The Gaia Theory
This post relates to a topic a close friend of mine picked for me to write about. He writes, "How do you feel about the Earth as Gaia? Do you feel it's indeed a sort of self-regulating biological entity, or is there nothing more here than simple mineral, animal, plant, and whatever comes out on top wins?"
Well D, here's how I feel.
I can't recall the first time I heard about "Gaia Theory" but most likely it was during my undergraduate years at Minnesota State, perhaps in a humanities class. In any case, I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the topic. It seems as though the there are many varied versions of this theory, from obvious to "radical." However, all seem to share a basic core idea that the Earth (or perhaps more precisely, the biosphere), in some form or fashion, is a self-correcting system. The most obvious and least radical formulation would be to say that organisms alter the system (environment) in which they live. A stronger formulation suggests that the Earth actively affects change in the system to maintain equilibrium, which is conducive to life on the planet. A more radical proposition would be to suggest that the Earth is actually a conscious entity that willfully acts to keep the system in balance. So how do I feel about it?
First, it's pretty obvious that the weakest formulation is true. That is, organisms on the planet shape and is shaped by the environment. Beyond that I tend to be a bit skeptical to say the least. For instance, I have doubts that the Earth actually corrects imbalances though whatever mechanisms it uses, primarily because I don't like the idea that the Earth has some sort of agency. I could be convinced (with good evidence) that perhaps that the environment has certain "emergent" properties that seem to suggest that the system seems to seek some kind of equilibrium, but even that to me appear no more than the undirected result of various competing organisms within the system. I certainly disagree with any notion that claims that the Earth itself is an entity or organism, let alone a conscious one. So let me tell you why.
I think it's a big step to take from making the observation that human influence on the environment causes a host of environmental problems and even natural disasters that result from climate change, etc. to suggesting that this is due to some self-correcting mechanism "built-in" to the Earth. So why I can say that certain epidemics (Aids, swine-flu, and others) may be the result of unsound environmental practices by humans (namely, resource use, population density) I see no reason to the Earth correcting an imbalance.
Perhaps, this is just a semantic issue, but I will explain further. Let's just assume for a moment that the Earth does, in some way, act (if that is an appropriate word) in a way that seems to restore ecological balance. This type of idea often leads to the idea that humans are a parasite on the Earth. While I'll admit that this is often a useful metaphor, it is one that is not without a political agenda. It is usually employed by environmentalists to justify their positions, namely, that we (humans) are destroying the planet. I don't think it's necessary to resort to such extremism to point out that there are negative side effects of human population expansion and environmental domination. We are a species that has the capability to exploit our environment in profound ways to be sure, and I agree that we need to change our habits to create a better world. But we are no more of a plague on the Earth than worms, or birds, or rabbits. We simply have means (through) culture of passing on knowledge that collectively over the course of at least tens of thousands of years has allowed us to manipulate our environment in order to be more efficient at exploiting it. It should be pointed out that in some sense all species "exploit" the environment and evolution is one way that organisms develop new means for accomplishing this task.
But how, you may ask, does one explain what seems to be "the earth correcting imbalances" that, even apart from humans, appears to take place all the time? Take for instance the deer population in North America. After European colonization of that continent we gradually exterminated predators that would have naturally kept deer populations in check. As a result deer populations exploded and eventually succumbed to disease because of the same population problem. Doesn't this indeed suggest that there is a certain balance in ecological systems? Well... yes and no.
Yes, when one species has no competitors its populations expand until they reach the limitations of their environment, when they reach a certain threshold, other organisms have the opportunity to thrive. Say bacteria and viruses. They exist in certain relevant animal populations and only develop into disease as the result of say, lots of deer pooping in the woods and contaminating other resources that the deer depend on. So on and so forth. That these things are causally related and appear (and may to a certain extent be) cyclical, it's not necessary to postulate something more than competition among various organisms for limited resources. Yes, in a sense all living things are related through the environment but beyond a rhetorical use of metaphor, don't go ascribing "corrective" mechanisms for what simply millions of years of evolutionary strategy and competition. Having said all that, I believe humans DO need to clean up their act, and soon.
