What do you think?
Rate this book
The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?
In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleontologist Peter Ward proposes a revolutionary and provocative vision of life's relationship with the Earth's biosphere—one that has frightening implications for our future, yet also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, he argues that life might be its own worst enemy. This stands in stark contrast to James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis—the idea that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth. In answer to Gaia, which draws on the idea of the "good mother" who nurtures life, Ward invokes Medea, the mythical mother who killed her own children. Could life by its very nature threaten its own existence?
According to the Medea hypothesis, it does. Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomass—a decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planet—its dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out.
Breathtaking in scope, The Medea Hypothesis is certain to arouse fierce debate and radically transform our worldview. It serves as an urgent challenge to all of us to think in new ways if we hope to save ourselves from ourselves.
According to the Medea hypothesis, it does. Ward demonstrates that all but one of the mass extinctions that have struck Earth were caused by life itself. He looks at our planet's history in a new way, revealing an Earth that is witnessing an alarming decline of diversity and biomass—a decline brought on by life's own "biocidal" tendencies. And the Medea hypothesis applies not just to our planet—its dire prognosis extends to all potential life in the universe. Yet life on Earth doesn't have to be lethal. Ward shows why, but warns that our time is running out.
Breathtaking in scope, The Medea Hypothesis is certain to arouse fierce debate and radically transform our worldview. It serves as an urgent challenge to all of us to think in new ways if we hope to save ourselves from ourselves.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2009
17 people are currently reading
658 people want to read
About the author
Peter D. Ward
29 books104 followersPeter Douglas Ward is an American paleontologist and professor of Biology and of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle. He has written popular numerous science works for a general audience and is also an adviser to the Microbes Mind Forum.
His parents, Joseph and Ruth Ward, moved to Seattle following World War II. Ward grew up in the Seward Park neighborhood of Seattle, attending Franklin High School, and he spent time during summers at a family summer cabin on Orcas Island.
Ward's academic career has included teaching posts and professional connections with Ohio State University, the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the University of California, McMaster University (where he received his PhD in 1976), and the California Institute of Technology. He was elected as a Fellow of the California Academy of Sciences in 1984.
Ward specializes in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and mass extinctions generally. He has published books on biodiversity and the fossil record. His 1992 book On Methuselah's Trail received a Golden Trilobite Award from the Paleontological Society as the best popular science book of the year. Ward also serves as an adjunct professor of zoology and astronomy.
His book The End of Evolution was published in 1994. In it, he discussed in three parts, each about an extinction event on earth.
Ward is co-author, along with astronomer Donald Brownlee, of the best-selling Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, published in 2000. In that work, the authors suggest that the universe is fundamentally hostile to advanced life, and that, while simple life might be abundant, the likelihood of widespread lifeforms as advanced as those on Earth is marginal. In 2001, his book Future Evolution was published, featuring illustrations by artist Alexis Rockman.
Ward and Brownlee are also co-authors of the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of the World, which discusses the Earth's future and eventual demise as it is ultimately destroyed by a warming and expanding Sun.
According to Ward's 2007 book, Under a Green Sky, all but one of the major mass extinction events in history have been brought on by climate change—the same global warming that occurs today. The author argues that events in the past can give valuable information about the future of our planet. Reviewer Doug Brown goes further, stating "this is how the world ends." Scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds also warn that the fossil record supports evidence of impending mass extinction.
His parents, Joseph and Ruth Ward, moved to Seattle following World War II. Ward grew up in the Seward Park neighborhood of Seattle, attending Franklin High School, and he spent time during summers at a family summer cabin on Orcas Island.
Ward's academic career has included teaching posts and professional connections with Ohio State University, the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the University of California, McMaster University (where he received his PhD in 1976), and the California Institute of Technology. He was elected as a Fellow of the California Academy of Sciences in 1984.
Ward specializes in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and mass extinctions generally. He has published books on biodiversity and the fossil record. His 1992 book On Methuselah's Trail received a Golden Trilobite Award from the Paleontological Society as the best popular science book of the year. Ward also serves as an adjunct professor of zoology and astronomy.
His book The End of Evolution was published in 1994. In it, he discussed in three parts, each about an extinction event on earth.
Ward is co-author, along with astronomer Donald Brownlee, of the best-selling Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, published in 2000. In that work, the authors suggest that the universe is fundamentally hostile to advanced life, and that, while simple life might be abundant, the likelihood of widespread lifeforms as advanced as those on Earth is marginal. In 2001, his book Future Evolution was published, featuring illustrations by artist Alexis Rockman.
Ward and Brownlee are also co-authors of the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of the World, which discusses the Earth's future and eventual demise as it is ultimately destroyed by a warming and expanding Sun.
According to Ward's 2007 book, Under a Green Sky, all but one of the major mass extinction events in history have been brought on by climate change—the same global warming that occurs today. The author argues that events in the past can give valuable information about the future of our planet. Reviewer Doug Brown goes further, stating "this is how the world ends." Scientists at the Universities of York and Leeds also warn that the fossil record supports evidence of impending mass extinction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
June 27, 2009
An interesting hypothesis clearly explicated, a well-argued refutation of an opposing hypothesis, and a daring conclusion drawn (all of which the work provides) would make a better book in the hands of a more adept author and a marginally competent editor. Unfortunately, Mr. Ward seems to lack patience in bringing his books to press and has not found the right editor to guide him through the process. There must still be some experienced and conscientious editors out there, although they are keeping an increasingly low profile. So I applaud the ideas (hence three stars) but deplore the delivery. The final section of the book is particularly weak. It almost seems as if the publisher suggested, "Why don't you say something hopeful after all the bad news?" That nothing hopeful can be said is soon apparent, and the attempt seems a pathetic ending for what could have been a stronger book. When one adds examples of confusion between "former" and "latter," words left out of sentences which the reader must fill in, letters left out of words, and charts with unexplained abbreviations and lines, reading the work becomes more of an interactive experience than most readers would tolerate. For those of us who have become used to brilliant scientists who can write lucid and entertaining prose (such as, for example, Stephen Jay Gould), a book such as this becomes a burden rather than a pleasure. Nevertheless, I would advise anyone interested in the future of life on earth to grit the teeth, get out the red pencil and read this alternative view of nature as anything but a caring mother.
