05: The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth / James Lovelock

As a scientist I believe that Nature is objective but also recognize that Nature is not predetermined (218).

Before reading this book, I just knew the word “Gaia theory” somehow but did not have a concrete idea what Gaia theory is. As my understanding, Gaia theory simply insisted that the earth was alive such as other lives and the immune system would damage us if we destroyed the nature. To be honest, it made me think Gaia theory was just a hypothesis and I had no idea what Gaia theory was claimed for. Obviously, my comprehension of Gaia theory was poor. Then, I wanted to understand what Gaia theory first. Also, I was curious of how meaningful it is. Furthermore, I was interested in what Lovelock would like to tell us through this hypothesis.
So what is Gaia theory? According to Lovelock, Gaia is an automatic but not purposeful goal-seeking system (39). Also, Lovelock claims that Gaia is living organisms; that affects their physical and chemical environment (39). Since Gaia is living organisms, Lovelock explains Gaia simultaneously began when life such as bacteria occurred (76). This notion is actually exciting to me because life such as bacteria made the earth living organisms at the same time. This idea implies to me that life is really connected to the earth and vice versa although I normally tend to feel that I live alone separated from the earth. But then, why is it necessary to see this world as living organisms?
Lovelock provides several reasons why the earth resembles living organisms. Firstly, “Gaia theory predicts that the climate and chemical composition of the Earth are kept in homeostasis for long periods until some internal contradiction or external forces causes a jump to a new state “(13). This notion is somewhat easy for me to understand how beneficial Gaia theory is. Since this world is such a complicated system, this analogy might be effective to predict what is going on now on earth. In this sense, Gaia theory might be like holistic thinking. As a matter of fact, it seems that holistic approach is required to understand complicated stuffs like Earth. Lovelock says life is social and exists in communities and collectives (18). To figure out such a complex society, the way like molecular biology might be too limited and be not helpful much.
Gaia theory also arouses some viewpoints about the earth. In particular, I am interested in what Lovelock is mentioning about Darwin’s theory. According to Darwin’s idea, each single species evolves to adapt to the environment for the survival. Lovelock’s concept of the adaptation is somewhat different from Darwin’s. Lovelock claims that we need to recognize that the development of an organism influences its physical and chemical environment (63).
What Lovelock would like to tell ordinary people through Gaia theory is that we are not the owner, the talent, nor even the passenger (236). We are involved in the living organisms as the part. Although this type of notion is often heard especially lately, it often sounds just idealistic. Lovelock is, however, more realistic in some ways. For example, he accepts the use of nuclear power to get energy although he mentions he is not an uncritical supporter of nuclear power (175). Needless to say, the use of nuclear energy is controversial. Even so, Lovelock agrees to use the energy because the nuclear energy is cleaner than other energies such as gas for the environment. This statement is sort of brave because it shows that he is not just a idealistic person such as who just insists the importance of the nature but do not propose the realistic approach to solve the issues. Lovelock regards nuclear radiation just as a normal and inevitable part of the environment (175). Indeed, he understands that even nuclear radiation is one of the compositions and supports to use the power for avoiding the damage to the earth as possible.
After I read this book, I realize that Lovelock is a surely scientist. Although I recognized Gaia theory as a kind of pseudo-science, his approach to environment and thoughts about relationship between science and religion are understandable for me. At least, Gaia theory is worth because this is the efficient model to understand the earth—such a complex phenomenon—holistically.