Zell, Lovelock, and the Gaia Hypothesis
2007-02-02 22:33:32
Zell, Lovelock, and the Gaia Hypothesis
Liu Huajie
Dorion Sagan and Lynn Margulis once enthused: “The Gaia hypothesis is a scientific view of life on Earth; it expresses a new biological worldview. In philosophical terms, this new worldview is closer to Aristotelian philosophy than to Platonic philosophy. This new idea is based on the facts of the Earth rather than on conceptual abstractions, though it certainly also contains some metaphysical implications. This new biological worldview (of which the Gaia hypothesis is the principal part) accepts the logic of life cycles and of engineering systems, while casting aside the Greek-Western tradition of ultimate syllogism.” (Sagan, Margulis 1999, p. 188) This passage sounds as if it has the flavor of Husserl’s The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, as well as the flavor of the philosophies of systems science, nonlinear science, and complexity science. “Whether from the perspective of science or of philosophy, the Gaia hypothesis provides a clear and important theoretical window; Lovelock calls it ‘a new view of Earth life.’” (ibid., p. 189)
The “Gaia Hypothesis” is now widely disseminated, receiving both fervent support and severe attacks. Some have accused it of being pseudoscience, occult nonsense; even Nature and the American Geophysical Union have displayed controversy over the doctrine. Calmly speaking, this hypothesis does indeed have deep connections with both science and religion. However, the fact that a hypothesis is entangled with religion is not any especially grave offense; the rise of modern science was plainly connected with Christianity. Only, that time it was mainstream Christianity, whereas this time it is paganism. Now, the Gaia hypothesis is often discussed by Earth scientists, ecologists, environmental protection activists, religious believers, ecofeminists, evolutionary biologists, and so on; it is necessary to give a brief account of its intellectual history.
According to the Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience, the “Gaia hypothesis” refers to “a theory that holds that the Earth is not a pile of lifeless rock, but a living organism. The Gaia hypothesis was first proposed in 1970 by Timothy Zell, and improved in 1972 by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis. According to Lovelock’s view, the reason the Earth escaped the fate of Venus and Mars is that, about 3 billion years ago, it was occupied by a life form, which began to turn this planet into itself. According to the Gaia hypothesis, all forms of life that evolved on Earth are part of Gaia, this living body, just as cells make up the human body. Like cells, the various life forms that constitute Gaia interact with one another and contribute to the health of the organism as a whole.” (Williams F. Williams, translated by Bi Sheng). Here Lovelock (James Lovelock) and Margulis are both world-famous scientists (though they also had other interests, especially—at least in the eyes of some people—some strange ideas); so who exactly is Timothy Zell (also written Tim Zell)? The Gaia hypothesis does sound suspiciously like pantheism, metaphor, teleology, and so on; coupled with a character as odd as Zell, it is not hard to understand why it has been criticized and mocked by scientists.
Comments(4)┆Citation┆Reads(64)┆Circles┆Print┆Prize Report
The following comments from netizens represent only their personal views and do not represent the views or position of Sina.com
[Anonymous] Gulu
2007-02-03 15:34:05
This Zell fellow is indeed rather interesting.
But when Lovelock proposed the Gaia hypothesis, was he influenced by Zell? In various materials, it seems to say that Lovelock first proposed the Gaia hypothesis in 1965? In Teacher Wu Guosheng’s article “Retelling the Story of Life—Reading The Sloping Truth,” it also says that the time Lovelock first proposed the Gaia hypothesis was in the 1960s.
[Anonymous] Gulu
2007-02-03 19:28:04
In the “Professional Literature on Gaia” appendix on page 428 of The Sloping Truth, there are four articles by Lovelock from 1965, 1967, 1967, and 1968, all earlier than Zell’s. Perhaps the formal adoption of the name Gaia did not come until 1972, but clearly the basic idea had already formed independently before Zell.
To say “The Gaia hypothesis was first proposed in 1970 by Timothy Zell, and improved in 1972 by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis” or “Zell’s line of argument preceded the similar hypothesis put forward by James Lovelock in 1974,” both of these should be wrong.
I am not clear on Zell’s influence on Lovelock, but even if there was influence, perhaps it was only like Bohr’s adoption of the taiji diagram as a clan emblem: merely borrowing a symbol. Lovelock borrowed Zell’s word Gaia, but that does not mean Zell’s theory had any inspiration for Lovelock. The Encyclopaedia of Pseudoscience may have phrased it that way perhaps deliberately to insinuate the mystical character of the Gaia hypothesis.
