Blog #8

In his section, The GAIA Hypothesis, Kohak describes James Lovelock’s view of the earth as, “…a superorganism, capable of complex organic response in maintaining an internal environment required for its own life” (Kohak, 129). In Lovelock’s view, the earth is GAIA, and GAIA can be both spiritual and scientific. The depth ecologists loving this view, readily jumped on Lovelock’s ideas, reviving the tradition of the earth seen as a personality – “…Mother Earth who cares for her children, animals, and all the members of the biotic community” (Kohak, 130).

Lovelock took a turn different from most ecologists, though, in his beliefs regarding the actions of mankind. While depth ecologists care for humanity’s beliefs regarding nature, Lovelock cares little for individual humans, only about GAIA and her stability. He is a proponent of radiation as an energy source, realizing that it may hurt humans in the immediate future, but will benefit earth in the long run. He believes humans' disastrous actions toward the earth are encoded in our being and that they will one day lead to the next, greater species to rise up to take our place – we are only a blip on the billions years old earth. Lovelock proposes that while humans are here we should live in harmony with the earth and order of GAIA on an individual basis.

The writers included in the section, Nature and the Human Animal, talks about the objectivity of science and its attempts to understand/explain human behavior. From Morris's claim that human behavior is a return to our ape nature to Wilson's belief that human genetic memory is not prepared to live in a completely civilized life, many scientists try to give the means behind the ends of human behavior, giving this behavior a morally right or wrong shade. Kohak points out that science is at its finest when it does not shade human behavior as a positive or negative, but helps one to understand the natural inclinations of humans. I believe this is true, science can act as a teacher, presenting us with information, but not judging that information. As stated by Kohak, "That I think is the great, wholly fundamental contribution of biology and sociobiology to ecological ethics. It helps us recognize what we bear within us, unaware of it though we may be, and for what we need to be prepared" (Kohak, 141).