The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet

by Michael Ruse

In 1965 English scientist James Lovelock had a flash of insight: the Earth is not just teeming with life; the Earth, in some sense, is life. He mulled this revolutionary idea over for several years, first with his close friend the novelist William Golding, and then in an extensive collaboration with the American scientist Lynn Margulis. In the early 1970s, he finally went public with the Gaia hypothesis, the idea that everything happens for an end: the good of planet Earth. Lovelock and Margulis were scorned by professional scientists, but the general public enthusiastically embraced Lovelock and his hypothesis. People joined Gaia groups; churches had Gaia services, sometimes with new music written especially for the occasion. There was a Gaia atlas, Gaia gardening, Gaia herbs, Gaia retreats, Gaia networking, and much more. And the range of enthusiasts was—and still is—broad.

           

In The Gaia Hypothesis , philosopher Michael Ruse, with his characteristic clarity and wit, uses Gaia and its history, its supporters and detractors, to illuminate the nature of science itself. Gaia emerged in the 1960s, a decade when authority was questioned and status and dignity stood for nothing, but its story is much older. Ruse traces Gaia’s connection to Plato and a long history of goal-directed and holistic—or organicist—thinking and explains why Lovelock and Margulis’s peers rejected it as pseudoscience. But Ruse also shows why the project was a success. He argues that Lovelock and Margulis should be commended for giving philosophy firm scientific basis and for provoking important scientific discussion about the world as a whole, its homeostasis or—in this age of global environmental uncertainty—its lack thereof.

           

Melding the world of science and technology with the world of feeling, mysticism, and religion, The Gaia Hypothesis will appeal to a broad range of readers, from students and scholars of the history and philosophy of science to anyone interested in New Age culture.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Nature

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Michael Escott Ruse was a British-born Canadian philosopher of science who specialised in the philosophy of biology and worked on the relationship between science and religion, the creation–evolution controversy, and the demarcation problem within science. Ruse began his career teaching at The University of Guelph and spent many years at Florida State University.

Reviews

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

While getting too technical and dry in places, The Gaia Hypothesis remains a solid and readable exploration of the story of the titular hypothesis. It provides a good explication of the personalities of Lovelock and Margulis and the intellectual currents that led them to their controversial hypothesis of the biosphere as behaving as a single, self-regulating organism. The chief focus, however, is Ruse' attempt to understand why the public so embraced the hypothesis while the scientific establishment greeted it with scorn, at best. In short, the Gaia hypothesis spoke and speaks to a deep current of thought in philosophy, religion, and approach to nature going back to Plato and earlier that sees and seeks to understand the world as a sinuous whole, while science has developed primarily along lines of mechanism and reductionism. In short, the Gaia hypothesis was born with considerable, though not necessarily understood, metaphysical baggage that made it suited for the environmental consciousness and desire to understand humanity as part of a whole of the time, while being rather poor science. I have heard critics of the book complain that Ruse is too sympathetic to the hypothesis, but I don't think this is so. Ruse is a philosopher with strong but fairly conventional views and deep understanding of science, but he is a man who always tries to understand the subject with which he is dealing and the mindset and world view from which it is born. I think the fact that he tries to understand without dismissing out of hand is often mistaken for acceptance. He clearly sympathizes with Lovelock and Margulis, but not so much, I think, with the Gaia hypothesis as science. That is my read at least. All in all, an enlightening, if sometimes difficult read.

[Bart Everson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've long been fascinated with the Gaia hypothesis. I've been curious about the scientific angle as well as the broader cultural import of Gaia. I've read some of Lovelock's popular work, as well of some of his critics. However, I lack the necessary training to follow the technical discourse in scientific journals.

Therefore, I read this book by Michael Ruse with great relish. Perhaps you're familiar with the academic discipline known as the "History and Philosophy of Science"? That's his approach, and it is comprehensive, going all the way back to Thales and Plato. Especially Plato. Always coming back to Plato. It's like an obsession. He also doesn't shy away from venturing outside the domain of science to consider Pagans like Oberon Ravenheart-Zell, though his humor seems a bit patronizing.