I believe it is possible for mystical thought to contribute to contemporary scientific ideas, but speaking strictly to the matter, in this case it does not reflect any “contribution.” A more fitting explanation may be one of two kinds: first, New Age religion and the birth of new science share a common intellectual background; second, since it is truth, whether one starts from science or religion, from East or West, all roads will eventually lead to the same destination. I incline toward the first explanation, but to say on that basis that New Age religion has contributed to contemporary science, I am afraid the evidence is still insufficient.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-03 22:44:05
“Anything good is credited to science, anything bad to the devil. Science and all the other stuff must have their boundaries clearly drawn.”
This sort of thinking is indeed very popular. I think the wording in the Dictionary of Pseudoscience has some merit. Lovelock’s work is introduced somewhat in Tangjian, and it really does have some connection with religion; while Margulis and her son are even less concerned about the relation between science and religion. The American Geophysical Union, Nature, Science, Life Sciences, ecofeminism, and other journals have all discussed the Gaia hypothesis extensively. There is a collection called Scientists on Gaia. I am looking at some literature precisely in order to clarify the relationships between certain IDEAS in intellectual history. In fact, if one takes a calm view, who influenced whom is not really important; whether it is science or not is not really important either.
I am at Jiuhuashanzhuang; the room does have a desktop machine, but it is a diskless machine with no USB port, so I can’t attach other things. –HJ
[Anonymous] Gulu
2007-02-03 23:44:34
Of course, the “anything good to science” boundary-drawing line of thought won’t do. Generally speaking, a clear-headed scientist should define science according to what is “proper” rather than what is “correct.”
The Dictionary of Pseudoscience says that Lovelock’s Gaia is an “improvement” of Zell’s 1970 claim; that is misleading.
Margulis and the others really do not care whether they are associated with philosophy or religion, but when presenting their own theory, they still consciously made distinctions: when presenting Gaia as a scientific theory, they would avoid some ambiguous expressions. For example, Margulis mentioned: “Gaia has been called the ‘Earth Goddess’ or ‘the Earth as a living individual.’ These are all misleading expressions. Since many scientific writings encounter the problem of misunderstanding terminology when referring to Gaia, we therefore proposed a physiological approach to the Gaia hypothesis.” (The Sloping Truth, p. 284, p. 225)
Science is about rigor and norms. In popular introductions or philosophical discussions, saying “the Earth is a living organism” is fine; but if it is being used in a scientific discussion, then one should further define what exactly “living organism” means—for example, can a living organism eat its own excrement, and be incapable of reproducing? If the concept of a living organism is not redefined clearly, then the assertion “the Earth is a living organism” is not scientific, or at least “not scientific enough.” This judgment does not care whether the statement is true or false, good or bad; the key is that if it is ambiguous, it is not scientific enough. I think this normative boundary between science and non-science is necessary.
Gaia (II) (continued from previous)
2007-02-04 17:24:28
According to the material compiled by George Knowles, Zell, that is Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, is the founder of the Church of All Worlds and a leading figure in the American Neo-Pagan community. (According to George Knowles.) He also used names such as Otter G’Zell or Oberon Zell. What follows is a brief introduction to Zell based on George Knowles’s material.
Zell calls himself the “ordained priest” of the Earth Mother Goddess Gaia, and also a transpersonal psychologist, naturalist, metaphysician, theologian, shaman, writer, artist, sculptor, lecturer, and teacher. He was also one of the initiators of the Church of the Eternal Source. It is said that he holds degrees in sociology, anthropology, clinical psychology (unfinished), and theology. Zell was born on November 30, 1942, in St. Louis, Missouri; at the time of his birth, his father was serving as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps in the South Pacific. After his father returned to the United States, the family moved to Pennsylvania. It is said that even as a child, Zell felt very close to living things in nature, often staying alone in the woods behind the house. “He sat motionless, allowing wild animals to roam around him.” It is said that it was precisely this early companionship with nature and animals that gave him special powers.
