Tom Roche says:

      Tim van Beek February 1, 2011 at 10:37 am
      > [spellcheck] your text by yourself or let a friend [proofread] it before posting

      Better yet, IMHO:

      First, compose your text using a tool that spellchecks. Most word processors (e.g. OpenOffice, Google Docs) will do that. Try to use a tool that will also output HTML.

      Once you have orthographic text, have someone from your local writing clinic check your text for grammar and usage. Depending on the technology available to you and the clinic, you may be able to edit on your laptop, or via a web browser, or you may need to print hardcopy.

      Once you have well-formed text in your composition tool: export to HTML (if possible), and cut’n’paste that from your tool into the blog, and post.

  2. avatar Abayomi says:

    Very refreshing to see a more philosophical tilt on this issues of climate change. You have a few typos. Did Dian Hitchcock write the first quote? Did Lovelock write the second quote? Make this clearer. There is value in the way you have proposed the idea, which is somewhat high level and abstract enough to give room for the thoughts of others to develop. I think though that the idea on its own is a bit too abstract to benefit readers. Is there any further development that can do done to your idea and if so what? In other words where do you tend to take this concept of Gaia to be of benefit to those reading your post?

  3. avatar jp says:

    Hi Mateo,

    I also took a class with Sharper a few years ago — wonderful fellow, and a fascinating class. I can see that you really enjoyed it.

    Looks like you’ve already got some fine feedback from others. Here’s mine:

    Choice of topic:
    – Great. As Abayomi points out, this post seems to incomplete: to really make this topic relevant to the challenge of climate change, it would serve you well to elaborate on how viewing the earth as a life form impacts the way we face climate change (since, as you say, it “shape[s] the way we approach this dilemma”).

    Use of resources:
    – Okay. I think you could dig deeper to find other resources though. What was Lovelock’s paper or book that introduced the Gaia theory to the world? Where did you discover he worked under NASA and can you link to a credible source that describes his work there? The sources you do cite are okay as starting points for your own research, but I think you find other more credible sources.

    Style / Coherence:
    – Fine. As Tim noted, your writing seems a touch overly wordy at points — more like a letter to a friend than an article on a blog.

    Understandability / Clarity:
    – Not bad, but I as I said above, I suggest that you elaborate more on how the Gaia theory is relevant to the challenge of climate change.

    Insight / Originality:
    – Great.

    Use of blogging features:
    – As Tim notes, it’s easier to read if you avoid linking big blocks of text.
    – As well, you don’t need to put your links at the bottom of your post if you’ve already included them inline (which you should do).

Comments are closed.