Well D, here's how I feel.
I can't recall the first time I heard about "Gaia Theory" but most likely it was during my undergraduate years at Minnesota State, perhaps in a humanities class. In any case, I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory on the topic. It seems as though the there are many varied versions of this theory, from obvious to "radical." However, all seem to share a basic core idea that the Earth (or perhaps more precisely, the biosphere), in some form or fashion, is a self-correcting system. The most obvious and least radical formulation would be to say that organisms alter the system (environment) in which they live. A stronger formulation suggests that the Earth actively affects change in the system to maintain equilibrium, which is conducive to life on the planet. A more radical proposition would be to suggest that the Earth is actually a conscious entity that willfully acts to keep the system in balance. So how do I feel about it?
First, it's pretty obvious that the weakest formulation is true. That is, organisms on the planet shape and is shaped by the environment. Beyond that I tend to be a bit skeptical to say the least. For instance, I have doubts that the Earth actually corrects imbalances though whatever mechanisms it uses, primarily because I don't like the idea that the Earth has some sort of agency. I could be convinced (with good evidence) that perhaps that the environment has certain "emergent" properties that seem to suggest that the system seems to seek some kind of equilibrium, but even that to me appear no more than the undirected result of various competing organisms within the system. I certainly disagree with any notion that claims that the Earth itself is an entity or organism, let alone a conscious one. So let me tell you why.
I think it's a big step to take from making the observation that human influence on the environment causes a host of environmental problems and even natural disasters that result from climate change, etc. to suggesting that this is due to some self-correcting mechanism "built-in" to the Earth. So why I can say that certain epidemics (Aids, swine-flu, and others) may be the result of unsound environmental practices by humans (namely, resource use, population density) I see no reason to the Earth correcting an imbalance.
Perhaps, this is just a semantic issue, but I will explain further. Let's just assume for a moment that the Earth does, in some way, act (if that is an appropriate word) in a way that seems to restore ecological balance. This type of idea often leads to the idea that humans are a parasite on the Earth. While I'll admit that this is often a useful metaphor, it is one that is not without a political agenda. It is usually employed by environmentalists to justify their positions, namely, that we (humans) are destroying the planet. I don't think it's necessary to resort to such extremism to point out that there are negative side effects of human population expansion and environmental domination. We are a species that has the capability to exploit our environment in profound ways to be sure, and I agree that we need to change our habits to create a better world. But we are no more of a plague on the Earth than worms, or birds, or rabbits. We simply have means (through) culture of passing on knowledge that collectively over the course of at least tens of thousands of years has allowed us to manipulate our environment in order to be more efficient at exploiting it. It should be pointed out that in some sense all species "exploit" the environment and evolution is one way that organisms develop new means for accomplishing this task.
But how, you may ask, does one explain what seems to be "the earth correcting imbalances" that, even apart from humans, appears to take place all the time? Take for instance the deer population in North America. After European colonization of that continent we gradually exterminated predators that would have naturally kept deer populations in check. As a result deer populations exploded and eventually succumbed to disease because of the same population problem. Doesn't this indeed suggest that there is a certain balance in ecological systems? Well... yes and no.
Yes, when one species has no competitors its populations expand until they reach the limitations of their environment, when they reach a certain threshold, other organisms have the opportunity to thrive. Say bacteria and viruses. They exist in certain relevant animal populations and only develop into disease as the result of say, lots of deer pooping in the woods and contaminating other resources that the deer depend on. So on and so forth. That these things are causally related and appear (and may to a certain extent be) cyclical, it's not necessary to postulate something more than competition among various organisms for limited resources. Yes, in a sense all living things are related through the environment but beyond a rhetorical use of metaphor, don't go ascribing "corrective" mechanisms for what simply millions of years of evolutionary strategy and competition. Having said all that, I believe humans DO need to clean up their act, and soon.
posted by JC at 1:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home