The
Gaia Hypothesis, that the earth is best thought of as a single
living entity, seems to me to imply a reevaluation of the different
forms awareness takes. Of what significance is it, to consider the
existence of a Gaia entity if you don't consider her to be self aware?
Of course the earth, or at least the biosphere, is alive. The question
is: are the life forms upon it, as traditionally thought, individuals or
family groups or are they in some sense, a single entity? If we wish
to think of them as a single entity, they must be interconnected in
some understandable way. Of course we all share the same
environment and therefor are mutually interdependent, that doesn't
require a Gaia Hypothesis.
For the Gaia Hypothesis to be meaningful, Gaia must be
considered to be a being in which all of her parts are connected as
the cells in our bodies are, aimed at some recognizable goal. The cells
must have a means of communication via which decisions about
strategies in pursuit of that goal can be transmitted to individual
members and they must have some executive body, similar to the
human brain, in which strategic decisions are formulated and acted
upon.
One of the problems humans have in properly considering
this question is an inadequate understanding of awareness. So, some
definitions must precede a careful consideration of the question of
Gaia.
Awareness: Sensitivity to existence. All living things are
aware, no other things are. We will stipulate that basic awareness is
the same for all. Without sensors, it simply amounts to self
recognition. With sensors it becomes aware of the distinction
between the inside and the outside. Awareness expands to the
recognition that there are other objects than itself and that it exists
within an environment. Beyond basic awareness, it should be clear
that humans have brought something new to the table, objective
awareness. Objective awareness, or consciousness, recognizes a
complete separation between subject and object. This awareness
arises in consequence of having a brain capable of concentration of
energy sufficient to make a clear distinction between objects and a
separation between them and the observer. A consequence of this is
the formation of the ego which produces a personality and a more
refined appreciation for the distinction between different objects
including the observer himself.
Opposed to objective awareness is subjective awareness.
This we shall call Gaia awareness. Humans are very familiar with
subjective awareness but are disinclined to distinguish it from
consciousness. We need more refinement here. To demonstrate
consciousness one must have a memory of the event after a
significant length of time. Otherwise it is more accurate to say we
are only aware. So, subjective or Gaia awareness occurs, for example,
when we drive to work while thinking of something else. The
thinker is experiencing objective awareness while the driver is
experiencing subjective awareness.
So, for the Gaia Hypothesis to be meaningful, we must
postulate subjective awareness for her. That is to say that all living
things must be subjectively aware. There is no reason to doubt this.
All living things demonstrate some form of awareness, even down to
the microscopic in size. It has been recently demonstrated that
sperm perform defensive operations in order to try to guarantee that
one of their family is successful in the effort to fertilize an ovum.
Gaia can certainly be recognized to have a goal, her own survival.
Communications would seem to be going on, at least within family
groups. Beyond this, we must get a little speculative.
I propose that comprehensive communications are going on
via feelings. We are all under the control of our feelings and we are
in no sense able to control them. They usually arise as a reaction to
the events of our lives, but not always. All animals close enough to
humans to evaluate, like pets and other domestic animals seem to
share a recognition of feelings with humans, so there is no reason to
think other living things lack this form of communication.
Finally, we need some form of executive for Gaia. This is
the most difficult to identify. Traditionally, Gaia is considered to be
feminine. This has certain consequences, among them a tendency to
decentralization. Among the known features of life available for this
function is DNA. It is a good choice. It exists at the cellular level and
therefor is available to all living things. It controls the form and
function of living things. It is capable of disseminating instructions.
It is apparently constant for each life cycle of living entities but is
capable of and does change through sexuality at each new
generation. It may change during individual lives, at least those
representations available for sexual contact.
Can we consider DNA to be, in itself, alive? This may or
may not be necessary, but in observing the method by which it joins
with its sexual collaborator in the formation of a new generation, this
may be a reasonable conjecture. So, the result of this analysis is to
postulate that the entirety of DNA should be considered to be the
Gaia executive, capable of making strategic decisions for
enhancement of survival potential of Gaia. DNA should be considered
to be a data base containing the life experience of all living things,
may even contain a record of all formerly living things. It should
also be considered to be capable of self modification in response to a
need to adapt to new conditions. The totality of living cells should
therefor be considered to be the body of Gaia. These cells should be
considered to be subjectively aware.
* * *
Problems solved by postulating the existence of Gaia
There is no point for the Gaia Hypothesis unless it solves
some problems in understanding our environment and therefor
ourselves.
1. The current scientific understanding of the genesis of life
on our planet is called the Darwinian Theory after the inventor,
Charles Darwin. Darwin solves the problem of how life came to be so
diverse by suggesting random mutations due to solar radiation and
other causes that results in variations in the makeup of individual
life forms and that when these variations are useful, competition
forces the change to dominate and then spread throughout the
species. That this goes on is hard to deny. The question is: is this a
comprehensive answer? The opponents of this theory, mainly
religious, find it incapable of comprehensivity. They point to many
living entities that are hard to imagine arising in a series of
sequential steps, each of which must have been capable of giving the
bearer a procreative advantage. Some structures are so complicated,
they say, that the initial parts must have generated and been
disseminated among members even though they had no such
advantage. In individual cases they have a strong point, though one
can also contend that humans are just incapable of identifying the
correct series of steps. It is also suggested that the anti Darwinists
are incapable of appreciation of the time spans available for these
modifications.
It is also suggested that symbiosis is difficult to explain
with Darwinism. This is a less compelling suggestion though. It can
be imagined that symbiosis starts out as parasitism and develops
into symbiosis via the Darwinian mechanism.
So, the Gaia Hypothesis solves this problem. One shouldn't
conclude that the Gaia approach, strategic modification through
awareness is comprehensive either. One should conclude that
Darwinism is one of the mechanisms Gaia has devised.
2. The seemingly excessively mechanistic view of life that
science provides. This is due to the tendency to view living things as
machines lacking awareness, especially at the lower end of the size
spectrum, and the tendency to devalue any sort of awareness other
than human.
3. The excessively masculine orientation of human life in
the West. Masculinism is characteristically autocratic and
unimpressed with femininity. It devalues feelings in favor of
thinking, relationships in favor of understanding.
4. The more and more distressing tendency of humans to
devastate the environment in fulfillment of needs.
5. The tendency of humans to arrogance, pride, and
hubris.
6. The devastating wars humans are subject to because of
their tendency to minimize feelings and to demand obedience.
7. The possibility that humans might destroy the
environment with weapons of mass destruction.
8. The alienation between man and his body produced by Christianity and perhaps other
religions, because of its tendency to override our spiritual beliefs. The body would appear
to be capable of forcing us to violate spiritual law and sometimes man's law too. The
result is to produce a sort of contempt in some humans for their bodies, the archetypal
case being St. Paul. This is a very serious problem since it can and does produce very
destructive behavior in sufferers. The Salem Witch Trials are a good example.
Problems produced by the Gaia Hypothesis.
1. The usurpation by Gaia of the prerogatives of God
producing a need to redefine God.
2. The increase in the importance of environmentalism
leading to damage to the world economy.