April 1, 2023
The answer is yes.
July 17, 2014
Jorden er ikke den gode moder Gaia men den slemme moder Medea, der dræber sin børn, skriver biologen Peter Ward i denne opsigtsvækkende nye bog.
Metaforer er farlige. Især dem, der laver en idé om til en person - ja måske endda til en Gud. En af de nye metaforer inden for debatten om klimaet er ideen om Jorden som Gaia, efter den græske gudinde Gaia, der ifølge myten skabte Jorden ud af kaos. Englænderen James Lovelock var manden bag Gaia-hypotensen. Den siger at biosfæren som helhed er i stand til at holde sig selv i en form for ligevægt - i en livsstøttende homeostasis.
Nu kommer Peter Ward og vil ødelægge det hele. Han er professor i biologi og "Earth and Planetary Science" ved Washington Universitet samt astrobiolog ved NASA. Han har skrevet flere bøger om paleontologi og klima, blandt andet den tankevækkende populærvidenskabelige bog Under a Green Sky, hvor livet som vi kender det, er ved at blive udslettet. Han er med andre ord en stor kanon.
Ward er mere end skeptisk over for Gaia. Tværtimod fortæller al hans viden og forskning ham, at livet på Jorden har tendens til at ødelægge det for sig selv. At al den positive feedback, al den malthusianske vækst og alt det darwinistiske selektionstryk karakteriserer livet på Jordkloden som en kamp mod Den Store Stygge Moder Medea, der i sidste ende vil udslette livet, hvis det ikke flygter, eller selv overtager styringen.
Med bogen The Medea Hypothesis har Ward sat sig for at fortælle bagsiden af Gaia og foreslå en alternativ metafor for livets historie siden det boblede op af metan-sumpen knap fire milliarder år tilbage.
Gaias mange ansigter
Gaia-teorien har en broget historie. Da den blev fremlagt af Lovelock i bogen Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth blev den fejet af bordet af det videnskabelige establishment. Siden har hypotesen differentieret sig ud i mange retninger.
Noget af den har frembragt frugtbar forskning om, hvordan Jorden som samlet system fungerer, og den har på sin vis grundlagt et helt nyt forskningsfelt 'Videnskaben og Jorden og Verden' (Earth and Planetary Science), der til stadighed frembringer nye erkendelser. Andre ting har vist sig at være ganske forkerte, og stadig andre ting er gået hen og blevet pseudovidenskabeligt New Age mytologi, efter formlen: mennesket er ondt og resten af naturen er god.
Der findes ifølge Ward flere forskellige videnskabelige varianter af Gaia-teorien. Den 'svageste' variant kalder han den co-evolutionære Gaia, som blot siger, at alle levende systemer på kloden er koblede med hinanden og med deres miljø, og derfor udvikler sig sammen. Den anses i dag som trivielt sand. Den 'stærkeste' variant er lidt science-fiction agtig: Jorden Gaia er en slags superorganisme, der optimerer sig selv til at kunne supportere liv. Optimeringen er ifølge nogle selvorganiseret, ifølge New Age folket formålsorienteret.
Lovelock selv har tendens til at puste til New Age ilden ved at sige at 'Gaia har fået feber', og udgive bøger som hedder The Revenge of Gaia, hvor metaforen bliver nærmest teleologisk. Han har dog aldrig selv eksplicit lagt noget formål ind i 'bevidstheden' på Gaia, men mange af Lovelocks proselytter har. De ser Gaia som den, der passer på sine børn og viser dem vej; eller som den, der er blevet ked af det, fordi menneskene forurener; eller som den, der nu renser ud, ved at gøre kloden ubeboelig for mennesker og redde resten af arterne, osv.
Sejret til døde
Overlevelsen er ifølge Ward ikke kun en kamp om ressourcer mod andre arter men også en kamp mod egen hyperbolsk succes. Det er ikke kun mennesket, der med industrialiseringen og udtømningen af Jordens ressourcer har sejret ad helvede til. Andre arter har gjort det før os. De er grunden til mange af de tidligere hændelser af masseuddøen i evolutionshistorien.
Da ilt-producerende fotosyntetiske mikrober opstod for cirka tre milliarder år siden, forårsagde det en enorm masseuddøen af næsten alle anaerobe arter. Atmosfæren blev forgiftet med ilt fra mikrobernes fordøjelse. Og senere, for 2,3 mia år siden, da disse cyanobakterier havde fjernet alle drivhusgasser fra atmosfæren, blev det så koldt på kloden, at oceanerne frøs til is. En ny masseuddøen skete, og tog de fleste arter med sig, inklusive mange af cyanobakterier selv.
En anden selvudslettende masseuddøen skete i flere omgange mellem 1-2 milliarder år siden, da oceanerne blev lilla og stank af rådne æg. Disse såkaldte Canfield-oceaner, opkaldt efter Don Canfield, der arbejde på Syddansk Universitet, opstod sandsynligvis på grund af nogle svovl-reducerende bakterier, som der i dag er meget færre af, og gemmer sig på bunden af havet.
Disse og mange flere eksempler er ifølge Ward medea'ske. Og man må give ham, at det er en overbevisende og lang liste. Liv udsletter andet liv, og nogle gange sig selv. Vi mennesker er derfor ikke specielt ondskabsfulde. Vi er blot en ny form for ubehjælpeligt liv med alle dets indbyggede skavanker.
Metaforer er ikke teorier
Som teori synes Medea-hypotesen dog lige så problematisk som Gaia-hypotesen. Den skal helst ikke tages bogstavelig som værende en græsk gudinde, der planlægger at dræbe livet på Jorden. Men selv dens mere videnskabelige formulering er uklar:
»Jordens beboelighed har været påvirket af livets tilstedeværelse, men den overordnede effekt af livet har været og vil fortsætte med at være en reducering af levedygtigheden af Jorden som en beboelig planet.« (side 35)
Det er noget af et postulat at forudsige, at liv ikke i længden kan opretholdes på planeten. Der er alt for mange ukendte faktorer til at forudsige noget om evolutionen. Desuden må en logisk konsekvens af definitionen være, at hvis der slet ikke var liv, så ville Jorden være meget mere beboelig end den er nu.
