Inventor of Gaia Hypothesis Predicts Collapse of Earth’s Life-Support Systems

Earth of the future might not be able to support more than 500 million people, if predictions by a controversial climatologist turn out to be correct. James Lovelock, creator of the “Gaia Hypothesis” of the planet as a living organism, says the earth’s temperatures could rise as much as 8 degrees Celsius, rendering large parts of the planet uninhabitable. Soon, he said, the changes in climate will be dominated by positive feedback from affected systems, rather than human-caused link gas emissions. According to Lovelock, efforts to curb those emissions are “buying us time, no more.” He compared emissions reductions to going on dialysis when your kidneys fail–”and who would refuse dialysis if death is the alternative?”

Source: Jeremy Lovell. link. Scientific American, November 28, 2006.You can find the entire article here link

I am a true believer in global warming. But some of the things that people are saying make little sense to me. While the 500 million people hypothesis here does seem possible (albeit a little far-fetched), it would have to, in any case, include a lot more variables than just global warming.

If we look back throughout history our Earth has gone though very extremem temperature changes. Think about eh Ice Ages and the warmer periods when dinosaurs ruled the word. For most of the Earth’s history our planet has been much warmer than it is now. Thinking scientifically now, apart from a very small fraction of a percent that is due to incoming meteors and space dust and things, the earth is made up of the same matter that it was at the time of its creation. The periodic table will show you everything that exists on earth. All of these elements have simply been moving around to different locations on our planet and have been changing forms. This is what causes change. The earth is really more of a liquid ball than one of water and solids. Most of the most important matter can change forms from liquid to solid to gas and vice-versa in all 3 ways.

So the global warming that we see today is not a result of anything new, it’s just humans changing solid and liquid matter (coal, gasolines, etc.) into gaseous form and releasing it into the atmosphere. Over the course of millions of years these things happen naturally anyway. The difference is that we are doing these things at speeds far faster than nature can. In the end these “pollutants” will naturally move back under the ground from which they came via natural processes as long as life on earth exists, and even perhaps if life does cease to exist. Mars, Venus and even Saturn and Jupiter go through similar never-ending processes like these.

The important thing to know is the maximum temperature that the Earth has ever achieved. This is likely the maximum temperature that humanity will be able to heat the earth up to.

However, I might be wrong if it is possible for us to increase atmospheric levels of “pollutants” like CO2 beyond what had naturally occurred in the Earth’s history. In this scenario just maybe we might do some catastrophic things to the Earth as we know it. While unlikely, the Earth will take good care of itself with or without life living on it.

Maybe you’d be better off watching National Geographic’s recent documentary “Aftermath” or hearing Al Gore talk about some of what I just said. Gore was pretty decent in his movie, although he did not mention a few macro things about our planet and solar system.

Strong emerging Human characteristics unseen in current day events may overcome gloom . Things like faith, compassion, empathy, sympathy, fear, financial hardship etc… will have lasting impacts too social interactions. Communities will begin to blossom and share commodities and resources, but the real question is how bad does it have to get before it gets better. It seems like the ones who will see the opportunities will be the have nots, while the potential to do something about it, lies with the “$peacial” interests of those who don’t see the need for change. The question is who needs educating on what to do. Lets make it this way . To each according to their needs, from each according to ability. Then we can at least pass on together, with as little pain as necessary, I don’t want to burn down the house, just spark the revolution of change, that will fuel survival beyond my life.

You know, I’m never sure how much of information I want to pass on to my stduents. On the one hand, people don’t seem to react or make drastic changes unless they anticiapte disaster. On the other hand, my students say they sometimes tune out the news because it’s overwhelming and makes them feel powerless. I suppose that is true for some adults too, who every time they hear one more story of impending doom decide it doesn’t matter anymore because “we’re all gonna die anyway.” I want to know these things, but I usually tell my students about the positive changes, ex. hydrogen cars, etc.

good post……………