What doyouthink?
Rate this book
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth
In this classic work that continues to inspire its many readers, James Lovelock deftly explains his idea that life on earth functions as a single organism. Written for the non-scientist, Gaia is a journey through time and space in search of evidence with which to support a new and radically
different model of our planet. In contrast to conventional belief that living matter is passive in the face of threats to its existence, the book explores the hypothesis that the earth's living matter-air, ocean, and land surfaces-forms a complex system that has the capacity to keep the Earth a fit
place for life.
Since Gaia was first published, many of Jim Lovelock's predictions have come true, and his theory has become a hotly argued topic in scientific circles. Here, in a new Preface, Lovelock outlines his present state of the debate.
different model of our planet. In contrast to conventional belief that living matter is passive in the face of threats to its existence, the book explores the hypothesis that the earth's living matter-air, ocean, and land surfaces-forms a complex system that has the capacity to keep the Earth a fit
place for life.
Since Gaia was first published, many of Jim Lovelock's predictions have come true, and his theory has become a hotly argued topic in scientific circles. Here, in a new Preface, Lovelock outlines his present state of the debate.
176 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
About the author
James E. Lovelock
31books291followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.See this thread for more information.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
James Ephraim Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist, and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, in which he postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.
Ratings&Reviews
Friends&Following
Create a free accountto discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews
November 16, 2020
Gaia means Earth or the goddess of Earth. In this book she is discussed through the Gaia hypothesis or her more formal science name; geophysiology.
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (1979)is written by James Lovelock who is an inventor, scientists and turned 101 years old this year (2020)!
Gaia hypothesis is a complex and unique entity that treats all of the living organisms on Earth as a single being. The Gaia hypothesis is an idea that suggests that it's the living organisms on Earth (us included), that regulate the inorganic surrounding, such as the atmosphere, mostly the troposphere, oceans and soil, in order to generate and maintain the conditions necessary for a habitable life on Earth. All of this works as a continuous and complex self-regulating system. Gaia is perhaps the largest single living creature on planet Earth.
I have to admit that this is an exceptionally intriguing idea, although I had a hard time accepting it to the extent it was presented. The biosphere does effect, and in part shape, the surrounding atmosphere, but does the biosphere unconsciously adjust and tweak the atmosphere gases and temperature so we can comfortably live our lives? I was thought that it was life that adapted to the conditions of the existing environment.
The book is well-written and Lovelock is a fascinating scientists! The chapters objectively elaborate with scientific argumentation the Gaian mechanism, but they lack a common thread and the book a stronger narrative. All in all, I would highly recommend this book to the eco-conscious individuals or those interested in planetary science.
(3.5/5.0)
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (1979)is written by James Lovelock who is an inventor, scientists and turned 101 years old this year (2020)!
Gaia hypothesis is a complex and unique entity that treats all of the living organisms on Earth as a single being. The Gaia hypothesis is an idea that suggests that it's the living organisms on Earth (us included), that regulate the inorganic surrounding, such as the atmosphere, mostly the troposphere, oceans and soil, in order to generate and maintain the conditions necessary for a habitable life on Earth. All of this works as a continuous and complex self-regulating system. Gaia is perhaps the largest single living creature on planet Earth.
I have to admit that this is an exceptionally intriguing idea, although I had a hard time accepting it to the extent it was presented. The biosphere does effect, and in part shape, the surrounding atmosphere, but does the biosphere unconsciously adjust and tweak the atmosphere gases and temperature so we can comfortably live our lives? I was thought that it was life that adapted to the conditions of the existing environment.
The book is well-written and Lovelock is a fascinating scientists! The chapters objectively elaborate with scientific argumentation the Gaian mechanism, but they lack a common thread and the book a stronger narrative. All in all, I would highly recommend this book to the eco-conscious individuals or those interested in planetary science.
(3.5/5.0)
March 23, 2008
I decided to dust this book off which had been sitting on my bookshelf unread for 15 years. My decision came after reading Richard Dawkin's book, "The God Delusion". Which renewed my interest in the looking at evolutionary processes.
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, is certainly an apt title, as Lovelock does have a fascinating perspective with which he paints our world. His theory, the Gaia hypothesis may at first sound as if it has mystical connotations, but that is not the case, rather he is making a case that the world on which we live is acts as a huge living organism that regulates it's own temperature and tempers it's own "body" chemistry so as to be habitable to life. In turn the life which inhabits this "biosphere" helps to carry out these processes.
I have seen this in action, when I was studying soil science in college. Well aerated soil uses the trapped oxygen to attract hydrogen molecules in water, thus creating a respiratory system that moves nutrient bearing water through the soil and even creating a soil metabolism that can warm or cool the soil in reaction to the ambient air temperature. Often times the intervention of animals helps to aerate the soil, so a symbiosis occurs between the soil and other living organisms. It is these kinds of things which Lovelock calls Gaian interactions.
As exciting to me as these circular systems are, Lovelock himself is not a particularly gripping author. He is very much a scientist of a certain age. He earned his science chops in the era right after WWII when sciences had a certain rock star quality, an scientists could be very arrogant, which Lovelock suffers from to a small degree. Having said that his observations about the planet were groundbreaking for their time and his Gaian perspective of an organism that has been going strong for 3 Aeons with or without humans is very humbling.