Som modsætning til Gaia er hypotesen også problematisk. Man ville f.eks. kunne argumentere for, at Gaias visdom inkluderer omtalte katastrofer, og at den samlede biomasse og biodiversitet (som er de tal, Ward bruger til at vurdere om en proces er Medea'sk eller ej) ikke nødvendigvis behøver at være maksimeret for at Gaia er 'tilfreds'. Menneskets undergang ville være en lille pris for at redde Gaia.
Her er man nået til grænsen for, hvad metaforer kan bruges til. Både Gaia og Medea er hyggelige metaforer, der sætter fantasien i sving. Men de er ret ubrugelige til at lave videnskabelige teorier med. Livet på kloden er karakteriseret ved store blomstringsperioder og utallige katastrofer. Vi er et produkt af denne evolutionære proces og kan derfor ikke være andet end både henrykte og skræmte over det. Livet kommer og går. Det er Gaia og Medea og alle de andre Guder samtidigt. At holde sig til kun én Gud, fordi den passer til ens emotionelle natur, fører til intellektuel dovenskab. Derfor er metaforer farlige.
Der Übermensch
Peter Ward selv er dog alt andet end doven. Som hos Nietzsches Übermensch foreslår han, at vi mennesker skal gøre os selv til guder for at undgå den skæbne, som 99 % af de arter, der har levet på denne klode, har måttet lide. Vi skal lære at være aktive livs-ingeniører, der modgår Medeas destruktionstrang.
»We must not become part of nature. We must overcome nature,« skriver Ward, og enhver filosofisk trænet person krummer tæer. Godt nok har naturbegrebet været selvmodsigende i lang tid, men at læse dette hos en evolutionsbiolog er lettere irriterende. Naturen er både det hele og modsætningen til kultur. Den tvetydighed har længe været vilkår og udfordring for den filosofiske tænkning. At overvinde 'vores natur' er lige så ubrugeligt et billede, som billedet 'at vende tilbage til naturen'.
Pragmatisk foreslår Ward at vi på den korte bane (mellem 100-300 år) må reducere CO2 i atmosfæren og holde oceanerne iltet. Hele kloden vil være blevet tropisk, og havet vil være steget med mindst 60 meter. Men vi må frem for alt undgå at fremmane en niende Canfield-verden. I det rigtig lange løb gælder det om, at vi skal være så gode til at terraforme, at vores viden vil kunne eksporteres til andre planeter. Mars for eksempel. Men måske også Alfa Centauri.
Ironien i alt dette er åbenlys: Når og hvis vi bliver aktive bio-ingeniører, der selv kontrollerer beboeligheden af rumkapslen Jorden, så vil vi have vendt Medeas forbandelse og være blevet gode Gaianere. Og så har Lovelock alligevel fået ret.
Metaforer er farlige. Især dem, der laver en idé om til en person - ja måske endda til en Gud. En af de nye metaforer inden for debatten om klimaet er ideen om Jorden som Gaia, efter den græske gudinde Gaia, der ifølge myten skabte Jorden ud af kaos. Englænderen James Lovelock var manden bag Gaia-hypotensen. Den siger at biosfæren som helhed er i stand til at holde sig selv i en form for ligevægt - i en livsstøttende homeostasis.
Nu kommer Peter Ward og vil ødelægge det hele. Han er professor i biologi og "Earth and Planetary Science" ved Washington Universitet samt astrobiolog ved NASA. Han har skrevet flere bøger om paleontologi og klima, blandt andet den tankevækkende populærvidenskabelige bog Under a Green Sky, hvor livet som vi kender det, er ved at blive udslettet. Han er med andre ord en stor kanon.
Ward er mere end skeptisk over for Gaia. Tværtimod fortæller al hans viden og forskning ham, at livet på Jorden har tendens til at ødelægge det for sig selv. At al den positive feedback, al den malthusianske vækst og alt det darwinistiske selektionstryk karakteriserer livet på Jordkloden som en kamp mod Den Store Stygge Moder Medea, der i sidste ende vil udslette livet, hvis det ikke flygter, eller selv overtager styringen.
Med bogen The Medea Hypothesis har Ward sat sig for at fortælle bagsiden af Gaia og foreslå en alternativ metafor for livets historie siden det boblede op af metan-sumpen knap fire milliarder år tilbage.
Gaias mange ansigter
Gaia-teorien har en broget historie. Da den blev fremlagt af Lovelock i bogen Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth blev den fejet af bordet af det videnskabelige establishment. Siden har hypotesen differentieret sig ud i mange retninger.
Noget af den har frembragt frugtbar forskning om, hvordan Jorden som samlet system fungerer, og den har på sin vis grundlagt et helt nyt forskningsfelt 'Videnskaben og Jorden og Verden' (Earth and Planetary Science), der til stadighed frembringer nye erkendelser. Andre ting har vist sig at være ganske forkerte, og stadig andre ting er gået hen og blevet pseudovidenskabeligt New Age mytologi, efter formlen: mennesket er ondt og resten af naturen er god.
Der findes ifølge Ward flere forskellige videnskabelige varianter af Gaia-teorien. Den 'svageste' variant kalder han den co-evolutionære Gaia, som blot siger, at alle levende systemer på kloden er koblede med hinanden og med deres miljø, og derfor udvikler sig sammen. Den anses i dag som trivielt sand. Den 'stærkeste' variant er lidt science-fiction agtig: Jorden Gaia er en slags superorganisme, der optimerer sig selv til at kunne supportere liv. Optimeringen er ifølge nogle selvorganiseret, ifølge New Age folket formålsorienteret.
Lovelock selv har tendens til at puste til New Age ilden ved at sige at 'Gaia har fået feber', og udgive bøger som hedder The Revenge of Gaia, hvor metaforen bliver nærmest teleologisk. Han har dog aldrig selv eksplicit lagt noget formål ind i 'bevidstheden' på Gaia, men mange af Lovelocks proselytter har. De ser Gaia som den, der passer på sine børn og viser dem vej; eller som den, der er blevet ked af det, fordi menneskene forurener; eller som den, der nu renser ud, ved at gøre kloden ubeboelig for mennesker og redde resten af arterne, osv.
