Earth System Science and Gaian Science
by Stephan Harding.
Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon TQ9 6EA, England, UK
Introduction.
Conventional science and technology have provided many benefits, but have also
unintentionally contributed to the current ecological and social crises, characterised by the
mass extinction of species, climate change and social breakdown. It seems that conventional
science has been insensitive to its own ill effects, preferring to believe that it generates
‘objective’ information about the natural world, which scientists then hand over to society at
large to interpret and implement. A hallmark of conventional science is the separation of facts
from values. Conventional science thus expunges questions of morality and meaning from its
methodology, preferring instead to focus on the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake and
for the control of nature for the expansion of human interests, irrespective of the intrinsic
value of the natural world. Wildlife and fisheries biology, forestry, recombinant DNA studies
linked to GM technology, organic chemistry linked to the use of pesticides, and the science
behind the intensification of agriculture all provide telling examples of how the urge to
control has had severe negative impacts on nature.
Holistic science is an attempt to move beyond these limitations without losing the many
benefits that conventional science has to offer. I propose that two modes or tendencies can be
discerned within holistic science, and that an interest common to both modes is the
phenomenon of emergence, to be defined below. ‘Detached’ holistic science studies
emergence and whole systems, but agrees with conventional science that value questions are
of no concern in science. ‘Participatory’ holistic science also seeks to understand emergence
and the behaviours of whole systems but does not accept the separation of fact from value,
realising instead that knowledge and appropriate action must be intimately linked in the
practice of science. I suggest that these two modes of holistic science are reflected in two
approaches to the scientific understanding of the Earth: Earth System science and Gaian
science. These can be distinguished from each other by the former's lack of concern with
value questions, and by the latter's concern with bringing intuitions of the intrinsic value of
nature right into the heart of scientific practice. However, it should be borne in mind that the
dichotomy presented here (between Earth System science and Gaian science) is a charicature
or ‘cartoon’ of the complexities of the real world, in which holisitically inclined scientists
move back and forth between the two modes. Thus my dichotomy should only be seen as a
heurisitc device for stimulating discussion on the place of values in scientific discourse and
practice.
The Scientific Revolution.
We have inherited conventional science from the scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Bacon suggested that we must torture nature’s secrets from her in order to gain dominion over
nature for the benefit of humanity, that we must gain knowledge for control of nature. Galileo
stressed the primacy of the quantifiable, affirming that subjective experience can tell us
nothing useful about the world. Descartes asserted that the universe, including the human
body, is a vast, inert machine, and that the screams of vivisected animals were to be
disregarded, since for him they were no more than the creakings of mere mechanisms.
Newton’s equations appeared to verify this mechanistic world-view, as with their use
scientists could accurately predict the movements of projectiles and celestial bodies. Two
centuries after Galileo, Laplace went so far as to comment that if it were possible to quantify
everything in the Universe at a given moment, then its entire future could be accurately
predicted using this new scientific method, including all subsequent human behaviour. This
perspective strengthened the belief that the world is machine, having value only when
converted by science and technology into objects useful for human purposes.
However, there are other ways of knowing the world. The pre-scientific understanding,
eventually pushed underground by the scientific revolution, was that the world was suffused
with intelligence, agency and soul, even down to the level of matter. Far from being a
machine valued only according to utilitarian criteria, the world was experienced as a living
being in its own right, infused with intrinsic value. Like the pre-scientific West, many nonwestern
cultures saw humans as humble strands in the web of life, not as its masters, and
revered rocks, trees and rivers for their special, intrinsic qualities. Intuitive modes of knowing
about intrinsic values, which conventional science regarded as peripheral, were central to
these ways of relating to the world.
From Conventional Science to Holistic Science.
As mentioned above, a key characteristic of holistic science is a focus on the phenomenon of
emergence. Conventional science is built on the premise that it is possible to understand the
workings of complex systems by studying the properties of their constituent parts. There is
no doubt that this ‘reductionist’ methodology has yielded remarkable insights. However,
holistic scientists hold that reductionism is limited, and that it must be complemented with the
recognition that complex systems have ‘emergent properties’ which are influenced but not
determined by the properties of their parts. Silberstein (1998), provides a useful definition:
‘Emergent properties are qualitatively new properties of systems of wholes that posses causal
capacities that are not reducible to any of the causal capacities of the parts’.
