R4 Book of the Week: The Many Lives of James Lovelock - 24-28 Feb

[Serial_Apologist]

The book on the man who, with his Gaia Theory, arguably contributed as much if not more than any other in science in substantiating ancient Buddhist beliefs in a self-regulating ecosphere without need of external supernatural agency than anyone else.

Evidence-based rather than belief-based needs to be the basic underlying principle for society's safeguarding - we would naturally expect this in justice - this becomes more and more obvious by the day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00289h3

[vinteuil]

Evidence-based rather than belief-based needs to be the basic underlying principle...

Exactly. I share the scepticism of other scientists (rather than buddhists) -

"The Gaia hypothesis continues to be broadly sceptically received by the scientific community. For instance, arguments both for and against it were laid out in the journal Climatic Change in 2002 and 2003. A significant argument raised against it are the many examples where life has had a detrimental or destabilising effect on the environment rather than acting to regulate it. Several recent books have criticised the Gaia hypothesis, expressing views ranging from "... the Gaia hypothesis lacks unambiguous observational support and has significant theoretical difficulties" to "Suspended uncomfortably between tainted metaphor, fact, and false science, I prefer to leave Gaia firmly in the background" to "The Gaia hypothesis is supported neither by evolutionary theory nor by the empirical evidence of the geological record". The CLAW hypothesis, initially suggested as a potential example of direct Gaian feedback, has subsequently been found to be less credible as understanding of cloud condensation nuclei has improved. In 2009 the Medea hypothesis was proposed: that life has highly detrimental (biocidal) impacts on planetary conditions, in direct opposition to the Gaia hypothesis.

In a 2013 book-length evaluation of the Gaia hypothesis considering modern evidence from across the various relevant disciplines, Toby Tyrrell concluded that: "I believe Gaia is a dead end. Its study has, however, generated many new and thought provoking questions. While rejecting Gaia, we can at the same time appreciate Lovelock's originality and breadth of vision, and recognize that his audacious concept has helped to stimulate many new ideas about the Earth, and to champion a holistic approach to studying it". Elsewhere he presents his conclusion "The Gaia hypothesis is not an accurate picture of how our world works". This statement needs to be understood as referring to the "strong" and "moderate" forms of Gaia—that the biota obeys a principle that works to make Earth optimal (strength 5) or favourable for life (strength 4) or that it works as a homeostatic mechanism (strength 3). The latter is the "weakest" form of Gaia that Lovelock has advocated. Tyrrell rejects it. However, he finds that the two weaker forms of Gaia—Coeveolutionary Gaia and Influential Gaia, which assert that there are close links between the evolution of life and the environment and that biology affects the physical and chemical environment—are both credible, but that it is not useful to use the term "Gaia" in this sense and that those two forms were already accepted and explained by the processes of natural selection and adaptation.

As emphasized by multiple critics, no plausible mechanism exists that would drive the evolution of negative feedback loops leading to planetary self-regulation of the climate.Indeed, multiple incidents in Earth's history (see the Medea hypothesis) have shown that the Earth and the biosphere can enter self-destructive positive feedback loops that lead to mass extinction events."

My pessimistic grounding finds the Medea hypothesis far more palatable - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis



.




.

[Serial_Apologist]

Off the top of my head - which is always too soon - the many new ideas about the Earth Gaia has stimulated often predate those up to and including the biassing specifics of Judaeo-Christian theology shaping scientific investigation and findings up until ecology as a discipline, which along previously with Darwin and subsequently post-Freudian psychology continues to force Christian-rooted theology itself into self-contradicting u-turns... so that too - the extent to which Chrisitian assumptions have unconsciously rebounded unexamined into rational discourse - has to be taken into account.

I've already written more, then thought again, and deleted on pain of first hearing the today's opening episode. Now, this Medea hypothesis looks interesting.

[Serial_Apologist]

All episodes can be heard of this series - no need to wait for the individual programmes - so I went through all of them this morning, from the first two sentences of the first, which happily for me summarised my own "belief system" in a nutshell - to the, in so many ways, rather sad conclusion, with the author saying final goodbyes to his subject and a patchwork of lives enviably illuminated by the man's inventiveness and risk-taking, yet marred to an extent by an active involvement in affairs of the secret state on both sides of the Atlantic, supported by the very industry whose product has been so strongly implicated in environmental degradation and climate change. While to some it will seem unfortunate that Lovelock was never drawn to socialism, the ideology prior to Green politics best mirroring his underpinning unificatory principle of an interdependent world, the irony that most strikes one is that without the opportunities thereby afforded Lovelock would have not been able to reach his own conclusions will not be lost on open-minded readers prepared to consider Lovelock's comprehensive experience of applied scientific work during a vital era of discovery and progress.

[smittims]

I remember Lovelock speaking on Radio 3 many years ago, and being at pains to prevent a simplistic interrpretation of his theory as ',mother-earth', by the 'New Age ' crowd. I found what he said to make sense, and to provide a much-needed bridge between science and spirituality.

[Serial_Apologist]

I remember Lovelock speaking on Radio 3 many years ago, and being at pains to prevent a simplistic interpretation of his theory as ',mother-earth', by the 'New Age ' crowd. I found what he said to make sense, and to provide a much-needed bridge between science and spirituality.

Still much-needed in my view - back in the 60s we thought a sustainable underpinning for a post-capitalist world could be Zen Buddhism, then we saw with Kentucky State that the ruling classes wouldn't tolerate that sort of challenge to publicity-inculcated consumerism, and so returned the reductive class warriors - of whom I was one. Still the class warrior, but now no longer reductive, more of a class worrier!

