Blog 8 - GAIA hypothesis

It has become apparent throughout The Green Halo that Kohak has the mindset of a flannel ecologist. With this being said it can be seen that he does not totally agree with everything James Lovelock says in his GAIA hypothesis. “It would be hard, though, to blame those flannel activists......if Lovelock’s version of harmony with Gaia were to appear...like a lifeboat ethics.” This quote shows that Kohak cannot agree with Lovelock’s tragic view of life and his thoughts that flannel ecologists are wasting their time trying to change the world through their actions.

Lovelock focuses on the overall order of Gaia, and when he thinks of humans it is only how they are playing their part that was set out by Gaia. Our current ways of over-consumption, overpopulation, needless waste, and pollution are hurting the earth, but as Lovelock says, “Gaia gives and Gaia takes away, its life will live on in its own way.” Lovelock realizes that humans’ current way of life is destructive, but it will only result in the eventual destruction of humankind. But this is not the destruction of Gaia, merely one of many changes she has seen of billions of years. Gaia will live on and some other species will exude dominance in the changed world. This is the tragic view that Kohak points out that seems similar to lifeboat ethics. We cannot save everyone and it would be pointless to try. Let the world stay on the course it is on, Gaia will not notice.

Lovelock believes we can change things, but not through the planting of trees and other “flannel” means. He believes that human actions are really insignificant in the grand scheme of things and cannot change the development of the cosmos. The way to survive is to live in harmony with Gaia and let the individual hand of evolution take its course. Gaia, the superorganism will find a way to correct any adverse changes we have caused overtime and us living in harmony with her will increase our chances of long term survival. This viewpoint obviously does not sit well with Kohak. He believes that hands-on measures can make a great change to the world, but Lovelock calls such actions pointless and insignificant. And the fact that we should just sit back and allow the “invisible hand” to shape the world as it pleases is something similar to lifeboat ethics. It is easy to see why Kohak throws that last sentence into the section, to show he does not agree with such sentiments. Lovelock does provide an interesting and original idea into the midst of environmental philosophy, but the implications of his idea are hard to accept. It is against our nature to sit back and let events take their course with out trying to change them to our advantage.