Sejret til døde
Overlevelsen er ifølge Ward ikke kun en kamp om ressourcer mod andre arter men også en kamp mod egen hyperbolsk succes. Det er ikke kun mennesket, der med industrialiseringen og udtømningen af Jordens ressourcer har sejret ad helvede til. Andre arter har gjort det før os. De er grunden til mange af de tidligere hændelser af masseuddøen i evolutionshistorien.
Da ilt-producerende fotosyntetiske mikrober opstod for cirka tre milliarder år siden, forårsagde det en enorm masseuddøen af næsten alle anaerobe arter. Atmosfæren blev forgiftet med ilt fra mikrobernes fordøjelse. Og senere, for 2,3 mia år siden, da disse cyanobakterier havde fjernet alle drivhusgasser fra atmosfæren, blev det så koldt på kloden, at oceanerne frøs til is. En ny masseuddøen skete, og tog de fleste arter med sig, inklusive mange af cyanobakterier selv.
En anden selvudslettende masseuddøen skete i flere omgange mellem 1-2 milliarder år siden, da oceanerne blev lilla og stank af rådne æg. Disse såkaldte Canfield-oceaner, opkaldt efter Don Canfield, der arbejde på Syddansk Universitet, opstod sandsynligvis på grund af nogle svovl-reducerende bakterier, som der i dag er meget færre af, og gemmer sig på bunden af havet.
Disse og mange flere eksempler er ifølge Ward medea'ske. Og man må give ham, at det er en overbevisende og lang liste. Liv udsletter andet liv, og nogle gange sig selv. Vi mennesker er derfor ikke specielt ondskabsfulde. Vi er blot en ny form for ubehjælpeligt liv med alle dets indbyggede skavanker.
Metaforer er ikke teorier
Som teori synes Medea-hypotesen dog lige så problematisk som Gaia-hypotesen. Den skal helst ikke tages bogstavelig som værende en græsk gudinde, der planlægger at dræbe livet på Jorden. Men selv dens mere videnskabelige formulering er uklar:
»Jordens beboelighed har været påvirket af livets tilstedeværelse, men den overordnede effekt af livet har været og vil fortsætte med at være en reducering af levedygtigheden af Jorden som en beboelig planet.« (side 35)
Det er noget af et postulat at forudsige, at liv ikke i længden kan opretholdes på planeten. Der er alt for mange ukendte faktorer til at forudsige noget om evolutionen. Desuden må en logisk konsekvens af definitionen være, at hvis der slet ikke var liv, så ville Jorden være meget mere beboelig end den er nu.
Som modsætning til Gaia er hypotesen også problematisk. Man ville f.eks. kunne argumentere for, at Gaias visdom inkluderer omtalte katastrofer, og at den samlede biomasse og biodiversitet (som er de tal, Ward bruger til at vurdere om en proces er Medea'sk eller ej) ikke nødvendigvis behøver at være maksimeret for at Gaia er 'tilfreds'. Menneskets undergang ville være en lille pris for at redde Gaia.
Her er man nået til grænsen for, hvad metaforer kan bruges til. Både Gaia og Medea er hyggelige metaforer, der sætter fantasien i sving. Men de er ret ubrugelige til at lave videnskabelige teorier med. Livet på kloden er karakteriseret ved store blomstringsperioder og utallige katastrofer. Vi er et produkt af denne evolutionære proces og kan derfor ikke være andet end både henrykte og skræmte over det. Livet kommer og går. Det er Gaia og Medea og alle de andre Guder samtidigt. At holde sig til kun én Gud, fordi den passer til ens emotionelle natur, fører til intellektuel dovenskab. Derfor er metaforer farlige.
Der Übermensch
Peter Ward selv er dog alt andet end doven. Som hos Nietzsches Übermensch foreslår han, at vi mennesker skal gøre os selv til guder for at undgå den skæbne, som 99 % af de arter, der har levet på denne klode, har måttet lide. Vi skal lære at være aktive livs-ingeniører, der modgår Medeas destruktionstrang.
»We must not become part of nature. We must overcome nature,« skriver Ward, og enhver filosofisk trænet person krummer tæer. Godt nok har naturbegrebet været selvmodsigende i lang tid, men at læse dette hos en evolutionsbiolog er lettere irriterende. Naturen er både det hele og modsætningen til kultur. Den tvetydighed har længe været vilkår og udfordring for den filosofiske tænkning. At overvinde 'vores natur' er lige så ubrugeligt et billede, som billedet 'at vende tilbage til naturen'.
Pragmatisk foreslår Ward at vi på den korte bane (mellem 100-300 år) må reducere CO2 i atmosfæren og holde oceanerne iltet. Hele kloden vil være blevet tropisk, og havet vil være steget med mindst 60 meter. Men vi må frem for alt undgå at fremmane en niende Canfield-verden. I det rigtig lange løb gælder det om, at vi skal være så gode til at terraforme, at vores viden vil kunne eksporteres til andre planeter. Mars for eksempel. Men måske også Alfa Centauri.
Ironien i alt dette er åbenlys: Når og hvis vi bliver aktive bio-ingeniører, der selv kontrollerer beboeligheden af rumkapslen Jorden, så vil vi have vendt Medeas forbandelse og være blevet gode Gaianere. Og så har Lovelock alligevel fået ret.
November 5, 2011
Aleister Crowley defined Magick as "the Art and Science of causing change in conformity with Will." Given that, life is Magick, because the hallmark of all life is willfulness expressed in actions designed to enable the survival and reproduction of the organism. And like so many other things, that will simultaneously results in both good and bad outcomes.
In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleobiologist Peter Ward proposes a theory of life's relationship with Earth's biosphere that is truly revolutionary. It has frightening implications for our future, and the future of all Earthly life, but it also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, Dr. Ward argues that life is its own worst enemy. This idea is the polar opposite of Dr. James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, which holds that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth, that the "good mother Gaia" who nurtures life. In response, Ward instead draws a parallel to Medea, who killed her own children to gain revenge against her husband Jason when he deserts her to marry another woman. He asks, could life, due to its very nature, threaten its own existence? His answer is yes, it could -- and has done so numerous times in Earth's past.
