Monday, January 16, 2006
Apocalypse soon: the revenge of Gaia
Just when you think that we've reached the bottom of the trough of pessimism, along comes James Lovelock. He's about to have his new book "The revenge of Gaia" published, and today's Independent fairly revels in the chance to give him a pulpit. In Why Gaia is wreaking revenge on our abuse of the environment by Michael McCarthy, we have a front-page spread on how we have already passed the point of no return. For those readers who feel strong enough, Lovelock himself preaches his gospel of hopelessness in The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever which may last as long as 100,000 years.
For example, the good professor says:
Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. 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: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
and follows with:
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and 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.
This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.
So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.
I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.
Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.
For example, the good professor says:
Our planet has kept itself healthy and fit for life, just like an animal does, for most of the more than three billion years of its existence. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. 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: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics.
and follows with:
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and 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.
This last snippet alludes to the cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols, which he believes will quickly disappear as industrial output plummets.
So, what's the old boy up to? He's a genuine believer in Earth's self-regulation, what he calls "Gaia". However, he makes the same mistakes as other deep greens: he believes worst case scenarios rather than looking at the evidence and, more importantly, he sees Mankind as something outside Nature. But, we humans are natural. Yes, we may have a greater range and apparent impact on the planet than other species, but that doesn't make us unnatural. What we do have is a unique capability for guilt and self-loathing, which manifests itself particularly as extreme environmentalism.
I see this as one of a series of apocalyptic prophesies over the century, this time in the trappings of environmentalism rather than religion. And yet, religion it effectively is.
Sorry, Professor Lovelock, I'm still an optimist, although I do occasionally read the Independent for entertainment value.
