Area 2: The Bio-Geo-Physical Properties of the World System (Gaia Theory)
In his book, Healing Gaia, James Lovelock (1991) described, in detail, the evolution of his own thinking and understanding regarding the Earth’s processes. And in (re)discovering Gaia theory, Lovelock happened upon a concept that has long been recognized and understood by other civilizations, far beyond the boundaries of modern Euro-America. Regarding the Gaia perspective, Lovelock wrote the following:
To understand the physiology of the Earth, how Gaia works, requires a top-down view, a view of the Earth as a whole system; if you like, as something alive. It is no use gathering together meteorologists, biologists, marine scientists, atmospheric chemists, and so on in one place and expecting results. Because of their training they will almost always be reductionist and take a bottom-up view—a view that assumes that the whole is never more than the sum of its parts and that by taking things to pieces we can find out how they work. We need science, but it must grow from the top down, as well as from the bottom up. (p. 15)
Here, Lovelock touches upon a theme of (or perhaps a craving for) holism that seems to be gaining currency in the very same superstructure of modernist disciplines that he also appears to deride (Christian, 2004; Laszlo, 2004; Lemert, 1997; Wallerstein, 2001). Beyond these modern, western-oriented disciplines, however, there is also an extant holism that spans the globe, reflected in many different societies and cultures (Christian, 2004; Scott, 2001; Some, 1994).
It is important to note also that while the examples may come from different cultures, they form a coherent epistemological framework with a high degree of overlap (Pope, 2004c). In each of these cultures the Earth is seen as an entity that is to be propitiated and sustained. Lovelock comments on the characteristics of the Great Mother Earth:
Through the ceaseless activity of living organisms, conditions on the planet have been kept favourable for life’s occupancy for the past 3.6 billion years. Any species that adversely affects the environment, making it less favourable for its progeny, will ultimately be cast out, just as surely as those weaker members of a species will fail to pass the evolutionary fitness test. (p. 25)
Lovelock also describes the origins of the name Gaia, and the characteristics associated with that name, as follows:
Gaia is the name the ancient Greeks used for the Earth goddess. This goddess, in common with female deities of other early religions, was at once gentle, feminine, and nurturing, but also ruthlessly cruel to any who failed to live in harmony with the planet. (p. 25)
Through advancements in modern Euro-American scientific theory, Lovelock has brought modern European epistemology and thoughtways full circle, returning them to a more holistic an ancient European concept of the world, via Gaia theory. In a Terracentric framework, the two concepts—the mythological motif of an Earth Goddess (Gaia) versus the concept of the Earth as a complex and dynamic organism—are simply two ways of expressing the same basic idea of viewing the Earth as a unified, living system. It is this concept of developing unifying themes across a range of cultures and texts that undergirds the research in this book.
This issue of mythological motifs serves as foundation for the next concept, below, on the “Earth-based versus Technology-based social dichotomy.” This concept is important because it provides a context (perhaps a new master narrative, of sorts) in which to place human thought and action. It must be emphasized, once again, that we are working toward viewing such thought and action in relation to Nature. If one can accept this, then it is easier to see why so-called “modern” humans might behave as they have with regard to Nature’s resources in general, and why they behave as they have with regard to Nature’s energy resources in particular. It is in the proper reading of myth, in fact, that we may come to know that issues ecology and economy, Nature and society, technology and the environment. Each domain of thought and activity has been part of a much larger and much longer discourse, spanning the last 4,000 to 5,000 years (Chew, 2001; Diamond, 2005; Mitchell, 2004).
Can (and should) the Earth itself be seen as a living entity? Consider the following points. In analyzing the yearly rise and decline in CO2 levels, the environmentalist, writer, lecturer, and former US Vice-President, Al Gore, Jr. (2006), documents the apparent respiratory-like behavior of the Earth as follows:
The vast majority of the Earth’s land mass… is north of the Equator. Thus, the vast majority of the Earth’s vegetation is also north of the Equator.