Ward shows that all but one of the mass extinctions life on Earth has suffered have been the result of biological activity. He provides an overview of Earth's history that reveals a planet undergoing an alarming decline of biodiversity and biomass, a decline caused by life's own activities. And the Medea hypothesis doesn't just apply to Earth; its predictions apply to life everywhere in the universe. Yet, says Dr. Ward, life doesn't have to be lethal. He shows why -- but makes clear that time is running out for life -- including us -- to put the breaks on this deadly downward process. We have two options before us: to engineer our world to provide the optimal platform for life, and/or to get out into space and take as much as possible of the rest of Earth's life with us.
This book and its claims are certain to start something like World War III among those working in the biological sciences -- not to mention various sides in Western civilization's current culture wars. It offers the great challenge to us all to think outside the box. The Buddha said, "Once you have crossed the river, throw the boat away." The challenge now for us isto throw the box of old ideas and assumptions away, and open our eyes to the universe all around us that we haven't been aware of before. Our survival, and that of our descendants, depends on it.
In The Medea Hypothesis, renowned paleobiologist Peter Ward proposes a theory of life's relationship with Earth's biosphere that is truly revolutionary. It has frightening implications for our future, and the future of all Earthly life, but it also offers hope. Using the latest discoveries from the geological record, Dr. Ward argues that life is its own worst enemy. This idea is the polar opposite of Dr. James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, which holds that life sustains habitable conditions on Earth, that the "good mother Gaia" who nurtures life. In response, Ward instead draws a parallel to Medea, who killed her own children to gain revenge against her husband Jason when he deserts her to marry another woman. He asks, could life, due to its very nature, threaten its own existence? His answer is yes, it could -- and has done so numerous times in Earth's past.
Ward shows that all but one of the mass extinctions life on Earth has suffered have been the result of biological activity. He provides an overview of Earth's history that reveals a planet undergoing an alarming decline of biodiversity and biomass, a decline caused by life's own activities. And the Medea hypothesis doesn't just apply to Earth; its predictions apply to life everywhere in the universe. Yet, says Dr. Ward, life doesn't have to be lethal. He shows why -- but makes clear that time is running out for life -- including us -- to put the breaks on this deadly downward process. We have two options before us: to engineer our world to provide the optimal platform for life, and/or to get out into space and take as much as possible of the rest of Earth's life with us.
This book and its claims are certain to start something like World War III among those working in the biological sciences -- not to mention various sides in Western civilization's current culture wars. It offers the great challenge to us all to think outside the box. The Buddha said, "Once you have crossed the river, throw the boat away." The challenge now for us isto throw the box of old ideas and assumptions away, and open our eyes to the universe all around us that we haven't been aware of before. Our survival, and that of our descendants, depends on it.
April 14, 2021
I liked the concept behind this book, and the writing was engaging. But there were just too many problems for me to really enjoy it.
As others have mentioned, this book needs a good editor. There were many discrepancies I noticed, an example being when the author states that a large amount of methane being pumped into the atmosphere caused methane clouds to form, which blocked sunlight and caused a massive cooling over the Earth. Then on the next page, the author states how methane being removed from the atmosphere somehow ALSO caused a massive cooling because it's a greenhouse gas. I would have thought that methane being removed would have had an opposite effect as methane being added. This is not explained, it's just ignored. This is the kind of thing I kept seeing when reading this book, strange things that didn't seem to add up that were never addressed.
In my opinion, the author tries to make everything fit his theory. He mentions that the time when bacteria were dominant and unchanging or over a billion years was "bad for life" because the bacteria prevented higher complexity from evolving, but then when beings of higher complexity evolve now this is bad for life too because the overall biomass goes down. Everything just seems twisted as to favor his theory, and that isn't very scientific.
As others have mentioned, this book needs a good editor. There were many discrepancies I noticed, an example being when the author states that a large amount of methane being pumped into the atmosphere caused methane clouds to form, which blocked sunlight and caused a massive cooling over the Earth. Then on the next page, the author states how methane being removed from the atmosphere somehow ALSO caused a massive cooling because it's a greenhouse gas. I would have thought that methane being removed would have had an opposite effect as methane being added. This is not explained, it's just ignored. This is the kind of thing I kept seeing when reading this book, strange things that didn't seem to add up that were never addressed.
In my opinion, the author tries to make everything fit his theory. He mentions that the time when bacteria were dominant and unchanging or over a billion years was "bad for life" because the bacteria prevented higher complexity from evolving, but then when beings of higher complexity evolve now this is bad for life too because the overall biomass goes down. Everything just seems twisted as to favor his theory, and that isn't very scientific.
April 5, 2013
Fantastic, in that it's a very informative read; it definitely expanded my understanding of prehistory from a geochemist's point of view. As far as presenting a good case for the Medea Hypothesis, it was a bit weak. The unyielding focus on biomass and biodiversity was a poor decision; I expected complexity to be mentioned, but it was only brought up under the guise of 'efficiency' and even then mentioned only a handful of times. Would I recommend this book though? Definitely. The book has given me a strong opinion on places where research money ought to be designated that I hadn't considered before. I'd add it to the list of required reading for any legislator sitting on a Science/Technology advisory board.
February 20, 2021
The bad news is that it will end in 500 million years.
The Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This book is about refuting the Gaia Hypothesis (the "GH") which is a thesis that undoubtedly deserves refutation. The most scientific form of the GH is that the biosphere is a complex system with innumerable feedback systems such that it is able to offset and adjust itself to correct environmental perturbations. The most extreme form of the GH is that the biosphere is itself a living organism that deliberately adjusts environmental conditions to encourage and promote life.
Ward confronts the GH with the Medea Hypothesis (the "MH"), which argues the contrary: Mother Nature will kill us all in the end. The MH is named after the female lead in Euripedes play "Medea." Medea was famous for the lengths she went to get revenge on her husband Jason (of Jason and the Argonauts - this the "and they lived happily ever after" part of Greek myths) who dumped Medea in favor of a marriage with the King's daughter. Medea arranges to kill Jason's new wife, the king, and, for good measure, her infant sons with Jason. Hence, Medea refers to mothers who kill their children.
