From Daisyworld to Crazy World – please do not blame Gaia

When he published The Revenge of Gaia in 2006, James Lovelock probably felt that he had finally been accepted back into the mainstream scientific community. If he was right to think so, then that is a major indictment of the scientific community. In the book, Lovelock begins by trying to explain the complicated history of an idea – much misunderstood and maligned – that others named ‘the Gaia hypothesis’. It is a peculiar thing in science but, names that detractors devise in order to ridicule an idea often end up – when the idea later proves worthy – being adopted as the common name for it. The ‘Big Bang Theory’, the idea that the Universe had a definitive beginning some 13 billion years ago, being another case in point. As such, the book is effectively a review of the history of environmental science. I say this as someone who is not quite old enough to remember watching – although I was deliberately made to watch – the live television coverage of Neil Armstrong being the first human to walk on the Moon. As I point out at the beginning of my own book, it is commonly accepted that the concept of ‘the Environment’ developed – just as Fred Hoyle had said it would – once humans had seen a photograph of the Earth taken from Space. However, not long after the concept of the environment was born, Lovelock was challenging it: The concept of ‘Spaceship Earth’ – along with reductionist and mechanistic thinking in science as a whole – being something that Lovelock makes very clear he considers deeply unhelpful. In the book therefore, Lovelock begins by explaining what Gaia is; and what it is not. As implied above, Gaia was not Lovelock’s name for his ‘hypothesis’ – it is just the name everyone else gave it. Furthermore, Lovelock uses the term hypothesis very reluctantly: Reading the book, it becomes quite clear that he does not see Gaia as a hypothesis or an idea; he sees it as an insight into the way Nature works. Therefore, despite using the word hypothesis, Lovelock defines Gaia as seeing the biosphere as… “an active, adaptive, control system” that has maintained the Earth as a place capable of supporting life for at least the last 3 billion years (i.e. page 29 in the paperback). It is therefore tempting to see Lovelock’s insight as being of similar importance to science as that of Charles Darwin almost a century earlier. This would be ironic, however, as evolutionary biology was probably the biggest impediment to the Gaia hypothesis being accepted. This is because (as Lovelock also points out on p. 29) “…a self-regulating biosphere could never have evolved, since the organism was the unit of selection, not the biosphere.” Another possible reason that the Gaia hypothesis failed to catch on, one which is also ironic as it too was a problem that Darwin faced, is that Lovelock managed to upset both the British scientific community and Church leaders. This is because, far from seeing Gaia as evidence of Intelligent Design, the Church mainly saw the Gaia hypothesis as a piece of ‘New Age’ thinking masquerading as science. Indeed, it is entirely possible that disapproval of both groups was mutually-supportive; with both being strengthened in their prejudice towards the idea by the opposition of the other (i.e. both dismissing Gaia as ‘unscientific’). However, although he may use labels like ‘hypothesis’ and metaphors like ‘the living Earth’, Lovelock warns his readers not to “…assume that I am thinking of the Earth as alive in a sentient way, or even alive as an animal or a bacterium.” (p.20) So much, then, for what Gaia is not. What, however, is it? I think the best analogy that Lovelock produces is actually an anecdote from his own childhood: This is the account (on p.47) of an early visit to the Science Museum in London during which, for the first time, he saw a working model of a steam engine “complete with James Watts’ famous governor.” As Lovelock points out, Watts’ innovation was an early example of a control system using a negative feedback (i.e. a self-correcting rather than self-reinforcing mechanism) to govern the otherwise uncontrollable engine. So, then, Lovelock’s insight was to see the biosphere as a self-regulating system, wherein changes that might otherwise make the planet uninhabitable for life tend to be eliminated in the same way that a gyroscope tends to self-stabilise. The latter being a consequence of the Law of conservation of angular momentum – the same thing that enables an ice dancer to change their speed of rotation just by moving their arms. The ice dancer may be intelligent but the gyroscope is not. Thus, there is nothing unscientific or hypothetical about the concept of Gaia. However, The Revenge of Gaia is much more than the reminiscences of an old man whose idea took some time to be accepted. The Times newspaper described Lovelock’s book as, “Riveting… a stark warning to mankind” – and the BBC’s Andrew Marr described it as, “The most important decade for decades”. This is because it is; and buried within its pages is a very stark warning indeed… ‘Daisyworld’ is an early computer model that Lovelock created to prove that the biosphere could be self-regulating: This simplistic model biosphere contains only two types of flower; white daisies (that reflect heat) and bAltman daisies (that absorb it). Running the Daisyworld model, Lovelock demonstrated that the changing populations of the two daisies had a similar effect to Watts’ governor on the steam engine; counteracting external factors that might otherwise alter the Earth’s temperature. Nothing too scary in that, I agree. However, what makes the book almost impossible to put down, is the way in which Lovelock repeatedly emphasises two things: (1) that the Sun is now nearly 25% hotter than it was when life on Earth first emerged 3 billion years ago; and (2) that the biosphere is capable of supporting more life when colder than it is now. With regard to the latter, Lovelock points out that, with the exception of areas surrounding coral reefs, cold polar oceans support much greater biodiversity than warm tropical seas. However, the really scary thing in the book is this: Lovelock and his colleagues did not stop with Daisyworld. In 1994, James Lovelock and Lee Kump produced a more sophisticated model in which the CO2 content of the atmosphere was gradually tripled from its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm over a 20 thousand year period. The results, subsequently supported by a variety of different and more complex models, suggest that our current biosphere is likely to collapse when atmospheric CO2 reaches 500 ppm and/or average atmospheric temperature rises above 20 Celsius (i.e. 3 Celsius above its pre-Industrial level) – because the surface layer of the oceans becomes too warm for oceanic algae producing cloud condensation nuclei (i.e. vital for the maintenance of the hydrological cycle). At current rates of increasing CO2 emissions, the Earth will reach this state within the next 40 years. Furthermore, just phasing out the use of fossil fuels in the next couple of decades (something we seem reluctant to contemplate doing at present) will not be sufficient to prevent the 500 ppm target being reached later in this century. To do that, CO2 will have to be artificially removed from the atmosphere. It is time, I think, that we got serious about investing in carbon capture and storage. In order to limit this blog post to a reasonable length, I have simplified a great deal and omitted an awful lot. Therefore, if you have never read The Revenge of Gaia, I would recommend that you do so (as I am doing). However, I reserve the right to return to this subject in the near future. In the interim, I would particularly welcome comments from anyone who has actually read the entire book.