[vinteuil]

.
... I have never felt the need for 'spirituality' - whatever that may be - so I don't really see the need for a science/spirituality combo

[smittims]

I think the trouble is that religious fundamentalists have given the very concept of religion or spiritual life a bad name. People brought up on the 20th century concept of fact (something not mentioned at all, I think, in the Bible) understandbly reject anything not backed up by proven , testable fact.

This,perhaps , isn't the place for a discussion on the relevance of religion, but I sympathise with those who feel a need for the two poles to be reconciled. I see recent ideas in cosmic physics such as dark matter and dark energy helpful in comprehending the universe,,and the age -old need to find a purpose. I've long since abandoned the idea that God is supernatural male person sitting in a 'place' called ;''heaven', and looking down on the Earth and deciding to reward one person and punish another, but it's clear that there is a unified, overarching system of creation and recycling, and I think Lovelock was instrumental in working towards the much-needed reconciliation , which, among other things, may reduce the desire for conflict in the world .

[Serial_Apologist]

.
... I have never felt the need for 'spirituality' - whatever that may be - so I don't really see the need for a science/spirituality combo

The "spiritual" - whatever it means - is in any case a most unfortunate word, with its connotations of séances, ghosts and fairies at the bottom of the garden. There are experiences that are hard to explain - I've had a few myself, which I mainly avoid talking about due to their associations, along with the ways in which whole religions and cults have forever been initiated and exploitatively used on vulnerable people. We really need a better word - insightful, perhaps?

[vinteuil]

There are experiences that are hard to explain

... many.

I can't explain the joy I get from Scarlatti. But I don't feel the need to go beyond this world.

Proust is pretty good at teazing out various of the odd feelings we may experience in relation to time and memory...

.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think the trouble is that religious fundamentalists have given the very concept of religion or spiritual life a bad name. People brought up on the 20th century concept of fact (something not mentioned at all, I think, in the Bible) understandbly reject anything not backed up by proven , testable fact.

This,perhaps , isn't the place for a discussion on the relevance of religion, but I sympathise with those who feel a need for the two poles to be reconciled. I see recent ideas in cosmic physics such as dark matter and dark energy helpful in comprehending the universe,,and the age -old need to find a purpose. I've long since abandoned the idea that God is supernatural male person sitting in a 'place' called ;''heaven', and looking down on the Earth and deciding to reward one person and punish another, but it's clear that there is a unified, overarching system of creation and recycling, and I think Lovelock was instrumental in working towards the much-needed reconciliation , which, among other things, may reduce the desire for conflict in the world .

The description of Earth as an intelligent organism that I've come across is close to Lovelock's concept of Gaia as a self-regulating system. While satisfied with that myself, I have never gone along with ideas of "cosmic consciousness" which were prevalent in the late 60s and early 70s among "alternative lifestylists" from wealthy attenders at Esalen group encounter sessions to the teenaged popularity of so-called Goth culture and covens here in the late 90s (one mother defending her 13-year old's involvement as "I suppose it's all harmless really" in a TV documentary!) Our planet and the singularity of its ecosphere is a probably a one-off, and it remains to be determined if life came originally from an asteroid. Worship, to me, represents an inability to break the apron strings (assuming that's not a sexist metaphor!): nature's laws we respect, conform to and ignore at our peril, so the opposite is the final extent of wisdom - there being no one nor any thing, fetish object, to worship, though I respect first nation peoples who display such objects and those who hold rituals around animal hunts as reminders.

[vinteuil]

The description of Earth as an intelligent organism

what does that mean?

[Serial_Apologist]

what does that mean?

In this context awareness of its own workings, I would say. It operates multidimensionally, not in the cause-and-effect way we rationalise in human decision making. Awareness does not have to imply a faculty for explaining or consciously calculating its actions to secure satisfactory or at least explicable outcomes. I am subconsciously aware all the time through my organism's spontaneous adaptations to its own inner processes - which are in themselves also aware - and also to the "external" environment. My (at at times faulty) capacity to make judgements governing my behaviour comprise an aspect of that wider intelligence that has produced a brain (I sometimes wonder!) capable of representing concepts such as value in symbolic form, whether verbal or in images, but also - an this I claim is where religions all make the same mistake in confusing description for described - recognising and acknowledging the arbitrariness and provisionality of the concepts etc used. The "real world" is too complex to be apprehended in all the ways and aspects needed to reach a finally satisfactory solution to all its problems, including and especially us. We have to make the best of our limitations while not undervaluing them - reason provides for the recipe or menu as a functional guidance. I have come to think of myself as (a) part of this larger intelligence. I would say ongoing awareness of this awareness is a necessary precondition for a balanced lifestyle.

[vinteuil]

... I see no way in which our earth can be 'aware' of anything. It has no brain, and your analogy with your personal inner workings doesn't carry over to the physical systems of a planet

an aspect of that wider intelligence that has produced a brain .

I cannot follow you there, not accepting "a wider intelligence"

I would say ongoing awareness of this awareness is a necessary precondition for a balanced lifestyle.

... o well, I'll have to make do with my unbalanced lifestyle

.

[Serial_Apologist]

... I see no way in which our earth can be 'aware' of anything. It has no brain, and your analogy with your personal inner workings doesn't carry over to the physical systems of a plane..

It depends on what one means by awareness. I would contest that organisms (as opposed to molecules, atoms etc) show awareness by responding to stimuli, for which there is no necessity for a brain, just some mechanism, however rudimentary in our everyday terms, by which to respond. A lot of our own awareness exists at subconscious levels in any case - as in the instances of intuitively being aware of danger, and taste preferences. These things would have first arisen spontaneously, not been "made", as many religions would assert.