This book is an extended walk through a lot of heavy, speculative science. Ward makes some strong points to refute the GH, such as "what about all those extinctions caused by the evolution of organisms that polluted their environment with toxic oxygen?" He cursorily examines the great extinctions, including the entirely hypothetical massacre of every organism that didn't have our kind of DNA, to show that the smoking gun was probably held by some evolutionary change. He also points to statistical modeling which suggests that the biomass of Earth has been declining since the Golden Age when unicellular bacteria ruled the Earth two billion years ago.
This is all surprising, "gosh-wow deep time" stuff, which I enjoy, but I feel like I got shorted. I thought I would be getting more information on these past extinctions than I actually got.
Ward turns to the future. This section is also fascinating in a "gosh-wow" science kind of way. Apparently, life on Earth is heading for its self-made apocalypse in the next 500 million years. Notwithstanding the CO2 problem of the current age, the long-term trend has been and will continue to be, the depletion of CO2 from the atmosphere. Right now, CO2 is a trace gas, but a billion years ago it was as much as 30% of the atmosphere. In the future, plants will take it out of the air below the threshold to keep plant life alive. That factor along with weathering of rock will make CO2 almost entirely absent, at which point, plants die taking with them everything else.
In short, all is doomed. Mother Nature will killl us all.
Ward ends the book with an opposite crisis, anmely global warming and the parade of horribles that we can expect in the next 300 years. This image of planet-changing catastrophe fits well in his Medea Hypothesis. His advice ultimately is that while it might be nice if humans could retreat to a pre-civilized state, ultimately it will be only human ingenuity that can save the world, so let's get the boffins to and do their engineering thing.
In broad outline, this is the kind of "gosh-wow" thought provoking science text that I enjoy. I'm convinced by his argument. There were nuggets of information that I will cherish and share. However, in practical experience, I found the book a bit of s slog and its global warming ending was more than a bit preachy.
On the other hand, the MH is a challenge to romantic ecological mystics. Ward writes:
"The main message of the environmental movement is that if we “return to nature,” or turn the world back to its state before humanity evolved—in other words, stop pirating the Earth’s natural processes and resources for our short-term benefit and instead try to return to something resembling our relationship to the planet before we “took control” of nature—the Earth will eventually clean up our mess and save us from ourselves."
But the MH says otherwise.
Likewise, concerning another romantic ecological mystical movement, namely "Deep Ecology," Ward writes:
"Deep Ecology believes that all organisms are equal: Human beings have no greater value than any other creature, for we are just ordinary citizens in the biotic community, with no more rights than amoebae or bacteria.
This certainly sounds reasonable. But the paradigm shift described at the start of this chapter deals exactly with this point and turns it on its head: we are not ordinary citizens. We are the only hope to keep Earth life alive."
Well, no...it didn't sound "reasonable" to me, but I was already ahead of Ward on his conclusion. I'm not a fan in any way of people who casually discuss regulating human population as if it wouldn't involve well-ordered genocide.
Nonetheless, Ward's attack on romantic environmental mysticism is useful. Couple this argument with the historical insights from "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger, who demonstrates how human ingenuity has solved ecological problems, lose the human-hating bits and this book wouldn't have annoyed me in the end.
The Medea Hypothesis by Peter Ward
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
This book is about refuting the Gaia Hypothesis (the "GH") which is a thesis that undoubtedly deserves refutation. The most scientific form of the GH is that the biosphere is a complex system with innumerable feedback systems such that it is able to offset and adjust itself to correct environmental perturbations. The most extreme form of the GH is that the biosphere is itself a living organism that deliberately adjusts environmental conditions to encourage and promote life.
Ward confronts the GH with the Medea Hypothesis (the "MH"), which argues the contrary: Mother Nature will kill us all in the end. The MH is named after the female lead in Euripedes play "Medea." Medea was famous for the lengths she went to get revenge on her husband Jason (of Jason and the Argonauts - this the "and they lived happily ever after" part of Greek myths) who dumped Medea in favor of a marriage with the King's daughter. Medea arranges to kill Jason's new wife, the king, and, for good measure, her infant sons with Jason. Hence, Medea refers to mothers who kill their children.
This book is an extended walk through a lot of heavy, speculative science. Ward makes some strong points to refute the GH, such as "what about all those extinctions caused by the evolution of organisms that polluted their environment with toxic oxygen?" He cursorily examines the great extinctions, including the entirely hypothetical massacre of every organism that didn't have our kind of DNA, to show that the smoking gun was probably held by some evolutionary change. He also points to statistical modeling which suggests that the biomass of Earth has been declining since the Golden Age when unicellular bacteria ruled the Earth two billion years ago.
This is all surprising, "gosh-wow deep time" stuff, which I enjoy, but I feel like I got shorted. I thought I would be getting more information on these past extinctions than I actually got.
Ward turns to the future. This section is also fascinating in a "gosh-wow" science kind of way. Apparently, life on Earth is heading for its self-made apocalypse in the next 500 million years. Notwithstanding the CO2 problem of the current age, the long-term trend has been and will continue to be, the depletion of CO2 from the atmosphere. Right now, CO2 is a trace gas, but a billion years ago it was as much as 30% of the atmosphere. In the future, plants will take it out of the air below the threshold to keep plant life alive. That factor along with weathering of rock will make CO2 almost entirely absent, at which point, plants die taking with them everything else.
In short, all is doomed. Mother Nature will killl us all.
Ward ends the book with an opposite crisis, anmely global warming and the parade of horribles that we can expect in the next 300 years. This image of planet-changing catastrophe fits well in his Medea Hypothesis. His advice ultimately is that while it might be nice if humans could retreat to a pre-civilized state, ultimately it will be only human ingenuity that can save the world, so let's get the boffins to and do their engineering thing.
In broad outline, this is the kind of "gosh-wow" thought provoking science text that I enjoy. I'm convinced by his argument. There were nuggets of information that I will cherish and share. However, in practical experience, I found the book a bit of s slog and its global warming ending was more than a bit preachy.
