CURRENT STATUS OF THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS

The idea formulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis that life on Earth controls the
physical and chemical conditions of the environment has attracted both critics and supporters in
large numbers. Different forms of it have been proposed, varying from "weak" to "strong."
Because of its inability to address the aforementioned enduring science against its claims, the
Gaia hypothesis is regarded within the community accordingly: as a hypothesis and not as a fact,
theory, or law.

At present, Gaia theory in the scientific field is seen as unstable, ambiguous, and misleading. For
scientists Tyler and Volk, Gaia is on its way to become a theory, but is not there yet. Even before
Lovelock restated his hypothesis, it continued to be unsatisfactory. This is because the
hypothesis still stated that “Life affects environment and Earth as a coupled system, from which
emerges the sustained self-regulation of climate and chemistry at a habitable state for whatever is
the current biota”, argument that they did not supported.

Kirchner, one of the most ponderous scientists who criticised the hypothesis, argues that the
weak forms of it are not new and that the strong forms are not correct or not testable. “Life
optimises conditions for life” Lovelock (1988), this seems as unstable for Kirchner. He narrowly
supports the weak Gaia hypothesis in which life influences planetary processes but don’t controls
them.

I think that this scientist (Kirchner) has stated a very important point which is that “we live on an
Earth that is the best of all worlds but only for those who have adapted to it”. I think that what he
is trying to say is that perhaps is not that the Earth adapts to our needs, but our needs are the ones
that adapt to the Earth.

Another scientist who has made a considerable criticism to the theory is Henrich Holland, who
stated that Gaia is unnecessary to explain the history of the Earth. For him the hypothesis is
“intriguing and charming, but ultimately unsatisfactory.”

According to the environmental status, Gaia hypothesis is now considered as an ecological

science, as a modern vision of global ecology. Gaia is deeply connected with the biosphere,
biodiversity, and Earth System Science, taking into account the interactions between geosphere,
biota, atmosphere, etc.

Many scientific communities have accepted and are sustaining the hypothesis. This include the
World Climate Research Programme, the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
(IGBP), the international biodiversity programme DIVERSITAS , among others.
Concerning the environment, one of the things I found really interesting was an article that
reflects the Gaia principle as a guide for energy saving in building structures.
“The Gaia principle rests on the thought that a balance exists between the earth's biosphere and
its physical components.”(Mike Melina 2010
). What impressed me the most of this article was how the author explains that Mother Nature is
so adept in regulating and balancing her resources that upsetting just one component can make a
big impact on the environment.

Regarding the public in general, the status of Gaia theory is very mixed. As I could notice in the
blogs I’ve read it has many positive and supporting appreciations, but also many negative and
disagreeable ones; so for some Gaia is an amazing theory, but for others is just a game, a
pointless hypothesis. Below you can see two examples that support the point I am explaining.

“I have always thought of the Earth as being one giant organism. Everything here depends on
the life and death of something else.
Science says that the earth is not a "life" friendly planet, as it tends to have these giant volcanic
explosions that practically wipe out all life, or at least make it very inhospitable for a time.”

Comment of a person (CSMONUT), from a blog named “The status of Spaceship Earth Gaia
theory”, from current TV news.

“To publish the concept of the earth developing consciousness in the future is ridiculous. To
defend this theory in this article is absurd.”

(Tony S) comment from a blog of the ABC NEWS website.

So as we can see, Gaia for the public is a very heterogeneous and multifarious issue.
Nevertheless, from all the blogs and opinions I have read, it is more supported than rejected.

Finally, The Gaia Hypothesis among journalists appears to be supported and sustained. In most
of the articles I have researched Gaia has had a positive feedback. Above I will introduce some
of the supporting Gaia theory comments that I’ve found.

“I am fascinated by James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, which says that the Earth exists as a
cohesive, living organism. To me, the theory explains that we are all inter-connected-that
individual actions have a direct correlation to the whole. That very idea is beginning to permeate
consumer culture, resulting in growing numbers of eco-conscious people who are trying to
consume less to preserve the living Earth.”

Jackie Delise, Brand Packaging Journal.

“As for his Gaia hypothesis, Professor [James Lovelock] may well have been ill-advised in
naming it after the Greek goddess of the Earth, but there is nothing flaky about the evidence now
backing its basic claim: that living organisms continually modify our planet to keep it fit for life.
At the same time, evidence continues to mount that the real Earth exhibits Gaia-like behaviour. It
takes the form of the discovery of various "feedback mechanisms" in which organisms modify
their environment in ways that, in turn, affect the organisms.”

Robert Mathews, Financial Times Journal.

Concluding, the Gaia Theory has been a very long and difficult haul for Lovelock. It has had a
considerably assortment of opinions and criticisms, and in the scientific field it has been
narrowly approved because it is seem as unstable and ambiguous. Nevertheless, in the other
fields, as environmental, journal and with public in general, the positive approaches prevail from
the negative ones. The future of Gaia is uncertain, but what we can undoubtedly affirm is the
marvellous work the scientist James Lovelock has done with this idea.
 REFERENCES

• Bauman, Franklin (1998),” THE FEASIBILITY OF A TESTABLE GAIA

HYPOTHESIS”. Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of
Sciences.
• Volk, Tyler (2003), "Gaia's Body; Toward a Physiology of Earth" (MIT Press)
• S.J.Gould: Kropotkin was no crackpot. Natural History 106 (June 1997): 12-21
• Mathew, Roberts, Financial Times. London (UK): Dec 3, 2004. pg. 18
• Delise, Jackie, BrandPackaging. Deerfield: Sep 2009. Vol. 13, Iss. 8; pg. 26, 2 pgs
• William, Robyns, 2011. The Globalised world and the Gaia Hypothesis.abc.net.au.
Science blog, [blog]. 7 Jan, Available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/07/3108365.htm [Accessed Feb 23 2011].
• Hill, Josh, 2008. The Status of Spaceship Gaia. Current.com. Dec 31. Available at:
http://current.com/1osku4c [Acceded Feb 23 2011].
• Melina, Mike. Heating & Ventilating Review; May2010, Vol. 49 Issue 7, p32-32, 1p