Holistic science involves the study of emergent properties across a large range of temporal
and spatial scales in a wide variety of situations. Models of social insect colonies yield good
examples of emergence. Goodwin and colleagues (see Goodwin 1994) modelled colonies of
the ant Leptothorax, based on earlier work showing that activity patterns of individual ants
either on their own or interacting with others at low density, were chaotic in the technical
sense. In the model, individual ants were programmed to become active whenever an internal
variable obeying an equation for deterministic chaos exceeded a threshold value. Ants
moving over a virtual grid could also activate other ants which were either active or at rest.
Colony density was a parameter which was systematically altered. The surprising result was
that rhythmical patterns of activity emerged in the colony as a whole at a critical colony
density, despite the fact that the underlying activity pattern of every individual ant in the
model was chaotic. This rythmicity, which is an emergent property of the colony as a whole,
has so far proved impossible to explain using classical reductionist approaches.
Lovelock's Gaia theory provides another striking example of emergence, proposing that selfregulation
of key variables for life, such as planetary temperature and atmospheric
composition emerge out of tightly coupled feedbacks between life and its non-living
environment - the rocks, atmosphere and water (Lovelock 2000). Life and the abiotic
environment evolve as a single, life-like entity, Gaia, which is studied as a whole, without
losing sight of relationships amongst entities at lower levels in the system.
For holistic science, relationships are primary. Objects can only be understood through their
relationships, and indeed are themselves made up of complex networks of internal relations.
The world thus consists of nested sets of networks within networks. This point is well
illustrated in quantum theory, where there are no billiard ball-like solid particles, but rather
wave-like patterns of probabilities of relationship between the 'entities' concerned.
By contrast, conventional science is concerned primarily with describing and understanding
the behaviour of objects. In physics, this view gives us the classical understanding of nonliving
objects as ‘billiard balls’, which behave in predictable ways according to Newton’s
equations. In this view, relationships between objects are acknowledged, but are not
considered to be of primary importance.
The followers of Descartes and Laplace believed that science could provide total certainty
and absolute predictability, but conventional science has recently been forced to admit that
such claims are totally unachievable. Chaos theory has shown that even simple non-linear
systems are inherently unpredictable, and quantum physics has demonstrated that the
behaviour of sub-atomic particles cannot be fully described.
Furthermore, conventional science believes in objective description, in observations and
conclusions which are independent of human observers and the methods used to obtain
observations. Holistic scientists believe that objective knowledge is impossible to attain,
since all knowledge depends on how the scientist has interacted with the natural world,
Because of this, the process of acquiring knowledge should be included in scientific
descriptions. This insight is exemplified by Werner Heisenberg, one of the great quantum
physicists of the early part of the last century, who said that “what we observe is not nature
itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”. Finally, holistic science has learnt
from Thomas Kuhn (1962) that science deals with paradigms - the values, attitudes and
techniques underlying scientific descriptions, which change as new views of reality emerge
into scientific consciousness.
For more detailed descriptions of the contrasts between conventional and holistic science
(which Capra calls 'systems thinking') see Capra (1997) and Capra and Steindl-Rast (1991).
Two modes of holistic science
'Detached’ holistic science (Table 1), is a more ‘holistic’ version of conventional science. It
is interested in understanding emergent phenomena, yet it continues to believe in the
possibility of detached observation, has implicit instrumental values, tries to gain knowledge
for control of nature and hardly acknowledges the value of intuition in scientific discovery.
Even though one might be told by its practitioners how certain scientists, such as Kekule and
Medeleev received important scientific insights in dreams, detached holistic science offer no
systematic methodology for cultivating the intuitive faculty.
Finally, detached holistic science recognises that traditional academic barriers are an
impediment to the understanding of emergent phenomena, and seeks to build complex, transdisciplinary
‘systems’ models which can then be scrutinised and tested from the ‘outside’.
The second mode, which I call ‘participatory’ holistic science (Table 1), is also concerned
with a trans-disciplinary understanding of emergent phenomena, but has a different
philosophical motivation at its core. Drawing on the strengths of the pre-scientific world-
view described above, and on contemporary approaches in cognitive science and in the
philosophy of science, this mode of holistic science sees humans not as objective observers
but as participatory ‘experiencers’ radically embedded in the world. Intrinsic value is
explicitly recognised, and knowledge is seen as a means for increasing a sense of belonging to
nature, rather than solely as a means for its control. This mode of science accepts lack of
complete predictability as a key feature of a creative universe, as chaotic phenomena such as
weather patterns, have clearly shown us. Furthermore, intuition is explicitly developed as a
method for enhancing scientific enquiry through paying close attention to the consistency of
feelings and intuitions which come up amongst a group of scientists during their
investigations (Goodwin 1999).
