James Lovelock's Revenge of Gaia

DYSTOPIA Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Metaphor: James Lovelock’s Revenge of Gaia John Clark The Revenge of Gaia is the latest work by scientist and futurologist James Lovelock (with a foreword by his colleague, environmentalist and diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell). The book is the culmination of the life’s work of Lovelock, who is celebrated as the originator of the Gaia Hypothesis. The plot of this treatise on eco- catastrophism and nuclear salvation is in some ways reminiscent of a bad Victorian science fiction novel: The world is a Giant Woman, and she’s out to get us!” exclaimed Dr. J. Ephraim Lovelock. “Quite right, Lovelock,” cried his trusty assistant, Sir Crispin Tickle, “Let’s unleash the Atomic Energy!” Yet the work has been greeted by many as a kind of final revelation by the great eco-prophet of our age. The Daily Telegraph called it “probably the most important book for decades.” Anti-progressivist gadfly John Gray pronounced it “the most important book ever to be published on the environmental crisis.” And, needless to say, organs of the nuclear energy industry have waxed enthusiastic about its nuclear politics, though they often seem baffled by the intricacies of what Lovelock now calls “Gaia Theory.” Gaia’s Will be Done What is this “Gaia Hypothesis” that has now been raised to the dignity of Theory? Lovelock defines Gaia as the “thin spherical shell of matter that surrounds the incandescent interior” of the planet. It extends from “where the crustal rocks meet the magma of the Earth’s hot interior” to “the even hotter thermosphere at the edge of space.” It may be a mere shell, but the hard kernel of its Gaianism is that it is “a dynamic physiological system that has kept our planet fit for life for over three billion years.” In Lovelock’s view, this shows that Gaia has “the unconscious goal of regulating the climate and the chemistry at a comfortable state for life.” [p. 15.] Lovelock thus takes on the role of planetary analyst, ready to reveal to us the secrets of the Gaian unconscious. In view of the nature of this project, it is understandable that Lovelock tries to shield himself from charges of personifying or anthropomorphizing nature, and indeed he claims that he does not even invalidly animate it. He protests that he is not “thinking of the Earth as alive in a sentient way or even alive like an animal or a bacterium. [Gaia] has never been more than metaphor—an aide pensée, no more serious than the thoughts of a sailor who refers to his ship as ‘she.’” [p. 16.] Let’s call this the “Lovelockean Proviso”: that whatever Lovelock says about Gaia can be translated into non-metaphorical, non-anthropomorphizing, non- animistic statements about reality. Contrary to this Proviso, Lovelock often slips into exactly the kind of thinking that he disclaims. For example, in an article announcing the appearance of his book, he says: “My Gaia theory sees the Earth behaving as if it were alive, and clearly anything alive can enjoy good health, or suffer disease.” Lovelock not only depicts Gaia as a living being, but when he goes on to describe its efforts to maintain its health and well- being, he attributes to it a strongly teleological and even intentional dimension that cannot be glibly dismissed as mere metaphor. 1 This Lovelockean Gaianalysis leads to a variety of incoherences and contradictions. For example, he looks into the mind of the metaphor and divines that “from Gaia’s viewpoint” ice-age glaciation “was a desirable state,” because “there was more life on the colder earth.” He concludes that “if the Earth system, Gaia, could express a preference it would be for the cold of an ice age, not for today’s comparative warmth.” [p. 31.] There are several conceivable interpretations of such statements. One is that Lovelock has somehow actually discovered how to read the mind of Gaia. But we can exclude this possibility immediately, for if, as he emphasizes, Gaia is a mere metaphor, Gaia can really have no mind, will, desires or preferences, and the question of how much or what kind of life Gaia literally “prefers” is meaningless. The second possibility is that the concept of “Gaia” should, as Lovelock urges, be taken strictly as metaphor, in which case the statement “Gaia prefers more life” will mean merely that “there has been a tendency for more life to appear on the planet.” This approach would be in accord with the Lovelockean Proviso, but it would also completely demolish Lovelock’s position. It would follow from such an interpretation that when there is a tendency in the “Earth system” to produce less rather than more life, this would translate metaphorically into “Gaia prefers less life.” It would also