On the other hand, the MH is a challenge to romantic ecological mystics. Ward writes:
"The main message of the environmental movement is that if we “return to nature,” or turn the world back to its state before humanity evolved—in other words, stop pirating the Earth’s natural processes and resources for our short-term benefit and instead try to return to something resembling our relationship to the planet before we “took control” of nature—the Earth will eventually clean up our mess and save us from ourselves."
But the MH says otherwise.
Likewise, concerning another romantic ecological mystical movement, namely "Deep Ecology," Ward writes:
"Deep Ecology believes that all organisms are equal: Human beings have no greater value than any other creature, for we are just ordinary citizens in the biotic community, with no more rights than amoebae or bacteria.
This certainly sounds reasonable. But the paradigm shift described at the start of this chapter deals exactly with this point and turns it on its head: we are not ordinary citizens. We are the only hope to keep Earth life alive."
Well, no...it didn't sound "reasonable" to me, but I was already ahead of Ward on his conclusion. I'm not a fan in any way of people who casually discuss regulating human population as if it wouldn't involve well-ordered genocide.
Nonetheless, Ward's attack on romantic environmental mysticism is useful. Couple this argument with the historical insights from "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger, who demonstrates how human ingenuity has solved ecological problems, lose the human-hating bits and this book wouldn't have annoyed me in the end.
June 3, 2015
The author was clearly infatuated with the word "Medea." In some sections it seemed like every other sentence used it, either in "This is clearly Medean" or otherwise. I often found it difficult to comprehend his slightly varied topics from chapter to chapter due to uncontrollable eye-rolling.
June 17, 2011
Refutes "Gaia Hypothesis." Medea hypothesis is definitely more believable. It gets bogged down in scientific details about the carbon cycle, though.
January 26, 2019
I agree with Dr. Ward that Gaia theory has some serious problems. Gaia theory describes our biosphere as a sort of clockwork system, always self-regulating except when disturbed by outside influences -- with Homo sapiens as the major outside influence. WRONG. We -- humanity -- are as much a part of Earth's biosphere as any of the other creatures of which the biosphere is constituted. We even have an optimal niche: that of facilitating the biosphere's reproduction in the form of distributing her "seeds" in the form of colonies of Earthly life among the stars. (Dr. Ward doesn't mention this, nor does James Lovelock, one of the founders and major proponents of Gaia Theory, but nevertheless that is the niche we should take as our way to benefit the biosphere even as she benefits us, like any other type of Earthly organism.)
That which distinguishes living creatures and systems from non-living one is *chaos*. Mathematically speaking, chaos is the level of unpredictability of a living thing and its parts. The less the amount of unpredictability in it, the closer it is to death. (See, e.g., James Glieck's CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE [https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-S...] for a detailed description of chaos and how it manifests in the living world.) James Lovelock is an engineer as well as a biological scientist, and perhaps he's unconsciously assuming that life is a king of machine of the sort he's familiar with. On the contrary, rather than being machine-like, life -- along with the physical universe as a whole -- life's inherent nature is chaotic, and the less chaotic it is, the more moribund. So the Earth -- a living system that includes her biosphere together with her atmosphere, hydrosphere, crust, mantle, and core -- is always full of surprises, some of which are potentially lethal to her, e.g., the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction and its causes, the Cretaceous-Paleocene mass extinction because of which the non-avian dinosaurs became extinct, and so on. In other words, life contains the possibility of its own end, and works to make an end-run around it via reproduction, by which its nature, via genetic inheritance, continues on even when its physical corpus dies.
Those who cling to unalloyed Gaia Theory are guilty of something that the Greeks called *hubris*, the arrogance displayed by those who ignore or defy the Gods and Goddesses and presume to know enough about them to have power over them. Nemesis, which punishes hubris, will take the form of the Earth doing something that none of them expected or could have predicted and thus causing them a range of ills ranging from professional embarrassment to their actual destruction. Remember: Gaia, as conceived by the ancient and classical Greeks, was a Goddess -- and the Gods and Goddesses punish mortals for disrespecting them and presuming too much. By challenging Gaia theory, Dr. Ward serves as a sort of spear point delivering nemesis to the hubristic.
That which distinguishes living creatures and systems from non-living one is *chaos*. Mathematically speaking, chaos is the level of unpredictability of a living thing and its parts. The less the amount of unpredictability in it, the closer it is to death. (See, e.g., James Glieck's CHAOS: MAKING A NEW SCIENCE [https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-S...] for a detailed description of chaos and how it manifests in the living world.) James Lovelock is an engineer as well as a biological scientist, and perhaps he's unconsciously assuming that life is a king of machine of the sort he's familiar with. On the contrary, rather than being machine-like, life -- along with the physical universe as a whole -- life's inherent nature is chaotic, and the less chaotic it is, the more moribund. So the Earth -- a living system that includes her biosphere together with her atmosphere, hydrosphere, crust, mantle, and core -- is always full of surprises, some of which are potentially lethal to her, e.g., the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction and its causes, the Cretaceous-Paleocene mass extinction because of which the non-avian dinosaurs became extinct, and so on. In other words, life contains the possibility of its own end, and works to make an end-run around it via reproduction, by which its nature, via genetic inheritance, continues on even when its physical corpus dies.
Those who cling to unalloyed Gaia Theory are guilty of something that the Greeks called *hubris*, the arrogance displayed by those who ignore or defy the Gods and Goddesses and presume to know enough about them to have power over them. Nemesis, which punishes hubris, will take the form of the Earth doing something that none of them expected or could have predicted and thus causing them a range of ills ranging from professional embarrassment to their actual destruction. Remember: Gaia, as conceived by the ancient and classical Greeks, was a Goddess -- and the Gods and Goddesses punish mortals for disrespecting them and presuming too much. By challenging Gaia theory, Dr. Ward serves as a sort of spear point delivering nemesis to the hubristic.
August 7, 2024
DNF, I read half of the book. As others have said it was not well put together. Main thing that got me was how the author seems to brush off climate change.
"This dwindling resource, ironically, (in this time when human society worries about too much of it), is atmospheric carbon dioxide."