So I would recommend this book with the caveat that the prose is not easy to follow at times, but the ideas about planetary biology are compelling enough to make it worth soldiering through.
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, is certainly an apt title, as Lovelock does have a fascinating perspective with which he paints our world. His theory, the Gaia hypothesis may at first sound as if it has mystical connotations, but that is not the case, rather he is making a case that the world on which we live is acts as a huge living organism that regulates it's own temperature and tempers it's own "body" chemistry so as to be habitable to life. In turn the life which inhabits this "biosphere" helps to carry out these processes.
I have seen this in action, when I was studying soil science in college. Well aerated soil uses the trapped oxygen to attract hydrogen molecules in water, thus creating a respiratory system that moves nutrient bearing water through the soil and even creating a soil metabolism that can warm or cool the soil in reaction to the ambient air temperature. Often times the intervention of animals helps to aerate the soil, so a symbiosis occurs between the soil and other living organisms. It is these kinds of things which Lovelock calls Gaian interactions.
As exciting to me as these circular systems are, Lovelock himself is not a particularly gripping author. He is very much a scientist of a certain age. He earned his science chops in the era right after WWII when sciences had a certain rock star quality, an scientists could be very arrogant, which Lovelock suffers from to a small degree. Having said that his observations about the planet were groundbreaking for their time and his Gaian perspective of an organism that has been going strong for 3 Aeons with or without humans is very humbling.
So I would recommend this book with the caveat that the prose is not easy to follow at times, but the ideas about planetary biology are compelling enough to make it worth soldiering through.
Read
May 31, 2012Further proof that a book doesn't have to be good to be great.
I read this because of my interest in science-friendly earth religion. In my other readings, and even in private meditations, I keep coming back to Gaia theory. But I didn't really understand what that theory entails. It's often described in a nutshell thusly: "The Earth can be considered as a single organism." But what does that mean, really? What does that nutshell contain?
This book has the answer. Or at least, the start of an answer. It's seminal stuff. I believe this book, written in 1979, is the first popular articulation of Gaia theory. It's required reading for an interested novice like myself.
It may be a popular treatment, but that doesn't mean it's pablum. In fact, I found the technical details a bit tedious at times. I'm not a scientist; mostly I read novels. Fortunately the whole book's rather brief. I found Lovelock's philosophical musings a more compelling read. The epilogue is especially thought-provoking, though it seems to go off the rails in the final paragraphs, with a diatribe against whale-hunting.
Still and all, this book transformed my basic understanding of Gaia theory. I feel like I get the basic idea now. It's much subtler and yet, seemingly, more logical and more robust than I'd anticipated.
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic, with the above caveats.
I read this because of my interest in science-friendly earth religion. In my other readings, and even in private meditations, I keep coming back to Gaia theory. But I didn't really understand what that theory entails. It's often described in a nutshell thusly: "The Earth can be considered as a single organism." But what does that mean, really? What does that nutshell contain?
This book has the answer. Or at least, the start of an answer. It's seminal stuff. I believe this book, written in 1979, is the first popular articulation of Gaia theory. It's required reading for an interested novice like myself.
It may be a popular treatment, but that doesn't mean it's pablum. In fact, I found the technical details a bit tedious at times. I'm not a scientist; mostly I read novels. Fortunately the whole book's rather brief. I found Lovelock's philosophical musings a more compelling read. The epilogue is especially thought-provoking, though it seems to go off the rails in the final paragraphs, with a diatribe against whale-hunting.
Still and all, this book transformed my basic understanding of Gaia theory. I feel like I get the basic idea now. It's much subtler and yet, seemingly, more logical and more robust than I'd anticipated.
I recommend this book to anyone interested in the topic, with the above caveats.
May 31, 2017
Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'
Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:08 UK -Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developedGaia theory,has said it is too late to try and save the planet. The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.
At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can". Trying to save the planet 'is a lot of nonsense'.
31.05.2017
Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:08 UK -Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developedGaia theory,has said it is too late to try and save the planet. The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.
At the age of 90, Prof Lovelock is resigned to his own fate and the fate of the planet. Whether the planet saves itself or not, he argues, all we can do is to "enjoy life while you can". Trying to save the planet 'is a lot of nonsense'.
31.05.2017
April 29, 2017
When I’ve heard of the Gaia theory before, I’ve usually heard of it in a sceptical sort of context that criticises the tree-hugging idea that Earth has a soul. That is not actually the main thrust of Lovelock’s argument at all: instead, what he argues is that Gaia, or Earth, is a self-sustaining system with in-built feedback loops which hold it more or less steady and capable of supporting life.
If you’ve studied climate or geology or even the water cycle, you know that he’s not wrong about the self-sustaining system. There’s so many negative feedback loops which keep things in check — some of which are, of course, threatening to be sabotaged by the action of one particular upstart mammal species with delusions of grandeur. We’re a part of the system, of course, but one which may have got out of hand. Or maybe not; maybe our intelligence will help rein us back in. We can only hope.
The point is, Lovelock’s not saying anything about a cosy loving Earth Mother spirit watching over us. Though his language in this book is sometimes poetical, and his sense of wonder at nature is clear, he’s talking about self-regulating, self-sustaining systems. He’s talking about the fact that the world has checks and balances in place which bring Earth into equilibrium, even though other factors — like the sun’s energy output — have changed over time. And okay, at some points he goes off on a tangent about whale intelligence and a hypothetical future in which whale brains give us technological advances, but the science here isn’t wrong.
