Gaia Theory
Current scientific thinking poses a 'weak' and a 'strong' Gaia theory. There is overwhelming agreement on the basics, or 'weak' theory. Part of it is that we humans are making huge changes in the longstanding balance of nature and that the entire planet and all its inhabitants are impacted by whatever ensuing regulation is taking place.In 2006, Lovelock came out with a new book: "The Revenge of Gaia: Why the earth is fighting back - and how we can still save humanity". In it he points specifically to the damage we have done to the rainforests and the resultant loss of planetary biodiversity.
He maintains that the lack of respect we have shown the earth is testing Gaia's capacity to minimize the effects of additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Once we accept the now commonplace notion that human activities impact the biosphere, atmosphere, seas and earth, we take on both conscious awareness and responsibility. When you really think about it, it's an odd thing, because we are burdened with the responsibility for what we cannot possibly understand: the future unpredictable impacts on all life on the planet from our current activities.
According to the theory, Gaia supports life, but not necessarily life as we may know it or want it. This really gets back to our grandmother's admonition - don't mess with Mother Nature. She probably didn't add that it will come back to bite you in the butt because in her generation it hadn't yet. That is what we're experiencing now and our uncertain legacy to future generations.
Agree or disagree with the Gaia Theory, it is still of value because it raises questions that are as critical as they are unpleasant.
Consider these three:
1. The Theory broadens the discussion of human impacts. We tend to think in straight lines -- we cut some trees, pave over the earth and we get a parking lot. Simple. Cause, effect. Action, result. The problem is that our impacts are often unseen, long-term, completely unpredictable, and ripple out in complex ways that do not fit our linear thinking. Anything that encourages us to consider better stewardship of our planet is beneficial as far as I'm concerned.
2. It raises the specter of life as we wouldn't want to know it. It elevates the discussion about consequences beyond simply 'we're ruining the planet.' It suggests that our actions could have consequences that would not destroy the planet, but rather would create conditions in which human life and other forms of life we need to sustain us are not supported.
3. It creates a sense of urgency. While the Theory does not try to quantify the pace of change, it has opened a serious discussion about the probability of human-driven irreversible damage. This is worse than talking about life insurance or a will. This is the verbal and scientific equivalent of a root canal, but no less important for the pain.