follow that there could be no basis for any “Revenge of Gaia” in retaliation for the destruction of life, and in fact all the implicit normative aspects of Lovelock’s position would collapse. The third and final possibility is that the statement could be interpreted as a mere projection of Lovelock’s own uncritical preferences into the unconscious (and indeed non-existent) mind of the metaphorical Gaia. This is, in fact, what Lovelock does, though from the standpoint of his incoherent Gaian ideology, he is unable to recognize it. Though Lovelock would have us believe that in some mysterious sense Gaia “prefers” the existence of quantitatively more life on earth, neither Lovelock nor Gaia is particularly fond of the diversity of life. He asserts that “rich biodiversity is not necessarily something highly desirable and to be preserved at all costs,” and may merely be “the Earth’s response to the heat of the present interglacial.” [p. 42.] Indeed, it may be—but then again, it may not be. The crucial question is how one might determine this. Lovelock evidently thinks that because Gaia has produced a greater quantity of life over a long period of time, greater quantity of life is therefore “desirable,” and that because Gaia has produced a certain degree of diversity of life over a shorter period of time, this degree of diversity is not nearly so desirable. In other words, “is implies ought.” Unfortunately for Lovelock, if this line of reasoning is generalized, we may conclude that if life were to die out on the planet and remain in this condition of non-existence for a very long time (e.g., forever), this would be the most desirable state imaginable for life on earth. Lovelock has fallen victim to that that plague of amateur ethicists, the fact-value dichotomy. Though biodiversity may be positively or negatively correlated with certain climatic conditions, this correlation does not answer the question of its value (“desirability”) or lack of value. The jump to the normative needs some kind of justification. It could, for example, be argued that if greater biodiversity produces greater and more intense value- experiences among beings on the planet, then there is reason to say that it is of value. This would link the normative conclusion to an observation of facts that also have a normative dimension. Lovelock himself comes to the opposite normative conclusion but fails to give his judgment any grounding in any realities with a normative dimension. Even worse for Lovelock’s position, if we take his own approach and look merely at what is as the basis for judging what ought to be, this still does not support his conclusions. For in fact, even though the present level of biodiversity has existed for a relatively limited time over the history of the planet, 2 there has been a general tendency toward greater diversity over that history. We therefore might well conclude even on the basis of Lovelock’s own presuppositions that Gaia “prefers” such diversity, contrary to his claim. And finally, as is no doubt becoming clear at this point, if we adopt his “what is implies what ought to be” approach, his “Revenge of Gaia” thesis will again collapse. For in view of the direction that the ecological crisis is taking, why should we not conclude that Gaia has gotten tired of “regulating the climate and the chemistry at a comfortable state for life” and is using humanity to help itself reach its new goal of reducing life both quantitatively and qualitatively? The pros and cons of Lovelock’s basic Gaia Hypothesis itself have been extensively debated, and numerous issues have been raised about its meaning and validity. It would be tempting to explore some of these questions further. However, those who wish to do so can look, for example, to the collection Scientists Debate Gaia, in which no less than 53 views of Gaia, including some that pose embarrassing questions for Lovelock, can be found. The focus here will be primarily on further implications of Lovelock’s new idea of the “Revenge of Gaia,” or what might we might call his “Gaia is Pissed” Hypothesis. The “Gaia is Pissed” Hypothesis Lovelock’s colleague Lynn Margulis has stated notoriously that “Gaia is a tough bitch.” Lovelock seems intent on convincing us of just how tough she is. She doesn’t hesitate to slap humans around a bit, and she’s in the process of making them an offer they can’t refuse. Central to Lovelock’s ecological imaginary is his image of catastrophic social and ecological collapse as the punishment with which Gaia threatens humans for abusing her. And this penalty is a very Draconian one, for collapse, as Lovelock envisions it, encompasses not only the destruction of most of civilization, but also the death of the vast majority of all human beings.

Load more