There’s nothing actually revolutionary or tree-hugging here. It’s just true. Call it Gaia or call it a complex set of feedback loops; whatever you’re comfortable with, I guess. I do wish I’d read Revenge of Gaia instead, since this is horribly optimistic that humans will pull our collective fingers out and stop damaging the planet. I suspect Lovelock’s less sanguine about that prospect now.
Originally reviewed for breathesbooks.com.
If you’ve studied climate or geology or even the water cycle, you know that he’s not wrong about the self-sustaining system. There’s so many negative feedback loops which keep things in check — some of which are, of course, threatening to be sabotaged by the action of one particular upstart mammal species with delusions of grandeur. We’re a part of the system, of course, but one which may have got out of hand. Or maybe not; maybe our intelligence will help rein us back in. We can only hope.
The point is, Lovelock’s not saying anything about a cosy loving Earth Mother spirit watching over us. Though his language in this book is sometimes poetical, and his sense of wonder at nature is clear, he’s talking about self-regulating, self-sustaining systems. He’s talking about the fact that the world has checks and balances in place which bring Earth into equilibrium, even though other factors — like the sun’s energy output — have changed over time. And okay, at some points he goes off on a tangent about whale intelligence and a hypothetical future in which whale brains give us technological advances, but the science here isn’t wrong.
There’s nothing actually revolutionary or tree-hugging here. It’s just true. Call it Gaia or call it a complex set of feedback loops; whatever you’re comfortable with, I guess. I do wish I’d read Revenge of Gaia instead, since this is horribly optimistic that humans will pull our collective fingers out and stop damaging the planet. I suspect Lovelock’s less sanguine about that prospect now.
Originally reviewed for breathesbooks.com.
November 9, 2020
This book might be more interesting to a chemistry major than it was to me. I got the concept right away, but I struggled through the details. I gave it three stars for good intentions and I am moving on.
April 23, 2023
One of the greatest scientific leaps of intuition on record.
December 30, 2015
As an ecologist and all round nature lover I am rather familiar with Lovelock's Gaia concept, one that I have not been wholly convinced by. And this book has done nothing to help that. While I do like the idea of nature being an actual single entity/being/organism deliberately managing the planet for the benefit of all species, this is a belief and not something that can or should be applied to science (or visa versa for that matter). Lovelock's explanations of many of the basic Earth systems were good, relatively easy to read and accompanied by useful examples relating them to processes/systems that those without a lot of environmental knowledge can understand. And for this I commend him. However the way he fit these together to provide 'evidence' for his Gaia hypothesis came across forced and comparable to some of the arguments put forward by the Creationists, although they are somewhat more logical...but only just. For me this is not a scientific theory but a belief/idea that has its basis in the religions of old, Wiccan being a good example.
Shelved as 'abandoned'
December 31, 2015I cannot believe I'm abandoning the book that brought the world the Gaia hypothesis! Maybe if I had one of the later editions, with Lovelock's notes on the evolution of his theory, I would enjoy it better. But 50 pages in, I've been put off by Lovelock's smug condescension, bored by his labryinthine sentences, and confused by an attitude that seems to vacillate between "just a little bit of alteration could change everything!" and "Gaia is indestructable, so we can do whatever we want to the planet!" For a book that's inspired tree-huggers and earth-based religionists the world over, it runs surprisingly counter to most of the tenets of environmentalism as we know it today.
I kept telling myself I could keep plugging along, since the book's so short, but, you know what? So's life.
I kept telling myself I could keep plugging along, since the book's so short, but, you know what? So's life.
September 14, 2009
Seminal. Not at all what the treehuggers and New Agers think it is.
February 23, 2020
InGaia,first published in 1979, Lovelock describes the planet and all living things on it as a self-regulating entity, much like a collection of cells, organs, and bacteria together produce a living entity that we might think of as a person. My favorite thing about Gaia theory is that I paradoxically intuit that it's obviously ridiculous but also that it's obviously correct.
Readers new to this theory and book might do well to start in two places outside the introduction. In the epilogue, Lovelock explains that the Gaia Hypothesis:
How should we think about humanity within this Gaia framework? Lovelock considers two ecological views:
It's maybe worth noting that Lovelock is optimistic about humanity's use of technology in relation to the environment because people listen so carefully to journalists and act to mitigate their impact. He writes that "the rapid dissemination of information about the environment helps to reduce the time constant of our response to adverse changes." Given how often today's political elites ignore or dismiss both scholars and the press, and given how much online media now seems undermined by misinformation troll and bot armies, we might laugh at this optimism. But for Lovelock, it must have seemed sensible when seeing how readily the liberal democracies responded to Rachel Carson'sSilent Springand to Crutzen's work on the ozone layer (the Montreal Protocol was passed within ten years). At one point, he criticizes environmentalists for underestimating their impact in producing countervailing responses to their concerns, but he foresaw no backlash against environmentalism, the academy, or journalism. (Nathaniel Rich's "Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change" might be a useful counter to Lovelock's implicit prediction here.)
