This does not mean that humans should stop inventing, but rather that engineering should shift attention to become as smart as Gaia in achieving nearly closed material cycling powered by sustainable energy. And if Gaia isn’t science, then why are some scientists embracing it?Įmbodying nature with volition and wisdom is particularly evident when Lenton contrasts human energy use and recycling with those of Gaia, saying,Ĭompared to Gaia, this is a very poorly coupled and unsustainable set of inventions. For example, the authority for why Lenton feels justified to doubt the effectiveness of many human inventions is that “an audit made by Gaia would question the purported quality of many innovations and note that from an engineering standpoint, they perform poorly.” So, Gaia has the ability to evaluate and somehow becomes the measure by which we judge scientific innovations rather than using the scientific method as our evaluating benchmark? If Gaia can replace science, then Gaia isn’t science. The unabashed personification of nature in the leading scientific journal of the United States is remarkable. He suggests, “Making such conscious choices to operate within Gaia constitutes a fundamental new state of Gaia, which we call Gaia 2.0.” 1
He offers his vision for how humans could make a conscious effort to interact with Gaia and-because he feels that we are all one with Gaia-fundamentally change Gaia as they change themselves. Lenton builds off the fact that more people today are becoming aware of the environmental effects of their choices. 3 However, Lenton doesn’t write about Gaia as a theoretical framework, but as an all-pervading entity-within which he believes everything is connected, functions, and through which life came into existence. Lenton has been passionate about the original Gaia Theory and works on contemporary developments. This has led some researchers to ask, “Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts?” 2 In contrast, Lovelock hypothesized that the organic and inorganic components of Earth evolved together so tightly that everything on Earth somehow became melded into a single, self-organizing system that seems to mystically exercise an intrinsic agency. His theory was meant to tie together several biological phenomena, particularly the tight-knit cooperation between living organisms, life’s resilience in the face of catastrophic events, and the close association between the organic and inorganic realms.Īll of these observations could be seen as working together with such purposefulness that one explanation for life’s origination is the tremendous wisdom and power of God. “The Gaia hypothesis-first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s-holds that Earth’s physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.” 2 Lovelock named his theory after the mythological goddess-venerated as the personification of Earth. 1 Their paper provides another chance to highlight how deeply religious evolutionists can be-not in their veneration of God, but of nature itself. Publishing in Science, evolutionary ecologist Tim Lenton from the University of Exeter and co-author, French sociologist Bruno Latour, laud nature’s innate cognitive powers in their new paper, Gaia 2.0.
Some proudly personify nature in first-person, calling her Gaia after the Greek Earth goddess.
The inclination of some evolutionists to project God-like powers onto nature is becoming more prominent in scientific literature.
0 kommentar(er)