What I gained most here was a better understanding of James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, their work and their personalities, how they collaborated on the idea of Gaia and what their individual contributions and differences were, how the work was received by the larger scientific community, how they responded, and how all this has evolved over time, right up to the present day.

I also learned a nifty new word: hylozoism, the idea that the world or the universe is alive. As Ruse would have it, there's a deep and fundamental divide with mechanistic Darwinians on one side and organismic Platonists on the other. The Platonists argue for a hylozoic perspective. The Darwinians are agin it.

I'm not sure I buy it all, though it's hard to argue with Ruse's erudition. I can't help but wonder: Is a non-Platonic hylozoism possible?

Because Ruse delves so deeply into the history of scientific thought, one gains insight into just what's at stake with Gaia, why people react to it so strongly, and why the controversy isn't liable to go away.

[Logan Streondj · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think a better title would be "a history of the Gaia concept in academia" which is what it is. A rather detached overview that explains what ivory tower intellectuals think of the Gaia hypothesis.

[Floris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a lot more than just an account of the Gaia hypothesis, the view that the Earth as a whole is a living organism, self-regulated by its own biological and physical processes. The book does that very well. But it is also a history of the concept of life on earth, from Aristotle and Plato to pagans and Rachel Carson. It is also a biography of two of the 20th century’s most remarkable scientists, james Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, drawing heavily on interviews and personal correspondences, and giving an insight into the people behind the theories. It’s also an assessment of how the scientific community responds to challenging new ideas, and what motivates these responses. Spoiler: it they weren’t all jumping on board the Gaia train. But it found a lot more fans in non-scientific communities. That, ultimately, is the “paradox” that the book was written to solve.

I really like the structure of the book. Having introduced the concept of Gaia and its reception in the scientific community, Ruse then rewinds over two millennia, tracing the long history of theories about life and nature , before arriving back at the twenty-first century. It’s a compelling method of introducing a topic, setting up a problem, and then gradually building up to an answer. That build up sometimes feels too gradual, as Ruse discusses certain concepts in great technical depth. It's probably for that reason that I can't recommend it to _everyone_, but for people who enjoy the history of biology or ecology it's an excellent pick.

[SeaShore · Rating 2 out of 5]

I never read anything by Ruse but found this book in my research of Gaia. The author wraps up the history of Gaia, pointing out that the idea of Gaa existed long before James Lovelock. To me, he makes Lovelock seem small and Lynn Margulis even smaller.Ruse quotes from other scientists such as Brockman 1995 who agrees the Earth is an ecosystem not an organism. Brockman explains why Lovelock might have used the word Organism to get more people thinking. It is interesting that William Golding and Lovelock were neighbours and had pub nights 'chattering away'- Gaia or what? Never having been fascinated with novel, Lord of the Flies, my interest is even less now. Ruse speculates on what might have happened if Richard Dawkins and Lovelock were neighbours. Why did Lovelock take so long (he is in his 90s now) to speak his truths? Perhaps money and finances; perhaps his family responsibilities- taking care of his disabled son.
See Sébastien Dutreuil writing in the hal.archives or Dreamers, Visionaries, and Revolutionaries in the Life Sciences by Oren Solomon Harman.

[The Inquisitive Biologist · Rating 5 out of 5]

A challenging but satisfying book, The Gaia Hypothesis is a rigorous analysis of its historical precursors and a piercing character study of Lovelock, explaining why Gaia was rejected by scientists but embraced by the public. Read my full review at https://inquisitivebiologist.com/2023...

[Gary Mcfarlane · Rating 4 out of 5]

A long read but interesting especially if you teach biology as if clarifies what should be discussion about the Gaia Hypothesis.

[Tiffany · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5