Random Notes. I was surprised by how often I recognized the scholars and scientific history here. As noted, Carson (Silent Spring,Crutzen ( "Anthropocene" ), Dubos ( "think globally, act locally" ), and Hardin ( "The Tragedy of the Commons" ) appear. Lyn Margulis helps to write and develop the hypothesis and its ideas are first published in (her ex-husband) Carl Sagan's journal. Milutin Milanković is mentioned. Richard Dawkins' skepticism of the Gaia hypothesis is mentioned in the introduction of the edition I read. William Golding, who wroteLord of the Flies,suggests using "Gaia" to name the theory. Arthur C. Clarke is quoted. Lovelock begins thinking about how to recognize life while helping NASA to create probes to study the possibility of life on Mars. The scientists at this time can remember working on what gases most likely warmed the planet in the distant past, not ammonia but carbon dioxide. And they are still working out the atmospheric role of aerosols even if they have already figured out that CFCs are harmful to the ozone layer. A final note: in spite of Lovelock's at least tangential connection to Carl Sagan, he always writes "1000 million" rather than a billion.
Readers new to this theory and book might do well to start in two places outside the introduction. In the epilogue, Lovelock explains that the Gaia Hypothesis:
"postulates that the physical and chemical condition of surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways."This last distinction is useful to keep in mind when reading the other chapters, which at first glance seem needlessly wonky. I also found the chapter on cybernetics a useful foundation for understanding Gaia. Lovelock defines cybernetics as "self-regulating systems of communication and control in living organisms and machines." Put this way, it does seem obvious that the planet should be understood as one massive web of interconnected systems.
How should we think about humanity within this Gaia framework? Lovelock considers two ecological views:
René Dubos has powerfully expressed the concept of man as the steward to life on Earth, in symbiosis with it like some grand gardener for all the world. It is a hopeful, optimistic view and a liberal one. In contrast to Dubos, Garrett Hardin apparently sees man as acting out a great tragedy which may lead not only to his own destruction but to the that of the whole world. He suggests that our only means of escape is to renounce most of our technology, especially nuclear energy, but he seems to doubt whether we have free choice. "Lovelock, however, is more inclined in this work to decrease human exceptionalism, which would counter the grandeur of Dubos' view. People are just(?) another planetary entity. He is also more optimistic about technology than Hardin and would go on to defend nuclear energy in his later life (which has extended to 100 years as I write this review).
It's maybe worth noting that Lovelock is optimistic about humanity's use of technology in relation to the environment because people listen so carefully to journalists and act to mitigate their impact. He writes that "the rapid dissemination of information about the environment helps to reduce the time constant of our response to adverse changes." Given how often today's political elites ignore or dismiss both scholars and the press, and given how much online media now seems undermined by misinformation troll and bot armies, we might laugh at this optimism. But for Lovelock, it must have seemed sensible when seeing how readily the liberal democracies responded to Rachel Carson'sSilent Springand to Crutzen's work on the ozone layer (the Montreal Protocol was passed within ten years). At one point, he criticizes environmentalists for underestimating their impact in producing countervailing responses to their concerns, but he foresaw no backlash against environmentalism, the academy, or journalism. (Nathaniel Rich's "Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change" might be a useful counter to Lovelock's implicit prediction here.)
Random Notes. I was surprised by how often I recognized the scholars and scientific history here. As noted, Carson (Silent Spring,Crutzen ( "Anthropocene" ), Dubos ( "think globally, act locally" ), and Hardin ( "The Tragedy of the Commons" ) appear. Lyn Margulis helps to write and develop the hypothesis and its ideas are first published in (her ex-husband) Carl Sagan's journal. Milutin Milanković is mentioned. Richard Dawkins' skepticism of the Gaia hypothesis is mentioned in the introduction of the edition I read. William Golding, who wroteLord of the Flies,suggests using "Gaia" to name the theory. Arthur C. Clarke is quoted. Lovelock begins thinking about how to recognize life while helping NASA to create probes to study the possibility of life on Mars. The scientists at this time can remember working on what gases most likely warmed the planet in the distant past, not ammonia but carbon dioxide. And they are still working out the atmospheric role of aerosols even if they have already figured out that CFCs are harmful to the ozone layer. A final note: in spite of Lovelock's at least tangential connection to Carl Sagan, he always writes "1000 million" rather than a billion.
July 16, 2017
GAİA
Dünyadaki Yaşama Yeni Bir Bakış
JAMES LOVELOCK
Çev: Ozan Karakaş
Gaia hipotezi ilk olarak 1960’ların ortalarında öne sürüldü, sonrasında 1975 yılında kitap olarak yayımlandı. Dünya’daki canlı maddenin, yani havanın, okyanusların ve kara yüzeylerinin, Dünya’nın yaşam için elverişli bir yer olarak kalmasını sağlayacak karmaşık bir sistem olduğu iddiasıyla Gaia evrime ve çevreye dair bilimsel görüşler üzerinde çok çabuk bir etki sahibi oldu. Birçok okuruna ilham kaynağı olmayı sürdüren bu değerli eserde James Lovelock, dünya üzerindeki yaşamın tek bir organizma işlevi gördüğü şeklindeki fikrini ustaca açıklıyor. Bilim insanı olmayan kişiler için yazılmış olan Gaia, gezegenimize dair yeni ve çarpıcı biçimde farklı bir modeli destekleyecek kanıtların peşinde, zaman ve mekanda bir yolculuk niteliği taşıyor. Gaia, yeryüzündeki canlı maddenin, havanın, okyanusların ve kara yüzeylerinin, Dünya’nın yaşam için elverişli bir yer olarak kalmasını sağlayacak karmaşık bir sistem olduğunu ortaya oyuyor. Bu yeni baskıda Lovelock, tartışmaların bugünkü konumunu da özetliyor.
