The GAIA Hypothesis

This section discusses the the GAIA hypothesis which was proposed by James Lovelock and refers to the functioning of the Earth in terms of its internal environment. he believes that the biosphere takes care of itself and has the potential to keep the planet healthy by controlling its environment. Unlike other people disccussed so far, Lovelock is not concerned with people; rather, he is concerned with GAIA and the entire system of the Earth. He also believes how humankind broke out of the natural order as evidenced by the fact that we pollute and destory the world. Similar to depth ecology, Lovelock insists that humans need to develop a new harmony with Gaia.

Personally, it was nice to read about someone who did not focus on how bad humans are but instead focus on the order of life and how humans are a part of Gaia. i found it interesting and have to agree with the discussions on page 135. It is explained how Lovelock does his share to care for the Earth (i.e. creating a refuge for nature and eating less meat) in order to "live in harmony with Gaia. It goes on to say that he may ont block the path of prgress and it would be vain if he tried (pg. 135). In essence, this seems as if it is stating it is important for people to do small things while keeping the future in mind, for each small act will help. I liked how Kohak stated that we can eaither live in harmony with the order of things or we can live in conflict (pg. 135). It is such a simple fact yet for obvious reasons it seems as if many humans fail to recognize this.

The part on nature and the human animal was intersting because it focused on what humans should do. It begins by stating that modifying human behavior would be dishonest. In my opinion, I do believe that attempting to change humans ways of life is rather difficult. As stated on 136, it is something that deals with the freedom humans possess. Basically, so long as we keep considering ourselves "above" animals, we will keep acting in such ways that show a profound sense of neglect for nature and animals as a whole. For me, I feel like we do not have to justify or prove that humans are better than animals, simply respect nature and animals and realize that we would not be where we are without it. It is ironic that humans cannot live without nature, however, we are the ones completely destroying it.

As Morris explained, humans are related to primates and we reflect each other. He called attention to sociobiology which sought to understand the human genetic memory. Other people such as Wilson had intersting points such as "diversity is life" (pg. 138). I think this is an extremely important statement, especially pertainign to today's society. Life is and always will be full of diverse cultures, people, beliefs, and ways of life. To me, when the three responses to the question of, "is what is natural also good?" were discussed, it reveals how nothing related to this topic is black and white. There are many things to be considered; I especially liked the statement "learning what is natural does not provide us with the guide to acting" (pg. 141). I feel like one has to consider the act itself as well as the short term and long term outcomes before making a decision or deciding what ought to be. I feel that having more knowledge about an issue should assist in one's moral decision making but they should not justify their decision just by what one person deems to be "right".