Deep Ecology.
Participatory holistic science is more than just an intellectual stance - it involves a radical shift
in our fundamental perception of nature. The shift is primarily experiential rather than
intellectual, and is very well characterised by an experience recounted by the famous
American ecologist Aldo Leopold in his book ‘A Sand County Almanac’ (Leopold 1949).
Leopold was a wildlife manager in the first half of the last century, and supported a scientific
program to eradicate the wolf from the United States so that hunters could have more deer to
shoot. Then one day whilst out in the mountains with some friends he shot an old wolf, and
scrambled down a steep slope to watch its last moments. In a chapter called ‘Thinking Like a
Mountain’ he describes the shift in perception which he experienced during his encounter
with the dying wolf:
“We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realised
then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes something
known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger itch. I
thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’
paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain
agreed with such a view”.
Leopold had broken through the conditioning of his scientific training and had made contact
with the life of the ecosystem as a whole, in its own right. He intuited that role of the wolf
was to "fit the deer herd to the range", that without the wolf the deer would decimate the
mountain ecosystem, and ultimately themselves. This perception allowed him to feel a deep
empathy with the mountain and its more-than-human inhabitants, with a difficult-to-articulate
sense of agency in these entities, which he could only describe using the crude approximation
of teleological language. The point is that he was informed by an intuitive sense of the
intrinsic value of the more-than-human beings which surrounded him, a value which inhered
in them irrespective of their usefulness to his own species.
The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, who coined the term ‘deep ecology’, would say that
Leopold had experienced the 'ecological self' - a state in which we identify with wider wholes
beyond our everyday, narrow human self-centerdness. In this state of 'wide identification' our
sense of concern and compassion includes the human realm, but expands beyond it,
encompassing the entire scope of the more-than-human world (see Naess 1986, reprinted in
Sessions 1995, pp. 225-239). The greatest circle of earth-bound identification which the
ecological self can reach is Gaia, the whole planet as an emergent, living entity.
Deep ecology, which is as much a movement as a philosophy, seeks to help individuals to
discover how life, both personally and at the level of society, can best be lived in accord with
one's Leopold-like deep experiences of the more-than-human world. This requires a process
of 'deep questioning' of oneself and society so that one becomes aware of one's own
'ecosophy', or ecological wisdom. There are many ecosophical paths, and Naess stress the
importance of pluralism and tolerance along the long frontier of the deep ecology movement
(Naess 1986).
Earth System Science and Gaian Science
How do these two modes of holistic science and deep ecology relate to scientific views of the
Earth? The detached mode, when applied to understanding the Earth as a system could be
identified with ‘Earth System Science’ (Table 2), a term which is rapidly gaining acceptance
in the mainstream. It is not too far fetched to imagine that some Earth System scientists could
see the Earth as a mechanism, albeit a hugely complex one, with instrumental value insofar as
it provides 'ecosystem services' for sustaining human interests, and particularly continued
economic growth. Indeed, some Earth System scientists have proposed projects in Earth
System Engineering (Allaby 1999) to solve the problem of climate change by seeding the
ocean with iron to encourage carbon dioxide drawdown by algae (see discussion in Allaby,
op. cit.), or by placing a dam across the Strait of Gibraltar in order to modify oceanic and
atmospheric circulation in the high northern latitudes (Johnson, 1997). Others have
demonstrated that carbon capture at the source of fossil fuel burning is technically and
economically feasible (Herzog and Drake 1996).
The participatory mode of holistic science is inspired by deep ecology and could be called
‘Gaian Science’ when applied to understanding the Earth. Gaian science would paraphrase
Leopold by affirming that humans are ‘plain members’ of the Gaian community, and that
detached observation and control are impossible due to our radical embededness in Gaia. Far
from conceiving of the Earth as a machine, Gaian scientists experience it as an organism
which is imbued with intrinsic value due to its own self-evident, awe-inspiring existence.
Gaian scientists seek to gain knowledge in order to facilitate experiences of wide
identification and deep participation in the life of Gaia, rather than to gain control of or
'engineer' Gaia's vital functions.