“Bu kitap, yüzyılımıza dair çığır açıcı bir kavrayışı tetikleyebilir.”
– CoEvolution Quarterly
“Uzun süreden beri okuduğum en iyi kitap… Hem özgün hem de ustaca yazılmış.”
– New Scientist
“[Lovelock] genel okurun karşısına cüretkar bir hipotez koyuyor… meraka kapılmış özgün bir düşünürün heyecan verici ve kişisel bir tartışması.”
– Philip Morrison, Scientific American
“Bu kitabı uçsuz bucaksız bir keyifle okudum.”
– René Dubos, Nature
Dünyadaki Yaşama Yeni Bir Bakış
JAMES LOVELOCK
Çev: Ozan Karakaş
Gaia hipotezi ilk olarak 1960’ların ortalarında öne sürüldü, sonrasında 1975 yılında kitap olarak yayımlandı. Dünya’daki canlı maddenin, yani havanın, okyanusların ve kara yüzeylerinin, Dünya’nın yaşam için elverişli bir yer olarak kalmasını sağlayacak karmaşık bir sistem olduğu iddiasıyla Gaia evrime ve çevreye dair bilimsel görüşler üzerinde çok çabuk bir etki sahibi oldu. Birçok okuruna ilham kaynağı olmayı sürdüren bu değerli eserde James Lovelock, dünya üzerindeki yaşamın tek bir organizma işlevi gördüğü şeklindeki fikrini ustaca açıklıyor. Bilim insanı olmayan kişiler için yazılmış olan Gaia, gezegenimize dair yeni ve çarpıcı biçimde farklı bir modeli destekleyecek kanıtların peşinde, zaman ve mekanda bir yolculuk niteliği taşıyor. Gaia, yeryüzündeki canlı maddenin, havanın, okyanusların ve kara yüzeylerinin, Dünya’nın yaşam için elverişli bir yer olarak kalmasını sağlayacak karmaşık bir sistem olduğunu ortaya oyuyor. Bu yeni baskıda Lovelock, tartışmaların bugünkü konumunu da özetliyor.
“Bu kitap, yüzyılımıza dair çığır açıcı bir kavrayışı tetikleyebilir.”
– CoEvolution Quarterly
“Uzun süreden beri okuduğum en iyi kitap… Hem özgün hem de ustaca yazılmış.”
– New Scientist
“[Lovelock] genel okurun karşısına cüretkar bir hipotez koyuyor… meraka kapılmış özgün bir düşünürün heyecan verici ve kişisel bir tartışması.”
– Philip Morrison, Scientific American
“Bu kitabı uçsuz bucaksız bir keyifle okudum.”
– René Dubos, Nature
December 23, 2012
Disagree with Gaia Hypothesis did not means this book is bad written. Lovelock gave me insight about how to use chemistry and thermodynamics as analytical tool.
April 28, 2024
Chociaż dzisiaj ma już przede wszystkim historyczne znaczenie, to nadal jest to obowiązkowa lektura dla każdej osoby zainteresowanej humanistką środowiskową, filozofią nauk przyrodniczych czy ekologią. Wiele koncepcji przytoczonych przez autora dawno się zdezaktualizowało, również spora część cytowanych danych uległa przedawnieniu. Sam autor przyznaje to już w przedmowie do drugiego wydania "Gai", czyli jedynego, które ukazało się w przekładzie na język polski. Także tłumacz Marcin Ryszkiewicz nie hamuje się przy dodawaniu komentarzy prostujących wypowiedzi Lovelocka, często w zupełnie pozbawiony skrupułów sposób - co ogromnie mu się chwali. Nadal jednak warto sięgnąć po "Gaję", jeżeli nie dla jej wartości historycznej, to dla jej rewolucyjnego zacięcia.
Jest to też jedna z tych książek, w których słowo wstępne i posłowie są absolutnie obowiązkowe (choć radziłabym, żeby wstęp przeczytać po epilogu, a przed komentarzem Januarego Wienera).
Na marginesie, polskie wydanie "Gai" jest naprawdę paskudne. Czcionka, zdaje się, dziesiątka i malutki format nie są zbyt przyjazne czytelnikowi. Z całego serca życzę "Gai" nowego wydania na polskim rynku.
Jest to też jedna z tych książek, w których słowo wstępne i posłowie są absolutnie obowiązkowe (choć radziłabym, żeby wstęp przeczytać po epilogu, a przed komentarzem Januarego Wienera).
Na marginesie, polskie wydanie "Gai" jest naprawdę paskudne. Czcionka, zdaje się, dziesiątka i malutki format nie są zbyt przyjazne czytelnikowi. Z całego serca życzę "Gai" nowego wydania na polskim rynku.
April 24, 2024
awesome theory, bad book. advertised for the 'non-scientist' —don't know who it's for lol. kinda hard to read but still fascinating enough.
September 23, 2024
Ew the early 2000s cover art.