About Rick Altman

Possibly just another 'Climate Cassandra' crying 'Wolf' in cyberspace. However, the moral of the old children's story is that the Wolf eventually turned up!
This entry was posted in Carbon Capture and Storage, Climate Science, Environment, Fossil Fuels, Mass Extinctions and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to From Daisyworld to Crazy World – please do not blame Gaia

  1. John Swallow says:

    Rick… [Emotive, abusive and/or unreferenced statements of personal opinion have been deleted – ML] James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his ‘Gaia’ theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being ‘alarmist’ about climate change… “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens…” “If wind turbines really worked, I wouldn’t object to them. To hell with the aesthetics, we might need them to save ourselves…” [Deleted (as above) – ML] If you think that I’m harassing you, you haven’t seen anything yet and you will realize that it would have been to your advantage to have allowed my opinions to be seen on your irrelevant blog…[Deleted (as above) – ML]


    • Rick Altman says:

      As charming as usual, Doug. Is it really over a year since I had to block your access to this site (because of your repetitive comments and insulting remarks)? Lovelock’s more-recent attempt to walk-back on his concern regarding anthropogenic CO2 is well documented; as is his antipathy towards the industrialisation of our countryside (i.e. wind turbines) and his advocacy for nuclear power (as a long-term solution to humanity’s power generation needs). None of this, however, alters the facts that (1) there have been other plateaus in the post-Industrial warming trend (e.g. from the 1940s to the 1970s); and (2) the post-industrial warming trend cannot be explained by natural climate forcing factors alone.


    • Rick Altman says:

      Oh, I almost forgot, since you have effectively admitted that you are a Troll, I have now bAltmanlisted both of the email accounts and URLs you have used today. Please do not feel under any obligation to create any more solely for my benefit.


    • Rick Altman says:

      What is the point of posting your opinions on an “irrelevant blog”?


  2. Editor B says:

    Reblogged this on Celebration of Gaia and commented: Thoughts from Rick Altman on The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock.


  3. Pingback: Another Week in the Ecological Crisis, September 15, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered

  4. ccgwebmaster says:

    I personally like Gaia hypothesis. It seems a good fit for both common sense and what is actually observed to have happened during earth history. As to evolutionary biology, I can’t see any conflict – it doesn’t really argue with evolution but as I see it acts as more of a corollary to it. In essence it ultimately limits the favourable adaptations available to a species. Using a Daisyworld example (my own, I apologise if it’s flawed) – suppose the bAltman daisies evolve to grow twice as fast as the white daisies. On the face of it under Darwinian selection – they should then out compete white daisies and become much more dominant. However, under Gaia hypothesis this doesn’t really help them as the planet starts to warm up as soon as they start to increase and this then mitigates against them. They can still evolve higher temperature tolerance (or whiteness) and benefit. Humanity is currently bAltman daisies that have evolved intelligence and the ability to use and create tools. The most optimistic outlook seems to be that it’s an open question if this is actually going to work for us (or much else) under Gaia hypothesis, even though under evolutionary thinking we should now be a virtually undisplaceable apex predator. As with the bAltman daisies our evolutionary adaptions are undermining our supporting environment and disrupting the wider system against us.


    • ccgwebmaster says:

      Just as another minor note, I think one can actually argue Gaia hypothesis implies greater biodiversity than a purely evolutionary outlook. If one pictures a daisyworld populated only by bAltman daisies – as they expand – the conditions become right for a split in the species to occur and whiteness to become a favourable characteristic. The space in the ecosystem for the other colour of daisy is hence in a sense created by the existence of the first. We see this all the time with co-evolving species and the oxygenation of earths early atmosphere would seem to be another good example. Greater biodiversity then implies greater resilience within the system (as there are more options for adjusting to a change, eg the gradual warming of the sun as identified).


      • Rick Altman says:

        Hi there, CCG. Thanks for these comments. I am nearly finished reading the book now. Lovelock challenges all sorts of stereotypical views and conventional ideas in Green Philosophy. So much so, I think this book should have been required reading on my MA in Environmental Politics. I am trying to decide whether to blog about this on one or two more posts…


  5. Pingback: Only a fool says, “There is no Gaia!” | Anthropocene Reality

  6. Pingback: James Lovelock stuck between a rock and a hard place | Anthropocene Reality

  7. Pingback: The radiating face of Gaia | Anthropocene Reality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s