by Ethan Johnson
October 16, 2007

Oh darn, I missed Blog Action Day. Good thing I don't operate a blog. Since various "days" are declared hither an yon online, I found it ironic that on Blog Action Day, which is intended to raise awareness of environmental issues, I was poring over a synopsis of The Gaia Hypothesis. While I may come off as overly flippant about events like Blog Action Day, I do think that issues like climate change and environmental responsibility are important. But I think some insight into the Gaia Hypothesis is in order.

Dr. James Lovelock 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 Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change was issued in 2001, which itemized the following assumptions/conclusions. My commentary follows each point.

[1.] The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system comprised of physical, chemical, biological and human components. The interactions and feedbacks between the component parts are complex and exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial variability. The understanding of the natural dynamics of the Earth System has advanced greatly in recent years and provides a sound basis for evaluating the effects and consequences of human-driven change.

In other words, the Earth is one giant ecosystem (comprised of several smaller ecosystems) and we have the ways and means to determine how this system changes over time.

[2.] Human activities are significantly influencing Earth's environment in many ways in addition to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Anthropogenic changes to Earth's land surface, oceans, coasts and atmosphere and to biological diversity, the water cycle and biogeochemical cycles are clearly identifiable beyond natural variability. They are equal to some of the great forces of nature in their extent and impact. Many are accelerating. Global change is real and is happening now.

"[B]eyond natural variability" is pretty much the thrust of their argument in this paragraph.

[3.] Global change cannot be understood in terms of a simple cause-effect paradigm. Human-driven changes cause multiple effects that cascade through the Earth System in complex ways. These effects interact with each other and with local- and regional-scale changes in multidimensional patterns that are difficult to understand and even more difficult to predict. Surprises abound.

The first sentence explains why I am a tad reluctant to dive in to such activities as "Blog Action Day", as climate change (etc) is not a simple problem/reaction/solution scenario. As I am wont to say, everything has a cost, and when we remove the shadow from one place, it casts a pall over something else. For instance, completely discontinuing the use of fossil fuels is an admirable goal, but our current global power consumption suggests that something will be depleted in mass quantities, renewable or otherwise. The processing, use, and disposal of this alternative fuel source may have deleterious effects of their own. (Which is what the quoted paragraph concludes.)

[4.] Earth System dynamics are characterised by critical thresholds and abrupt changes. Human activities could inadvertently trigger such changes with severe consequences for Earth's environment and inhabitants. The Earth System has operated in different states over the last half million years, with abrupt transitions (a decade or less) sometimes occurring between them. Human activities have the potential to switch the Earth System to alternative modes of operation that may prove irreversible and less hospitable to humans and other life. The probability of a human-driven abrupt change in Earth's environment has yet to be quantified but is not negligible.

Pay attention to the closing sentence. We humans *may* cause the Earth to become outright uninhabitable by *anything*, but we can't say that with 100% certainty. But we can't say there's 0% chance of that happening either. Or, in the words of Dr. Lynn Margulis:

The Gaia hypothesis is a biological idea, but it's not human-centered. Those who want Gaia to be an Earth goddess for a cuddly, furry human environment find no solace in it. They tend to be critical or to misunderstand. They can buy into the theory only by misinterpreting it. Some critics are worried that the Gaia hypothesis says the environment will respond to any insults done to it and the natural systems will take care of the problems. This, they maintain, gives industries a license to pollute. Yes, Gaia will take care of itself; yes, environmental excesses will be ameliorated, but it's likely that such restoration of the environment will occur in a world devoid of people.

Due to space constraints, I will reserve my comments for a future article. Just mull that quote over for a while.

[5.] In terms of some key environmental parameters, the Earth System has moved well outside the range of the natural variability exhibited over the last half million years at least. The nature of changes now occurring simultaneously in the Earth System, their magnitudes and rates of change are unprecedented. The Earth is currently operating in a no-analogue state.

I'm thinking the closing sentence is saying that human interaction has taken the natural progression of the Earth into uncharted territory.

The Amsterdam Conference statement suggests the following plan of action:

[1.] An ethical framework for global stewardship and strategies for Earth System management are urgently needed. The accelerating human transformation of the Earth's environment is not sustainable. Therefore, the business-as-usual way of dealing with the Earth System is not an option. It has to be replaced - as soon as possible - by deliberate strategies of good management that sustain the Earth's environment while meeting social and economic development objectives.

The closing sentence, in my opinion, scuttles the rest of the paragraph. If "business as usual" is not sustainable, then you can't suggest "business as unusual" but requiring the same results that BAU provided. If greed was the root of all evil in this world, who would recommend altruism as the remedy, only with acceptable levels of selfishness factored in? This is why feel-good movements concerning issues like climate change do little to convince me that just a little more recycling, walking, or bamboo flooring is going to fix everything. That ignores fundamental issues that again, I will have to reserve for a follow-up article.

[2.] A new system of global environmental science is required. This is beginning to evolve from complementary approaches of the international global change research programmes and needs strengthening and further development. It will draw strongly on the existing and expanding disciplinary base of global change science; integrate across disciplines, environment and development issues and the natural and social sciences; collaborate across national boundaries on the basis of shared and secure infrastructure; intensify efforts to enable the full involvement of developing country scientists; and employ the complementary strengths of nations and regions to build an efficient international system of global environmental science.

Scientists suggesting improvements to science programs. Who saw that coming? Other than that, I have nothing to add to that suggestion.

In closing, I cannot begin to stress enough the importance of examining the fundamentals of global change, as simple fixes may feel good (and may in fact be good) but are otherwise akin to insisting that all trash on the sinking Titanic be sorted into recycling bins, while the ocean is about to be littered with a hulking metal vessel. We make decisions every day that have global consequences, and many of these decisions are on their face, trivial.

And unfortunately, do not underestimate the power or willingness of others to sell the idea of positive change to you while maintaining the status quo. What is Gaia? Until I took the time to find out, I too was under the impression that it was some floaty, granola-y, new age-y claptrap about Earth Mother something or other. And that's exactly what companies like Gaiam prey upon.

Conscious Enlightenment is an on-line and off-line based community that owns and operates the Enlightenment Card, a socially conscious credit card, Conscious Choice and Whole Life magazines (with distribution in metropolitan cities from Chicago to Los Angeles), Yogamates.com, a social network and video channel and MonthlyYogadvd.com, a DVD and online video streaming subscription club.

More later. <EM>