This is a thin book but it reads thick. I guess it’s pop science but that 1979 British ecologist language isn’t the breeziest. And while it’s not a spiritual book, the expansive concepts within are stirring to say the least. Idk maybe most people would find this book boring but it’s made me feel even more connected with all the life around me and within me.
This is a thin book but it reads thick. I guess it’s pop science but that 1979 British ecologist language isn’t the breeziest. And while it’s not a spiritual book, the expansive concepts within are stirring to say the least. Idk maybe most people would find this book boring but it’s made me feel even more connected with all the life around me and within me.
March 20, 2010
This book was challenging for me due to the high focus on the chemical processes of the earth and atmosphere. I was hoping this focus would drop off after the first few chapters, but Lovelock continues it throughout the book. However, I don't think this will present a problem to those studied in chemistry on a basic level. The hypothesis seemed a little outdated to me as I think the thought of the earth being one large living organism has pretty much seeped into most of our understanding by now. I did, however, especially enjoy the chapter on cybernetics.
April 28, 2012
Considering that this book was written in 1979, the evidence it puts forward to support the Gaia hypothesis is impressive, but it certainly wasn't a light read. Some parts were fascinating, but I often found myself rereading paragraphs because I had lost focus. I was struggling a bit to get through it and my rating is based on the fact that I didn't really enjoy the read, not on the validity of the concept of Gaia.
September 8, 2010
One great, ingenious concept stretched out over a whole book. By reading the introduction and the last chapter you have a whole summary of the purpose of the book and the ideas behind it. The idea itself is truly fascinating and I think I have come to agree with Lovelock. Love the concept, however the book gets very tedious and repetitive.
June 2, 2015
so, global warming and rising oceans are bad news for us maybe but planet earth has seen it all before
August 22, 2015
Just imagine for a moment--an organism as big as our planet Earth.
Reading Edward Wilson's "The Future of Life" served as the spark to pick up and read this book. And its true, good things do come in small packages. The book is all of 140 pages, and is written in a lean, but not glossed-over style. Robert Lovelock (to my knowledge) is the contemporary father of the study of the earth as a complete living system.
Lovelock readily admits that the book serves more to promote the dialog about our planet as a living, breathing whole and to share key discoveries that support his concept. (He states in the Preface that his follow-on book, "The Ages of Gaia" aims to build the scientific argument to the Gaia theory.)
By no means, does Lovelock detour around the science that supports his case. With the scope of the topic requiring knowledge of both physical and biological science, and the small number of pages, he manages to instruct and create a sense of awe in a short amount of time.
The 3 major principles he brings to light about Gaia are:
1. Gaia exhibits a tendency to keep conditions (e.g., temperature, air quality) constant for all terrestrial life.
2. Like other living systems, Gaia has vital organs at the core, and expandable or redundant ones on the periphery.
3. Under the worse conditions, Gaia responses similar to other cybernetic systems (i.e., where time constant and loop gain are important)
The material is far reaching in both its scope and in shaping our understanding of where we stand. Put in the context of Gaia, we have straddled ourselves to the largest of all known living and breathing creatures.
Reading Edward Wilson's "The Future of Life" served as the spark to pick up and read this book. And its true, good things do come in small packages. The book is all of 140 pages, and is written in a lean, but not glossed-over style. Robert Lovelock (to my knowledge) is the contemporary father of the study of the earth as a complete living system.
Lovelock readily admits that the book serves more to promote the dialog about our planet as a living, breathing whole and to share key discoveries that support his concept. (He states in the Preface that his follow-on book, "The Ages of Gaia" aims to build the scientific argument to the Gaia theory.)
By no means, does Lovelock detour around the science that supports his case. With the scope of the topic requiring knowledge of both physical and biological science, and the small number of pages, he manages to instruct and create a sense of awe in a short amount of time.
The 3 major principles he brings to light about Gaia are:
1. Gaia exhibits a tendency to keep conditions (e.g., temperature, air quality) constant for all terrestrial life.
2. Like other living systems, Gaia has vital organs at the core, and expandable or redundant ones on the periphery.
3. Under the worse conditions, Gaia responses similar to other cybernetic systems (i.e., where time constant and loop gain are important)
The material is far reaching in both its scope and in shaping our understanding of where we stand. Put in the context of Gaia, we have straddled ourselves to the largest of all known living and breathing creatures.
March 6, 2018
I'm having some trouble formulating much of an opinion about this book. On the one hand, it is technical enough that I was often confused by descriptions of chemical processes in our atmosphere or ocean. On the other, Lovelock in his introduction suggests this book is intended for a general audience and that the descriptions of the scientific processes may be too "poetic" for people with actual scientific backgrounds.
By the same token, Lovelock suggests that the way this theory is often described--earth is one huge, self-regulating living thing--is a silly oversimplification. Yet, the language deployed throughout the book very much lends itself to this exact reading.
I guess what we are intended to gather from Gaia is that there are many feedback loops in the Earth's environment that serve to regulate key aspects of our environment, and that living organisms are necessary for these feedback loops to properly operate. Though Lovelock insists he is not suggesting any intentionality on the part of these organisms or networks of organisms, it kind of seems like that is what he is doing. However, he never offers any mechanism of how "decisions" are made, or how the system would come to "understand" its regulatory function.. I found it...unconvincing.
