Blog #8

I found Lovelock's GAIA hypothesis to be somewhat confusing while reading the The Green Halo, but after having thought about it and listened to the lecture on Friday, I feel I have come to a better understanding of it. Lovelock came up with the idea of the earth as being able to function on it's own and adapt to different situations (comparable to a super organism). Many people have taken his idea and expanded on it to fit their own needs, the most common adaptation of the Gaia hypothesis being one of a "mother earth" that is living and breathing as we inhabit her. I find this version of the theory to be a little too strange for me to believe or follow, although it does have some merits I suppose. I can see how treating the earth as our "mother" would be a good thing. The earth, and all that lives on it, should be respected, not damaged and destroyed without a second thought. I believe Lovelock's initial hypothesis was very similar to this idea.

However, I found it to be a little confusing when Kohak said that Lovelock believed that impeding human progress was bad. So far, most if not all of the philosophers we've read about have said that human "progress" and technology would be the downfall of the earth. To an extent, Lovelock was saying something similar. In my understanding at least, Lovelock believes progress and technology will be the downfall of humans but that the earth will live on, regenerate, and adapt just as it always has done. I think this is an interesting theory that does have some valid points to it. Lovelock points out that the earth has been around a lot longer than humanity, and that humanity is but a blip on the timeline of earth's history. Other species have come and gone, so who's to say we won't do the same?

Although I find his theory interesting, I don't think it's something I could ever endorse. I don't like his pessimistic way of thinking. I think, even if we're not sure we can help, why not try? I don't understand what the downside is to trying to preserve the earth and all the life upon it. I believe Lovelock said that it interferes with the earth's capability to restore itself - he even states that greenhouse gasses from cars and other technology are not nearly as bad as drilling oil from beneath the earth's surface (I think they're both pretty bad. Why does he have to choose one?). Overall, I don't think much good can come from believing we're all doomed.