Gaia Theory: Respecting Biodiversity Beyond Anthropocentric Advantages

Mankind’s understanding of the Earth’s dynamic processes and systems has largely been constructed through a lens of anthropocentrism. A shallow delve into the human psyche is enough to establish that these human-centered perspectives have historically appealed to us due to the innate drive of self-preservation. Even in the world of environmentalism, calls to action to protect biodiversity and sustain the planet have largely been motivated by human needs. 

However, there has been and continues to be a dire need to step away from our existential spotlight and allow for our minds to accommodate possibilities that aren’t centered around our existence as a species. In the late 20th century, our scientific understanding had a breath of fresh air in the form of a fascinating new hypothesis that turned to Mother Earth as its basis in a time of increasing biocentric attitudes.

The Gaia theory, also known as the Gaia hypothesis or principle, was formulated in the 1970s by British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock in collaboration with American biologist Lynn Margulis. The theory suggests that living organisms interact with their inorganic, or non-living, surroundings on Earth to form a single and self-regulating system, thereby maintaining the Earth’s surface in a habitable state. The hypothesis, named after the Greek goddess of Earth, takes one step further the idea of co-evolution initially suggested in the mid-1700s. Instead of viewing the global ecology, particularly the organic side of it, as a passive recipient of changes in the physical environment, the Gaia theory places greater importance on the power and importance of the living organisms in shaping and maintaining the very living conditions that allow them to thrive on Earth. 

Although controversial in the field of science, particularly due to the initial model’s incompatibility with Darwin’s principles of natural selection, the theory has turned the idea of anthropocentric ecology on its head, establishing a view of Mother Nature that places mankind within its web of life rather than at the top of it. The model was constructed from complex and paradoxical observations. For instance, even within states of thermodynamic disequilibrium, there is homeostasis established in the Earth’s surface temperature, atmospheric composition, and ocean salinity – all due to the activity of the planet’s biota.

Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis highlighted the importance of biodiversity in sustaining this mutualism, and when superimposed in practices of environmental protection and conservation, it highlights a fascinating system that warrants preservation not solely to sate mankind’s needs. The theory is rooted in the philosophically-leaning belief of Gaianism, which holds as one of its central principles the need to respect all forms of life on the planet and to treat the conglomerate of all systems on it as a part of Gaia herself - the life form sustaining and supporting all other life forms. The theory is a humbling reminder that despite human action either having the power to benefit the wellbeing of the planet or the power to destroy ecosystems, it’s only a part of the overall systems that impact the scientific states that make life on Earth possible. 

The theory is also closely related to environmental ethics – a part of environmental philosophy that seeks to highlight the importance of sustaining and protecting the environment for needs that lie outside the domain of human desires. The hypothesis does, after all, treat human beings as an element within the larger and dynamic system that functions for the sake of sustaining biodiversity on the planet rather than for anthropocentric advantages.

In the words of James Lovelock, The Guardian writes, “But my fellow humans must learn to live in partnership with the Earth, otherwise the rest of creation will, as part of Gaia, unconsciously move the Earth to a new state in which humans may no longer be welcome.”

A beautiful system built on codependency and co-evolution faces the risk of being destabilized through the actions designed to benefit mankind alone. It is time to dissipate the historically prevalent anthropocentric views of environmentalism, albeit for a little while, to view this system for what it is, with all the diversity and interdependence it thrives on. Only then can the actions intended to preserve, respect, and value biodiversity and the systems it sustains be directed solely for the sake of protecting and preserving them rather than for the sake of exploiting the system to satisfy mankind’s needs. 

Authored by Pooja V, Intern at PfA Bangalore