Gaian scientists would thus be highly critical of the kinds of global scale technical fixes
outlined above since these arise from an acceptance of the current economic status quo rather
than from a deep questioning of the underlying values and impacts of the globalised consumer
culture. Those who do engage in such deep questioning broadly agree that ecologically
friendly technologies implemented at the local scale have much to contribute. For example,
they would consider it wiser to reduce our overall carbon emissions by implementing a
steady-state, ecologically sustainable economy powered by the use of renewable energy
sources, energy saving measures and other such practices rather than by pumping carbon
dioxide from fossil fuel burning into underground reservoirs. Those engaging in deep
questioning recognise that such an apparently benign solution could become problematic due
to unpredicted leaks and discharges over a range of time scales. Furthermore, devoid of
deeper ecological analysis, such technical fixes give the impression that economic growth can
proceed apace once they are 'safely' implemented.
Final remarks
James Lovelock named his theory of a self-regulating planet after Gaia, the ancient Greek
divinity of the Earth. The conventional scientific community strongly objected, even though
Lovelock has taken great pains in his later writings to emphasise that he used Gaia as a
metaphor, just as Richard Dawkins has used the metaphor 'selfish' when speaking about the
behaviourof genes. Recently, Gaia theory has been re-branded 'Earth System science', which
has appropriated most if not all of the main insights, ideas and results arising out of
Lovelock's theory, thereby removing any recent reference to Gaia in scientific discourse.
However, for Gaian scientists the reference to the divinity of the Earth reminds us that science
can no longer hold to the outdated and dangerous belief that humans can control nature, and
urges science to participate in and serve both the human and the more-than human worlds.
Gaian science leads us to participate in the reality of Gaia as an organism in the way the Aldo
Leopold participated through his feelings in the lifeof the wolf and of the mountain. Gaian
scientists, recognising that science cannot and should not be separated from moral, political
and economic concerns, seek to deeply question and remould themselves and society based on
their deep experiences of studying, living in and identifying with Gaia. A guiding principle
for them is that human vital needs should be satisfied with as little disruption as possible with
Gaian processes at all levels. Gaian science, as defined in this article, can thus be
distinguished from Earth System science by its striving to bring a sound science of the Earth
together with ecological wisdom and action.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Brian Goodwin and Jordi Pigem and Tim Lenton for stimulating
comments on the manuscript.
References
Allaby B. (1999). Earth systems Engineering: The Role of Industrial Ecology in an
Engineered World. Journal off Industrial Ecology, 2(3) 73-93.
Capra F. (1997). The Web of Life. Harper Collins.
Capra F. and D. Steindhal-Rast (1991). Belonging to the Universe. Harper.
Goodwin B. (1994). How the Leopard Changed its Spots. Weindenfield and Nicholson.
Goodwin B. (1999). Reclaiming a Life of Quality. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6,
No 11-12, 229-35.
Herzog H.J., and Drake E.M.(1996), Carbon dioxide recovery and disposal from large
energy systems. Annual review of energy and the environment. 21:145-166
Johnson, R.G. (1997) Climate control requires a dam at the Strait of Gibraltar.
Eos. 78(27):277, 280-281.
Kuhn T.S. (1962). The structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Leopold A, (1949) A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.
Lovelock J.E. (2000) The Ages of Gaia (3rd edition) Oxford University Press.
Naess A. (1986). The Deep Ecology Movement, some Philosophical Aspects.
Philosophical Inquiry 8, nos 1-2.
Sessions G. (ed). (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century. Shambhala.
Silberstein M. (1998). Emergence and the mind-body Problem. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 5(4), 492-5.
Tables
Table 1
Some differences in emphasis between two modes of holistic science.
____________________________________________________________________
Detached Holistic Science Participatory Holistic Science
____________________________________________________________________
Detached observers of 'systems' Participatory 'experiencers'
embedded in the world.
Implicit instrumental values Explicit intrinsic values
Knowledge for control Knowledge as belonging
Intuition hardly acknowledged Intuition as method
____________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Some possible distinctions between Earth System Science and my own proposal for a Gaian
Science.
____________________________________________________________________
Earth System Science Gaian Science
_____________________________________________________________________
Humans as observers of Humans as 'plain members'
the Earth of the Gaian community
Earth as a machine Gaia as an organism
Earth system has instrumental Gaia has intrinsic value
value
Earth system services Gaian system services
sustain the human economy sustain the web of life
Prioritises global scale technical Prioritises local scale
fixes for global environmental appropriate technology
problems
Seeks not to become involved in the Seeks to use its findings to foster
political implications of its findings. ecologically sound life-styles and
societies.
___________________________________________________________________