3 ms·
Lovelock's an interesting character for sure. Although the "Gaia Hypothesis" ended up having a few fatal flaws, it stimulated a lot of thinking and discussion i
by photochemsyn 4y ago
Lovelock's an interesting character for sure. Although the "Gaia Hypothesis" ended up having a few fatal flaws, it stimulated a lot of thinking and discussion in the field of earth system sciences (atmospheric chemists were a lot more interested than old-school geologists and evolutionary biologists, certainly). Much of what Lovelock pointed to can also be viewed as simple chemical and physical buffering, for example the fact that the a pH-buffered chemical solution responds to the addition of acid in a manner that 'pushes back' against increasing acidity. Likewise, a planet with an ocean buffers temperature changes because the oceans can absorb and release heat in response to external forcing. Biological systems can do the same (forests buffer erosion, for example) but this isn't necessarily selected by evolution, it's just a feature of the biologicol-chemical-physical system. Ultimately, the success or failure of an individual species in a forest (due to natural selection) doesn't have much effect on the effects of a forest on the local climate, say.
All in all it was a bit of a spiritual-mystical 'Earth Mother Loves You' theme, which is nice but nature really isn't all that forgiving, as it's clear we can tip the climate system into a new mode, one which some forms of life will not have problems with, but which may drive quite a few others towards extinction.
Also, the article mentions his discovery of low levels of chlorinated and fluorinated organic compounds in the atmosphere with his improved detector, it fails to mention that Lovelock also stated at the time that they posed no environmental threat, due to their great stability. This isn't too surprising, as the chemistry that led to the release of the halogens into the stratosphere, where they destroyed the UV-protective stratospheric ozone layer, is fairly complex and unusual (ice crystal surfaces playing a big role over polar regions, radical reactions, etc.).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17778601/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17778601/
Free Radicals Within the Antarctic Vortex: The Role of CFCs in Antarctic Ozone Loss (1991)
There's no doubt, however, that Lovelock made many people think about interconnections between apparently unrelated systems and that alone was a huge lifetime success story. Frank Herbert's Dune also introduced many similar concepts to a wider audience, although that in turn was preceded by Yale's G. Evelyn Hutchinson:
https://news.yale.edu/videos/yales-g-evelyn-hutchinson-and-invention-modern-ecology https://news.yale.edu/videos/yales-g-evelyn-hutchinson-and-i...
- itronitron 4y ago>> All in all it was a bit of a spiritual-mystical 'Earth Mother Loves You' theme My exposure to the GAIA hypothesis was that the earth is a living system, not that earth mother loves me. It was an unusual combination of radical thinking and concise communication.
- jhbadger 4y agoThe problem with it is that it ignores that living creatures for the most part compete, not cooperate. Even the ones that do cooperate evolve successful "cheaters" that get the benefits of cooperation without the drawbacks. There is no "system" of the Earth but millions of competing systems. The fact that they've managed not not destroy the Earth's ecosystem (yet) is simply a coincidence. In fact, there's at least one example in the past of one that did cause such a catastrophe -- cyanobacteria, which produced the large amounts of free oxygen we have today in our atmosphere. Necessary to our (and most animals) existence, but deadly to most of the life on Earth at the time (which was anaerobic).
- nonrandomstring 4y agoIt's the character the article is really about. Much like the reverence we have for Feynman or Einstein, it's not just the science they did but the stylish way they did it. The author obviously has a great fondness. But there's another message that's strong in there, and it comes from many sources around Lovelock. It's about how desperately we need more of Lovelock's breed, and how hostile to it our "prickly" science has become. The story of Nature rejecting him, not on the merit of his ideas, but his postal address, is simply embarrassing. The article bewails the loss of visionaries, iconoclasts, intellectual courage, scepticism and independence. These are the traits we beat of children at school, and punish as trouble-making, deviance and disinformation in our now very rigid society, frightened of "alternatives". Spike Milligan was right; Real progress is like an old car. It takes a crank to get things moving.