Gaia’s Revenge
by Jason GodeskyJames Lovelock is one of the world’s greatest ecologists. He concieved of “the Gaia Hypothesis”–that the evolutionary adaptations of life to exploit new niches created a planet-wide ecosystem that regulated and compensated for changes. The marvel that earth’s conditions are perfect for life, according to the Gaia Hypothesis, is a consequence of life itself. Essentially, life on earth is, itself, a kind of superorganism. Lovelock was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989, he was one of the first ecologists to urge environmentalists to stop opposing nuclear power. Now, with his new book The Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock is stirring up a new controversy with his suggestion: “We are past the point of no return.”
In August, we discussed the implications of Siberia’s permafrost melting, and in September, we made the argument that the spectacular strength of the 2005 hurricane season was attributable to global warming. But, I am not an ecologist–celebrated or otherwise. Lovelock is, and his warning is far more dire than ours:
Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 percent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
Lovelock paints a scene right out of Mad Max, complete with “broken rabble led by brutal warlords.” In keeping with Lovelock’s view of Gaia as a superorganism, he puts global warming in terms of a “fever” that has been brought on by our reckless devastation:
We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences.
The problem is that until recently, the earth’s natural trend has been cooling. That has offset our impact–the two balanced each other, and, according to Ruddiman’s argument of a long “Anthropocene,” succeeded in unnaturally extending our current interglacial. However, with events like Siberia’s permafrost melting and the near-extinction of the Gulf stream, it seems that we may have finally increased our environmental impact enough to reverse the earth’s natural cooling trend. Now, there is nothing left to check our impact.
The Independent article linked above adds another factor to worry about:
Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet’s northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world’s industry.
This shields us from some of the sun’s radiation in a phenomenon which is known as “global dimming” and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.
Lovelock’s predictions that global warming can no longer be stopped echoes the sentiment we sounded in August, when we said in our discussion of the Siberian permafrost:
The Industrial Revolution was an innovation not in kind, but in scale–but with so tenuous an equilibrium, such a drastic increase on our side has shattered all semblance of balance. That slight change is now spiralling into a self-reinforcing, positive feedback loop. Global warming melts the arctic, changing the luminosity of the planet so we trap even more heat. Then it thaws the Siberian permafrost–possibly more than doubling the amount of methane in the atmosphere.
Humans are among the most adaptable species on the planet. It is likely that, as a species, at least some of us will survive. It is our agricultural civilization that is weak; it is our civilized life that is at risk.
There, I think the reporting of Lovelock’s comments–if not Lovelock’s ideas themselves–are flawed. As significant as he may be as an ecologist, he is not much of an anthropologist. His Mad Max scenario is at odds with everything we know of collapsing civilizations–even those that collapse due to environmental problems. Lovelock’s statements have sparked a bit of a controversy, but overshadowed in all of this is an assumption that is as understandable as it is completely wrong–humans are not synonymous with civilization.
As Tainter points out, complex societies are a recent abberation for humanity. They will no doubt cease to exist if Lovelock’s predictions hold true (and I believe they will–they have been my predictions for several months, as well), but that does not mean that humans will cease to exist, or that “the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” Humans are among the most adaptable animals on the planet–and we evolved on an African savanna. “Gaia’s fever” will mean a rearrangement of the earth. The equator may well become uninhabitable to most forms of life–at first, a scorching, lifeless desert. But that will be an empty niche that some organisms will soon adapt to, and even that will come alive. Every desert is bursting with life, for those who have eyes to see. All of our climate zones will shift pole-ward. Temperate zones and tropical zones will still exist–they’ll just exist at different latitudes. Polar climates may disappear. It will be something to adapt to, that’s for sure, and it’s going to require populations to be willing and able to migrate with the changing climate. But humans are up to it. We’ve survived climate changes before, like the end of the ice age. We’ll survive this one, too. Our crops won’t, and our civilizations won’t, but humans are some of the most adaptable animals the earth has ever seen. We’ll do what we do best–we’ll adapt.
I can’t really comment on how Lovelock’s thinking fits in with modern anthropological discourse on the end of civilization as we know it. I like to think we’ve still got a shot.
Back to one of the items referred to at the top of the article: another prominent long-time enviromentalist, Stewart Brand (founder of The Whole Earth Catalog) has also called for a second look at nuclear power. Mr. Brand has also endorsed an entertaining techno-thriller on the subject, “Rad Decision”, as a way for the lay person to better understand this energy source. The novel was written by a longtime engineer in the American nuclear power industry. It is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com.