But even if the big picture doesn't seem to add up exactly, there are still sections of the book that are compelling, and I often agreed with Lovelock as he discussed certain particulars of how humankind might better interact with nature. I'm just going to straddle the fence on this review and hope that someday someone that understands this better than me will explain it at a party.
By the same token, Lovelock suggests that the way this theory is often described--earth is one huge, self-regulating living thing--is a silly oversimplification. Yet, the language deployed throughout the book very much lends itself to this exact reading.
I guess what we are intended to gather from Gaia is that there are many feedback loops in the Earth's environment that serve to regulate key aspects of our environment, and that living organisms are necessary for these feedback loops to properly operate. Though Lovelock insists he is not suggesting any intentionality on the part of these organisms or networks of organisms, it kind of seems like that is what he is doing. However, he never offers any mechanism of how "decisions" are made, or how the system would come to "understand" its regulatory function.. I found it...unconvincing.
But even if the big picture doesn't seem to add up exactly, there are still sections of the book that are compelling, and I often agreed with Lovelock as he discussed certain particulars of how humankind might better interact with nature. I'm just going to straddle the fence on this review and hope that someday someone that understands this better than me will explain it at a party.
July 1, 2015
It isn't Lovelock's fault that environmentalists lacking a firm grounding in the natural sciences took his ideas and went whacko with them. This book isn't the metaphysical or new agey nonsense that may have been partially inspired by it. What it is, rather, is a decent treatment of mainstream biogeochemical cycling theory, written for the popular reader and employing somewhat poetic language. I would recommend skipping it and reading Schlesinger's classic "Biogeochemistry" text instead, unless you need to know exactly what Lovelock says for countering those who went overboard with his ideas or you lack the background in basic chemistry and biology for following Schlesinger.
June 13, 2017
It's funny of the Gaïa theory is something I deeply believe in for many years now, but never encountered before reading Luc Ferry's book about transhumanism. And I must say that this theory is deeply interesting (ok, I was already rooting for it before reading this book so it doesn't help) and with the latest climate changes and human trend, the thought of Earth being a sentient organism is something that becomes more and more concrete. If you're interested in discovering why our little planet may be alive on its own, this book will provide you with a wide range of arguments showing that not everything can be explained that simply. Let's just hope we won't destroy it now.
September 19, 2012
Interesting theory, but could have been presented better.
One of New Scientist magazine's 25 most influential science books. I intend to read (or re-read four) them all and randomly chose this one to start. I think I'll have to come back to it after I've thought a bit on the premise.
One of New Scientist magazine's 25 most influential science books. I intend to read (or re-read four) them all and randomly chose this one to start. I think I'll have to come back to it after I've thought a bit on the premise.
April 7, 2014
Not what hippies and new agers think it is. A seminal work but from today's perspective definitely in need of an update from all that was built of it since then. I will be soon moving on to more modern works by Lovelock building off this theme. If it was the 80s I would have given it 5 stars.
July 13, 2015
An interesting book. This was a fairly easy read considering the remote nature of the subject. Lovelock presents a theory of everything that is quite breathtaking in its originality but he presents it in a very clear and credible way.
March 30, 2016
Metaphor backed up by science. An imaginative look at the Earth as a single system, notable for its interdisciplinary outlook. I'm not entirely sure that I'm convinced, but I'm certainly interested enough to look further!
April 15, 2018
Güzel anlatım güzel çeviri. Bazı fikirler bazen abartı bazen ters gelse de (büyük ihtimalle kendi özümüze çakılı olan önyargıdan dolayı), ufuk aydınlatıcı, doğru teşhisleri olan çok güzel bir kitap. "Kimliğin bedeli faniliktir"
July 3, 2023
Lovelock's groundbreaking hypothesis and book is not timeless. This of course is usually the case with science communication, for the research progresses rapidly and entire paradigm shifts can happen. My critique for this book, however, is not based on some sort of contemporary standard to which I'm subjecting it to, but I will try to judge it within its own context.
Lovelock is clearly aware of how controversial his ideas are, based on a new preface in the edition that I read. He spends quite some time defending, rebuking and apologizing for different things in his old book. The most essential mistake in his opinion is that he referred to Gaia as the totality of the biosphere and it's self-regulating processes. However, he now is of the opinion that Gaia hypothesis should include inanimate objects such as rivers, rocks and such. I, however, don't see this as the main issue with this book. For the big problem that he seems to circle around but never actually discuss properly, is that he believes the industrial complex, corporate greed and modern capitalism is not responsible for climate change. His evidence for this strikes me as a bit strange, where he slams some sort of statistic about the money that could have been potentially saved by the construction of an Atlantic pipeline. Or by a discussion on how the fire-hunting methods of indigenous people and similar practices are somehow the real problem not rapid urbanization or industrial pollution. His apologist stance is clearly defending modern industry and is hoping the solutions for all of our problems will come from technological advancement. This techno-salvation can be problematic for it basically avoids asking the question: "What happens if we don't come up with a technology fast enough to save our asses?" The argument that is generally used by climate change deniers is also used here, that the economic impact of environmental movements is much worse than the devastation that these movements try to present. From ozone layer depletion to pesticides he thinks all these issues are over exaggerated. Somewhere in there he also comes to say that "The very concept of pollution is anthropocentric and it may even be irrelevant in the Gaian context. Many so-called pollutants are naturally present and it becomes exceedingly difficult to know at what level the appellation 'pollutant' may be justified." This outrageous statement is part of a long series of paragraphs were he basically wants to establish that there is nothing wrong with industrial waste and pollutants because they are essentially as natural as anything else because they are products of natural beings, humans. If this was actually his stance, I would have just stopped reading the book, but he backtracks and says that we have to not ruin the balance and that if we interfere with Gaia's systems for self-regulation it won't be able to heal fast enough from our damage. So it is actually kind of difficult to gauge his stance, he seems to want to distance himself from extremist enviromentalist movements and green leftist politics, but at the same time he is clearly devoted to nature and cares for the planet.