As a result, when the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun during the spring and summer, the leaves come out, as they breathe in CO2, the amount of CO2 decreases worldwide.
When the Northern Hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun in the fall and winter, the leaves fall, and as they disgorge CO2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere goes back up again.
It is as if the Earth takes a big breath in and out once each year. (pp. 32–35)
These annual respiratory pulsations of CO2 can then be charted in a repeating pattern of rise, peak, and decline each year. These annual respiratory pulsations can also imply the characteristics of a dynamic, living system.
How the Earth Functions as a Dynamic Entity
Let us make a brief survey of another variation on an expanded notion of the World System. This is best thought of as the political-economy-ecology of the World System. In order to comprehend the world in this way, it is important to first grasp some fundamental ecological concepts. This concerns the basic natural infrastructure on the surface of the Earth (including the oceans) that supports all life on the planet. Our exploration of this ecological aspect of the World System, while not exhaustive, will give us a basic framework upon which we may elaborate further discussion on the political-economic aspects of the World System.
In general, according to Pimm (2001), we should always bear two fundamental concepts in mind: global biomass and global production. He wrote further,
[Biomass and production] have the same relationship to each other as the amount of money in the bank and the interest it generates. Biomass is how much living stuff the planet has. Production is how much new stuff grows each year – the products of photosynthesis. . . . If humanity took 100 percent of the interest, there would be none left for other plants and animals, and none for any more of us. Were it more than 100 percent, we would be living on our biological capital and not just the interest. The capital would decrease each year and so too would the interest. The results would be appalling. (p. 10)
Pimm goes on to describe his methodology in terms of a calculating a “ledger of biological accounts.” The sum total of that ledger is the sum total of life-sustaining biomass that feeds all living things on the planet. Much the same way an accountant or budget analyst would total up a series of line items in a budget, so Pimm totals up the amount of available biomass and annual production on the Earth. This grand total then serves as the foundation for everything else that happens with regard to all living beings inhabiting the Earth’s surface.
Further into his analysis, Pimm introduces the concept of IPAT (pronounced like, and often referred to as simply “eye-pat”) wherein I = PAT.[1] This equation is used specifically to help determine the impact of human activity on the Earth. The meaning of eye-pat is broken down as follows:
| I (total human impact) = P (total number of people) X A (affluence [consumption rate] per person) X T (technologies used to supply consumption) |
Figure 1. “Eye-pat” formula
This formula, I=PAT, is derived by multiplying the total number of people (P), times affluence/consumption rate (A) per person, times the technology (T) leveraged/used to supply that consumption. The result is an elegantly simple instrument for measuring the aggregate impact of human activity on the Earth.
With the two sets of concepts outlined above, biomass and production on the one side, and eye-pat (I=PAT) on the other, we may then begin to have a fundamental framework for our analysis of what I call the World System balance sheet, shown below.
| Debit (what humans can take) | Credit (what is made available) |
| I = P x A x T | Biomass (Interest) + Production (Principle) |
Figure 2. World system balance sheet formula
The above balance sheet is only a framework. In order to fill in that framework with actual data, we would have to then fill in each of the variables noted under “Debit” and “Credit” respectively. That work has been done previously by others, including Pimm himself, and is beyond the scope of this book.
The reader should take note of two important points: a) We concern ourselves here specifically with the role of human activity on the Earth; this activity subsequently influences the operation of the World System; and b) The above formula shows a snapshot in time of what is essentially a dynamic process. Because the system is dynamic, the operation or the trajectory of the World System should be seen as feeding back into the Earth’s ecological and environmental activity. In this way, a cycle is revealed, showing the iterative relationship between humans—who appear capable of having the greatest impact on the Earth of any single species—and the rest of the planet’s interlocking life support systems.
END
Next: The interrelationship between human perception and resource utilization
[1] Pimm credits two University of California professors, Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren (1971), with the creation of I=PAT (eye-pat).