Comment by James Aach — 17 January 2006 @ 1:52 PM
This is the book I’m looking out for, though:
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 January 2006 @ 2:25 PM
Metaphorically, I envision something much like this “survivor’s manual,” only in the form of a physical network of “monasteries.” Monsateries, despite the many other issues involved, acted as a kind of “survivor’s manual” for civilization during the dark ages. They had the goal of preserving the accumulated wisdom of classical civilization and Christianity (see, for example, the book “How the Irish Saved Civilization”). The new network of “monasteries,” however, will have a different goal: to sustain human knowledge and lessons of history that will help to establish a new human society that is more in tune with our ontogeny after the coming “new dark ages”…
In my mind, the actual book “survivor’s manual” might look more like a franchise handbook… something that can serve as an initial baseline which can then be modified as is locally necessary or desired. One key facet will, of course, be the seasonal festivals where, among other things, mutations and ideas will be shared, discussed, and evaluated. For example, topics like how to best mix the hunter-gatherer concept with the permaculture/horticulture concept to meet local desires and demands…
Comment by Jeff Vail — 17 January 2006 @ 4:29 PM
Thoughts on Lovelock’s Shortcomings
Comment by MKD — 17 January 2006 @ 6:53 PM
That’s an important point, Jeff.
We must remember that many horticultural tribes were still foragers as well, and that they relied on both for survival.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 January 2006 @ 6:57 PM
Which is why I’m so ambivalent about horticulture.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 January 2006 @ 7:24 PM
Responding to MKD’s link…
I think that’s quite fair, though. Would Shell, or ExxonMobil be in the position to do such things, if we didn’t patronize them? Their actions are not motivated by malice. They rape and destroy because we demand it. It is the unavoidable consequence of our way of life, so we are culpable. The fact that we’re unwilling to commit the atrocities ourselves, and instead pay Shell and ExxonMobil to commit them in our name, may actually make us even more guilty.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 17 January 2006 @ 7:29 PM
Yes, whether or not horticulture is sustainable is still questionable.
But as you said before, horticulturalists are not expansionistic. (Thus, if they did kill themselves off, they will not have wiped out other cultures in the first place.)
Comment by Anonymous — 17 January 2006 @ 7:51 PM
At one point I toyed with the idea of putting the basic knowledge into picture form and carving it into a dead and dry cave. Carved deeply without water present it should last a couple centuries at least. The questions would be: would anyone care, who would read it, and why would they want to know? Although I think drawing the pictures themselves should be too difficult. But some assumptions would have to be made.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 17 January 2006 @ 11:45 PM
All the effort of trying to preserve our culture’s knowledge would be much better spent trying to preserve some of its art imo. While our knowledge is relative and pretty limited in most aspects (in fact it is, in the words or Eckart Tolle, almost completely ignorant in anything that truly matters), some of the art is universal and beautiful. I have a feeling most knowledge important to a foraging/horticultural lifestyle will be maintained or at least rediscovered fast enough. It will be much sadder when I can no longer remember the words to Kahlil Gibran’s “The Prophet” or read a Vonnegut book.
Back to the nuclear power issue though, if Lovelock thinks civilization is doomed anyway, what is the point of building more nuclear facilities which will produce mountains of hazardous waste that will still be radioactive even after Gaia’s 100,000 year fever? Also, the energy required for their construction would be mean that each reactor would need to run for many years to even equal the amount of fossil fuels spent in building it.
Comment by limukala — 18 January 2006 @ 2:07 AM
Wow! A lot of issues.
I have to agree - it’ll be just us and the cockroaches. Humans as a species are the only one I know of that can adapt to radically different environments in seconds - like going in a house or putting on a coat, for instance.
These feedback loops are pretty worrisome. Local weather is made up of so many influences, that it seems which factor turns into a runaway effect for a given part of the globe is as good as random. I’d hazard a guess that the one that brings down a critical mass of civilization won’t be one anybody’s predicted.
One that’s interested me lately is the phytoplankton loss in the Pacific. They’re so numerous that they contribute significantly to fighting greenhouse effects. The general warming of the oceans is disrupting the vertical currents which bring up nutrients essential to phytoplankton’s survival. I’ve seen at least three articles about it in the last week. What’s especially interesting is that the issue was all over the news, etc., last summer when I was on the West Coast for a couple weeks. It was the reason that Salmon catches were doing badly, as I recall. Suddenly it’s NEWS?
As for the survival manual, I’ve been collecting the Firefox books. For anyone not familiar, the series began with a hotshot Cornell Master or Education who went down to Northwestern Georgia to teach. After a few months agonizing over the failures of his students, he decided he was just boring them to death, and he came up with a project. The project was to gather stories, instructions, anecdotes, oral history, etc., from the “old timers” in the area. He sent his students out to talk to folks who were around 80 in 1966, and put together a monthly magazine. This was then edited into a book, then more books.
These people managed lives with just about zero cash, and often nothing but handmade tools, often made with their own hands. Their lifestyle was probably pretty sustainable, as they’d done it for a couple hundred years. On the other hand, they did use an awful lot of timber.
Anyway, I think the books would be quite useful in most post-crash scenarios.
Finally, one word about nuclear power: HEAT!
Say we could achieve our current levels of energy with nuclear power (or even fusion power), and find ways to completely replace oil’s uses, dodge all the radioactive waste and accident problems. How long would we be happy with current levels?
The limiting factor would be that nuclear creates so much heat. All you’re doing is much more efficiently turning potential energy contained in a substance into kinetic energy. How many more power plants would it take before the localized heat effects on the bodies of water used for cooling would become generalized and a whole new global warming problem?