There are other good ideas that are the saving grace of this book and which has prompted me to write such a long review as to be as fair as possible in my assessment. Firstly, the book is an important milestone in environmental science and in scientific thought in general in its systems thinking approach and it's attack against reductionism. This meta-level of thinking about the planet is quite important and he communicates it well. He explains feedback loops, cybernetics, homeostasis and other ideas that he connects together to present his hypothesis. Secondly, the book is quite prescient at several points, where he has expected advances in the field and in the world in general such as his statement that "The revolution in information technology is likely to change the future world in ways that none of us can now envisage." Or his discussion of futurology, models and how our prediction power and methods of global surveillance improving will give us as humans a more important role in helping Gaia in its self-regulation process. Thirdly, his idea that we are part of nature and that there needs to be a paradigm shift of how we think about the planet is very true, but not necessarily original. The idea of a world animating soul, prevailing consciousness, unity of being, essential oneness of the world, etc., have been presented in so many different ways by all kinds of religions and philosophies but it's important that this ancient wisdom is incorporated into modern scientific thought. Is the book worth the read? I don't regret reading it, for it forced me to think about all these issues and challenged a lot of ideas I had about the environment and the planet. But, also I think that if you do plan on reading the book, to keep in mind how old it actually is and how much has changed already in the field, partly due to influence from Lovelock and his friends.
Lovelock is clearly aware of how controversial his ideas are, based on a new preface in the edition that I read. He spends quite some time defending, rebuking and apologizing for different things in his old book. The most essential mistake in his opinion is that he referred to Gaia as the totality of the biosphere and it's self-regulating processes. However, he now is of the opinion that Gaia hypothesis should include inanimate objects such as rivers, rocks and such. I, however, don't see this as the main issue with this book. For the big problem that he seems to circle around but never actually discuss properly, is that he believes the industrial complex, corporate greed and modern capitalism is not responsible for climate change. His evidence for this strikes me as a bit strange, where he slams some sort of statistic about the money that could have been potentially saved by the construction of an Atlantic pipeline. Or by a discussion on how the fire-hunting methods of indigenous people and similar practices are somehow the real problem not rapid urbanization or industrial pollution. His apologist stance is clearly defending modern industry and is hoping the solutions for all of our problems will come from technological advancement. This techno-salvation can be problematic for it basically avoids asking the question: "What happens if we don't come up with a technology fast enough to save our asses?" The argument that is generally used by climate change deniers is also used here, that the economic impact of environmental movements is much worse than the devastation that these movements try to present. From ozone layer depletion to pesticides he thinks all these issues are over exaggerated. Somewhere in there he also comes to say that "The very concept of pollution is anthropocentric and it may even be irrelevant in the Gaian context. Many so-called pollutants are naturally present and it becomes exceedingly difficult to know at what level the appellation 'pollutant' may be justified." This outrageous statement is part of a long series of paragraphs were he basically wants to establish that there is nothing wrong with industrial waste and pollutants because they are essentially as natural as anything else because they are products of natural beings, humans. If this was actually his stance, I would have just stopped reading the book, but he backtracks and says that we have to not ruin the balance and that if we interfere with Gaia's systems for self-regulation it won't be able to heal fast enough from our damage. So it is actually kind of difficult to gauge his stance, he seems to want to distance himself from extremist enviromentalist movements and green leftist politics, but at the same time he is clearly devoted to nature and cares for the planet.
There are other good ideas that are the saving grace of this book and which has prompted me to write such a long review as to be as fair as possible in my assessment. Firstly, the book is an important milestone in environmental science and in scientific thought in general in its systems thinking approach and it's attack against reductionism. This meta-level of thinking about the planet is quite important and he communicates it well. He explains feedback loops, cybernetics, homeostasis and other ideas that he connects together to present his hypothesis. Secondly, the book is quite prescient at several points, where he has expected advances in the field and in the world in general such as his statement that "The revolution in information technology is likely to change the future world in ways that none of us can now envisage." Or his discussion of futurology, models and how our prediction power and methods of global surveillance improving will give us as humans a more important role in helping Gaia in its self-regulation process. Thirdly, his idea that we are part of nature and that there needs to be a paradigm shift of how we think about the planet is very true, but not necessarily original. The idea of a world animating soul, prevailing consciousness, unity of being, essential oneness of the world, etc., have been presented in so many different ways by all kinds of religions and philosophies but it's important that this ancient wisdom is incorporated into modern scientific thought. Is the book worth the read? I don't regret reading it, for it forced me to think about all these issues and challenged a lot of ideas I had about the environment and the planet. But, also I think that if you do plan on reading the book, to keep in mind how old it actually is and how much has changed already in the field, partly due to influence from Lovelock and his friends.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 194 reviews