Gaia Hypothesis

Anybody with a vague understanding of Science will be aware that we, far from existing inherently and of our own accord, are the product of a complex system of chemical pathways and biological units - organs, tissues and cells; which consist, in turn, of molecules and then atoms etc -none of which are independently conscious or aware of their own existence. In this light, human consciousness and the feeling of self, as an independent entity, can be said to be an illusion; a sensation that is dependent on our physiology, psychology and biochemistry, as shaped by 3.7 billion years of evolution. In reality, nothing in the material universe is truly independent, everything flows in and out of everything else; energy flows and matter is recycled. Everything that happens and exists is caused by something else and, in itself, acts as a cause for another event. Ultimately, most of the matter making up the human body came from the Earth, and over billions of years, fueled by light energy from the Sun and encouraged by a fortunate and very unlikely turn of events, ended up coming together to form you and I. How convenient

Venus, Earth’s so-called ‘twin’, is a small rocky planet like our own, and very similar in size and mass. However, there are a few vital differences:

• Venus has a surface temperature of over 460 °C, due to its green house effect- the strongest in the solar system - caused by it’s enormously carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere.
• Even if you were incidentally fond of skin boilingly high temperatures, the thick clouds of toxic sulphur dioxide and downpours of acid rain would quickly strip away your skin.
• As if this wasn’t bad enough, suppose you wanted to go for a swim… well tough luck I’m afraid, as Venus has absolutely no relative humidity on the surface; because all of the water was long ago torn apart, by solar winds in the upper atmosphere.
• As you’ve probably guessed, not only would Venus be a particularly bad holiday resort, not least because any landing shuttle would quickly be disintegrated in it’s thick upper atmosphere, but there is almost certainly not a single living organism on Venus.

Surprisingly, studies have shown that several billion years ago Venus’ atmosphere was very much like Earth’s (at that time) and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface; as temperatures rose and with no where for the green house gases to go, a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, leading to a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. But… if Venus and Earth were once very much alike, then why are they so different now?

The key factor is the evolution of life on Earth. Around 4.54 billion years ago, the planet Earth formed; most estimates suggest that within a billion years the common ancestors of every known living being, ever  known to exist, was first  formed in the murky depths of primordial Earth’s sea.  Chemicals bursting from the Earth’s core through hydrothermal vents, and light light energy from the sun, were used as a source of energy to process carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and dissolved in the sea, into complex organic molecules - the building block of life. From then on, the evolution of the Earth took a funny turn; the Planet’s growing biosphere continually altered the atmosphere and other abiotic (physical) conditions on the Earth, preventing them from reaching equilibrium, and hence making them suitable for more complex life forms to evolve. In this way, life on Earth made conditions more suitable for life itself. Considering that we too are part of this complex living system, it’s not a far stretch to suggest that the Earth and it’s biosphere, in their own right, may form what could be called a super-organism made up of billions of interdependent biological units and chemical systems, not unlike our own bodies.

Here’s quite a good analogy, to explain this process: imagine a miniature planet covered by two species of daisy - ignoring our good friend, rationality, for a second - one with black petals, the other with white. The black petals absorb sunlight, causing them to heat up - like what happens to you, if you wear black on a sunny day - while the white petals reflect the warming sunlight, straight back out into space. When the weather is cold for a long time, the warm black daisies thrive while the white daisies may eventually freeze to death. However, the sunlight, absorbed by the increasing number of black daises, radiates into the surrounding air and causes the temperature to increase before all of the white daisies die. The temperature continues to increase, until the climate is too hot for the black daisies anymore, and they begin to die of dehydration, unable to absorb enough water fast enough to counteract the resulting increased rate of transpiration. The white daisies, on the other hand, thrive due to their white petals and their population rapidly increases. The more white daisies, the more sunlight is reflected and the cooler the small planet’s climate becomes, in time to save the remaining black daisies, and the decreasing temperatures now near the threshold of the white daisies.

Really, this is perhaps an forgivingly simple representation of how our own planet functions, but is a reasonable analogy for describe this one aspect. The daisies get water and nutrients from minerals found on the small planet and from other dead and decomposed daisies. The planets biosphere regulates the temperature, stopping it from getting too hot or too cold for life, and the daisies - despite competing with one another for nutrients, space and light - have evolved side-by-side to benefit life on the planet as a whole. In this way, the biosphere and its largely inorganic host form one self-regulating system. Just as, on our own planet, living organisms help regulate temperature, salinity, gas concentrations in the atmosphere and the populations of other living organisms among many other factors, like an intricate and beautifully choreographed ensemble.

‘James Loveluck, who promoted this hypothesis, borrowed the name of the ancient Mother Goddess, Gaia,and defined her 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.’

Of course, this begs the answer to many fascinating, albeit irritatingly subjective, questions including; what role does humanity play as a part of this system? …if we, conscious organisms, are indeed just an extension of Gaia (and the Universe as a whole), then could ’she’ not be said to be conscious, on some level, through us? …if Gaia does indeed exist, then does not our short sighted, self-serving exploitation of ‘her’ not resemble that of a cancer or harmful parasite, methodically killing it’s host and hence ultimately itself?

This theory now has an increasingly strong following among many Scientists, Futurists and Environmentalists; the main criticisms concerning the quasi-religious connotations of the word Gaia and the fact that some Gaia theorists imply that the Planet will literally ‘get revenge’ if we continue abusing it.

My personal view is that the development of the planet biosphere, as a whole, resembles that of something just as alive as a living organism. To really push the boat out, and enter the lands of fuzzy subjectivity, the apparent mass synchronisation of human beings, following the communications revolutions of this so-called information age - reminiscent of the moment that unicellular organisms altruistically came together to form complex organisms with increasingly developed nervous systems - is a sign that the planet, as a whole, is entering a new unprecedented stage in its evolution. Although, some people - including the nagging rationality of my conscience - would call this living in dream land.

Currently, I believe that humanity may be at a crossroads, in that we can either embrace our responsibility and consciously drive for further long-term cultural evolution, as part of a greater system, or we can continue diverging from nature, as we have been for the past 20,000 years, thinking only of our own immediate survival, reckless pleasure and acting as though the Planet’s ‘resources’ will last for ever…

Of course, at this stage my views are heavily influenced by own prejudices and preconceptions, someone may, very legitimately, choose to interpret the same evidence from a completely different direction. However, if true, the implications of this hypothesis could be huge and would require a total overhaul of the global mind set, a cultural re-definition of what it means to be human and a serious re-evaluation of our hit ‘n’ run policy towards our Planet’s resources and fellow organisms, if the current crises are to be solved. The Planet is not just a lump of inanimate matter to be capitalised upon, but a beautifully complex organic and inorganic system on which our livelihood, and that of future generations, wholly depends.