Comment by Sam — 21 January 2006 @ 3:37 AM
Perhaps I missed something, but I didn’t see Lovelock equating all of humanity with complex “civilized” societies. On the contrary, he specifically says that it is “agricultural civilization” that is most vulnerable, and for obvious reasons in the face of dramatic climate change, but he does suggest that humanity, as a species, will survive. Also, if Lovelock is correct about the temperature rising nearly 40 degrees fahrenheit by the end of the century, there will undoubtedly be regions left uninhabited by humans. Part of the reason we’re so adaptable now is because of our fancy modern technology - without it we’re a bit more limited in scope. If places like Virginia or North Carolina remain as humid as they are now but begin to see days in the summer of 140 degrees, I’m certain that any remaining inhabitants would either migrate north or perish from prolonged hyperthermia.
Comment by Casper — 21 January 2006 @ 2:47 PM
By the end of the paleolithic humans lived everywhere on Earth except Antartica. So, modern technology has, at most, expanded our range to barely anything in Antartica. I think we’ll be ok.
What would civilized art really mean to tribalists?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 January 2006 @ 3:48 PM
Ben,
It might not “mean” anything, but does art have to? The extreme of this is Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake,” which reportedly only really has meaning to Joyce. My college English prof claimed there were three others in the world who pretty much got it, but that was it.
Rube Goldberg’s work might be rather fun for those with even inherited memories of our current society.
How about the Dadaists?
The supposed meaning of really true art is only primary to art critics.
Comment by Sam — 22 January 2006 @ 1:49 AM
Amazing to think this great change will turn into role reversals between the rich and the poor. Those with assets will stay behind to protect them, and die. Those with nothing - but a little foraging knowledge - will be free to migrate with the food sources.
Guess horticulture will also lock one in..
Comment by Rick Larson — 8 February 2006 @ 11:26 PM
What an extraordinarily articulate and thoughtful group of people you are. I don’t get on the Internet very often - I live on a boat without electricity - and struggle on a daily basis to address the issues of self-reliance, personal pollution and ethical integrity raised by your contributors. My starting point ten years ago was to attempt to live as money-free as possible. My thought at the time was that this single premise would lead me the most expeditiously towards an undefined goal with light footsteps. My conclusions may be of interest - a) it’s fucking hard work, and b) it works like a dream. I have been fortunate and lucky enough to grow a network of people who I *have* to get along with as my survival depends on it.
Anyway, I was moved to post this not as a rant about me, but about the comments you post about art. Why, indeed, should art mean anything? Surely, any activity is measured by the contribution it makes to the business of survival? If art holds a mirror up to life, it is because the picture it reveals is helpful to people finding ways to be effective in this business. If art becomes meaningless, arguably it’s because the life it reflects has become meaningless. The first art I’ve heard about are anatomically accurate pictures of prey animals during a hunt - a ‘mirror’ with a high survival value to Neolithic artists. Where does this leave Dada?
I have much more I would like to say, but sadly my prematurely arthritic fingers stumble to keep up with the rush of thoughts woken up by your site. I commend Matt Ridley’s excellent books, ‘The Red Queen’, and ‘The Origins of Virtue’ for anyone interested in an intelligent view of evolution theory.
Thank you for touching me in the wilderness - see you all at the Apocalypse!
Love is the Law
“If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution” - Emma Goldman
Comment by kulandar — 8 January 2007 @ 11:47 AM
Limukala,
Vladimir Arnold (the mathematician) complained about the separation of mathematics from physics in most modern universities. I agree with him, otherwise we may as well abandon geometry too! (Take note - those who wish to know when they can hunt with the light of a full moon - astronomy is just an application of geometry)
So why separate art from any other knowledge? Monasteries had art, too – and it was meant to educate as well as inspire.
I suppose I’m saying that any autonomous branch of knowledge (including philosophy, art and history) is worth preserving and expanding.
As for the form of stored knowledge, it reminds me of the e-mail joke about the ‘new’ data storage device, Binder of Orderly Organised Knowledge -BOOK
Its features are:-
Low power consumption
Full backwards compatibility with other BOOKs
Stand-alone operation
Non-user-dependent
No end-of-life for version
Fast look-up and indexing
Open source!
Comment by Steve Z — 8 February 2007 @ 8:06 PM
Steve, the ‘full’ joke is adapted from a piece by Asimov… it goes:
Introducing the new Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge (BOOK)
BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology; no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It’s so easy to use even a child can operate it. Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere, even sitting in an armchair by the fire, yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc.
Here is how it works: BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of recyclable paper, each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder, which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of your finger takes you to the next sheet. BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by simply opening it.
BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting. The Browse feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with an Index feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval. An optional “BOOKMARK” accessory allows you to open BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session, even if the BOOK is closed. BOOKMARKS fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKMARK can be used in BOOKS by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOKMARKS can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited by the number of pages in the BOOK.
You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an optional programming tool, named: “Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus”-or-”PENCILS.”
Portable, durable and affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the precursor of a huge entertainment wave. BOOK’S appeal seems so certain that thousands of content-creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking to the new phenomenon. Look for a flood of new titles soon.
Comment by Blahm — 20 May 2007 @ 12:38 AM