Jackie Trono - Eisenberg On The Gaia Hypothesis

Among other topics in The Ecology of Eden, Evan Eisenberg takes a look at the Gaia hypothesis. Developed in the 1960s by James Lovelock, the Gaia hypothesis basically proposes that the Earth’s living and nonliving parts come together in a complexly interconnected system that is analogous to a single living organism. Lovelock was first intrigued by the fact that the Earth, unlike other planets, is not at chemical equilibrium. Yet, the Earth has maintained some other kind of equilibrium in the constancy of its mixture of gases, the constancy of its temperature in spite of the increased temperature of the sun, and by in its re-stabilizing after recovery from major traumas. Lovelock proposed that this regulatory mechanism was a direct result of the nature of Earth as a complex living organism.

Eisenberg comments curiously that the Gaia hypothesis does not resolve the problem of understanding the constancies present on the Earth, but rather furthers the inquiry. He writes,

“The Gaia hypothesis is not so much an answer as a question: Why is the earth such a nice place to live? Why has it stayed a nice place to live for nigh on three billion years? Barring divine intervention, the answer must have something to do with the action of life itself. But that in itself is not an answer; just a reasonable narrowing down of the question” (Evan Eisenberg, The Ecology of Eden 268).

Thus, Gaia begs the question of why the planet is hospitable to life. Skeptics claim that life evolved to find the environment fitting. Eisenberg, however, retorts that instead it seems as though life furnished the planet like a family moving into a new house, the carpet and walls were already there, but life added the details that made Earth hospitable.

I have to wonder how exactly Gaians, claiming that the hospitability and the stability of Earth has something to do with life, propose that life actually affects things. Interestingly, Eisenberg comments, “The Gaians do not claim to know exactly what the explanation or mechanism is, only that it must have something to do with life” (Eisenberg 269-70). Then the Gaia hypothesis is not an answer, but truly only a narrowing of the question of how this planet works. Again, I have to wonder what the real use of such a hypothesis is. It seems to me that its best use is in the ideological shift resultant from viewing the Earth as alive. I hope that such an animated view of the natural world would help breed a greater respect and care for the Earth.