As you can see, he suggests that we might actually simply just be "worried" about too much CO2 as if it is not a true threat.
He obviously is very invested in the scientific process, to the point of writing a book attempting to refute a popular scientific theory, which can be a daunting task. Although this was written in 2009, it is impossible for me to take a work that hinges in great part on climatological knowledge seriously if its author downplays one of climate science's most conclusive findings.
"This dwindling resource, ironically, (in this time when human society worries about too much of it), is atmospheric carbon dioxide."
As you can see, he suggests that we might actually simply just be "worried" about too much CO2 as if it is not a true threat.
He obviously is very invested in the scientific process, to the point of writing a book attempting to refute a popular scientific theory, which can be a daunting task. Although this was written in 2009, it is impossible for me to take a work that hinges in great part on climatological knowledge seriously if its author downplays one of climate science's most conclusive findings.
September 2, 2020
An interesting idea: earth's life is 'trying' to destroy its host, rather than, in the opposing Gaia hypothesis, self-regulating itself. Unfortunately the author overstates several few weak arguments that left this reader unconvinced.
April 9, 2020
Bit of a lifeless book , not a lot compelling points to really support the hypothesis . Or maybe I slept through them
August 30, 2022
Because the life is self extinguishing
December 2, 2012
The thesis of this book is that the planet Earth is a fragile place and that life on Earth will always be subject to the threat of extinction because the nature of life seems to be designed that way. This thesis, the Medean hypothesis, is more pessimistic than the Gaian idea. Gaia preaches the existence of a self-regulatory planet Earth once the effect of its main enemy, human beings, is obliterated from equations and nature is allowed to "run its course". Medea argues that when nature is left to its own devices the final outcome is inevitably a mass extinction of species and his book is mainly a tally of why and when those mass extinctions occurred. Nevertheless, Ward is a more optimistic humanist than Gaian prophets, he believes the only way that nature's self-destructive cycles can be overcome is by utilising humanity's greatest tool: our minds.
As a biologist and palaeontologist Ward has to be taken seriously, his knowledge of the complete evolution of life over thousands of millions of years has to be more deeply founded than an ecologist studying trends from data of the last century or so. His ultimate attitude facing an inevitable apocalypse is positive - we can overcome it - but also preaching a need for making drastic revaluations and performing practical steps in order to reduce CO2 levels now.
February 9, 2015
The premise of the book is that the gaia hypothesis is wrong, and Ward's alternate hypothesis better explains life.
There's a couple versions of the gaia hypothesis the author brings up. They range from the life creates the perfect environment for life, to life generally helps stabilize the environment allowing life to flourish.
Ward's alternative is that life often creates conditions that reduce ability of life to continue, ultimately suggesting that life on earth is actually active reducing the amount of time life will be sustainable on the planet.
He cities numerous examples, such as looking at species that who create negative biofeedback in their environment actually leading to a less life friendly environment. Or he shows examples of how certain conditions created by living organisms have previously set in motion major environmental changes that ultimate result in the various mass extinctions that have occurred.
An interesting read, even though a good chunk of it might go over your head.
There's a couple versions of the gaia hypothesis the author brings up. They range from the life creates the perfect environment for life, to life generally helps stabilize the environment allowing life to flourish.
Ward's alternative is that life often creates conditions that reduce ability of life to continue, ultimately suggesting that life on earth is actually active reducing the amount of time life will be sustainable on the planet.
He cities numerous examples, such as looking at species that who create negative biofeedback in their environment actually leading to a less life friendly environment. Or he shows examples of how certain conditions created by living organisms have previously set in motion major environmental changes that ultimate result in the various mass extinctions that have occurred.
An interesting read, even though a good chunk of it might go over your head.
August 7, 2014
Should be sub-sub-titled "Let's step back and get some deep-time perspective, ok?" Enjoyable mainly for the charming writing style, and the author's ability to get me to realize how very very old the earth already is, and how many catastrophic events have already taken place. Also: enjoyed being reminded about the finite amount of carbon molecules on our planet and how they are constantly being recycled, at varying rates. I have my own strong feelings regarding what humans are doing to the planet (and this is discussed as well,) but I really appreciated the chance to look at Earth's history dispassionately, and remember that it's gone thru a lot worse, and ultimately nobody cares what happens here except for us.
January 17, 2010
Interesting and well explained. It's not quite the doom and gloom that you expect from the title and subtitle, but it is a challenging book that takes aim at the idea that all life on earth instinctively cooperates to make the planet a better planet, the "Gaia hypothesis."
August 16, 2015
Trudno ocenić w skali 1-5 książkę, której przesłanie jest ważne ale sposób jego podania - niestrawny; dawno nie czytałam tak ŹLE NAPISANEJ książki popularnonaukowej. Jednak z uwagi na tytułową hipotezę Medei, mimo fatalnego stylu i koszmarnego sposobu prezentacji faktów, pozycja warta przeczytania.
September 24, 2020
While I like the fact that it refutes the "Gaia hypothesis" very clearly, I wasn't quite sure if the arguments given were truly scientific if it comes to its methodics. After all it was a broadening reading (although it bored me to death at some points)
March 18, 2011
Flawed. His entire hypothesis is a simple restating of Malthus- but Malthus does not apply to humans.
December 27, 2016
This book was amazing and made me look at the Earth in a completely new way. I recommend this book to people all the time!
January 23, 2022
I think an argument against the Gaia theory could be interesting, but this book started boring me.
Read
April 4, 2018I finished The Medea Hypothesis last night. A good book. I read Out of Thin Air, last week.
By coincidence, I saw the new models and data below as I was reading it. It modifies some of what was said.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
Earth's stable temperature past suggests other planets could also sustain life
Two-billion-year-old salt rock reveals rise of oxygen in ancient atmosphere
Connection of sea level and groundwater missing link in climate response
By coincidence, I saw the new models and data below as I was reading it. It modifies some of what was said.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
Earth's stable temperature past suggests other planets could also sustain life
Two-billion-year-old salt rock reveals rise of oxygen in ancient atmosphere
Connection of sea level and groundwater missing link in climate response
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews