Thank you for this insightful series of book reviews. I’ve been following the Gaia story since 1991, and I believe the paradox between popular acceptance and scientific rejection has many layers, all revolving around two main axes.

First, Gaia represents a cozy regression to geocentrism, where we once saw our planet as distinct from the rest of the universe. It resonates with the ecological movement (both “saving the Earth” and the Gaia concept share roots in NASA) and reflects the undeniable critique of modern life’s negative impact on the planet.

Despite its regressive nature, Gaia still offers a more compelling vision than the 20th-century view that saw life as reducible to, or at least negligible in comparison to, universal laws of matter. The science behind Gaia is strong and now known as Earth System Science.

My personal analysis is that Lovelock may not have fully realized the scope of what he (along with Margulis and Hitchcock) discovered. He showed that life differs from the universe, but in following his own inclinations, he interpreted this as Earth (life and its effects on Earth) being distinct from the universe. He made a semantic misstep when he proposed us to change our definition of life. He proposed a redefinition by extension (life = living beings + theirs impacts on Earth = Gaïa) where he should have proposed a redefinition by intension (life turned against the Earth). That’s a revolutionary insight. Darwin uncovered the place of organic beings among other organic beings, while Lovelock uncovered the place of organic beings within the universe. Both discoveries amend the Western scientific framework. It transcends natural sciences and social studies, but what makes Gaia powerful is how it aligns scientific vision with the common understanding. Even without being a vitalist, supernaturalist, or teleologist, we all recognize that life inherently differs from non-life.

LikeLike

LikeLike

LikeLike

LikeLike

LikeLike