Inspired by Robert A. Heinlein’s 1961 science-fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land, Zell, together with Richard Lance Christie, founded the Church of All Worlds on April 7, 1962. In 1963 he married Martha and had a son, Bryan. The marriage ended in 1971. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, his church attracted many intellectuals. In the 1960s he was among the first to apply words such as “Pagan” and “Neo-Pagan” to describe the emerging Nature religions. He published the pagan magazine Green Egg (1968–1976; 1988–1996) and, together with others, carried out New Age and environmental movements. When he gave lectures, he carried his pet python over his shoulder. In 1970, after accumulating some experience, he proposed and published the theory of Theagenesis, a theology of deep ecology, which later became the “Gaia Thesis.” Zell believed that all life is interconnected and all is related to the Earth Mother Goddess, a sentient higher being. This thesis spread rapidly within pagan communities and was accepted almost universally. According to the Church of All Worlds, Zell’s thesis came earlier than Lovelock’s similar hypothesis: the “Gaia Hypothesis.” In an interview, Zell said: “I presented what is now called the Gaia Thesis three years earlier than Lovelock. This idea spread widely within pagan communities and in magazines including Green Egg. It was also written into books, but to some extent it did not enter the public domain.” (According to Peg Aloi)
In 1973, at one of his lectures, Zell met his spiritual soulmate and later partner Morning Glory. She was born on May 27, 1948, in California, with the original name Diana. She had originally been a historian engaged in American paganism and goddess studies. She was also an advocate of sexual freedom; in 1969 Glory gave birth to a daughter, Rainbow (now called Gail). In 1971 she had a dream in which she clearly saw a man who changed her life. In 1973, when Zell was giving a lecture on “the image of Earth as a living ecological goddess,” she attended the lecture and realized that this was the man from her dream. After the lecture, the two returned together to St. Louis, and on April 14, 1974, they were formally married. Thereafter she became a priestess in the Church of All Worlds and co-edited Green Egg magazine with Zell. Zell successively changed his name to G’Zell (1979), Oberon Zell (1994), and Zell-Ravenheart (1996). Oberon has been interviewed by many media outlets, and his views have also been widely quoted by New Age religion and pagan circles. He also created many works of art, the best known of which is The Millennial Gaia, based on his 1970 Theagenesis image. Since 1999, Zell-Ravenheart has actively supported the polyamory movement. The word polyamory was first coined by Morning Glory in her article “A Bouquet of Lovers,” published in the May 1990 issue of Green Egg.
Gaia (III) (continued from previous)
2007-02-04 17:25:07
The material above is enough to show the characteristics of this person Zell. He does not count as a standard “popular science enthusiast.” He is a religious figure connected with the New Age movement, the environmental movement, feminism, and the sexual liberation movement, but what he believes in is not orthodox religion; one could also say he practices heretical religion or cult religion. But it should be noted that in modern society, heretical religion or cult religion itself is not illegal. His thoughts and actions all show a certain opposition to the mainstream ideas of present-day modernity.
Who first proposed the Gaia hypothesis? Was it Zell or Lovelock? People have different views, although now everyone believes that Lovelock systematically articulated the meaning of the Gaia hypothesis in scientific terms. The general situation may have been this: in the early 1970s Zell first proposed a kind of thought that was mainly theological and intermixed with ecology (more precisely, it could be called “deep ecology theology”), using the name of the goddess Gaia in his naming; afterward Lovelock and others also used the name Gaia to designate a scientific hypothesis. One can summarize the similarities and differences between Zell and Lovelock as follows: first, their motivations were similar, and the issues they concerned both involved ecology and geophysiology; second, Zell had a strong religious and theological background, while Lovelock basically did not, though it cannot be said that he had none at all—the opponents of the Gaia hypothesis in the scientific community have correctly pointed this out; third, both concerned themselves with the Earth, and both used the word “Gaia” in their naming; fourth, Zell later did not continue researching and elaborating Gaia theory, whereas from 1972 to 1999 Lovelock continuously published many deeply substantive scientific papers, including the very famous 1992 paper “A Numerical Model for Biodiversity” (Lovelock 1992), and the 1999 paper “An Earth Physiologist’s Thoughts on the Natural Sulfur Cycle.” Of these, the 1972 paper “Gaia as Seen Through the Atmosphere,” first to use the word Gaia and published in Atmospheric Environment, was only two pages long. In a brief note to Science in 1991 titled “Toujours Gaia,” Lovelock admitted that he and Margulis often became overly keen to draw attention to their doctrine; Lovelock in Britain and Margulis in the United States repeatedly used the mass media (such as Time and Newsweek) to promote the Gaia hypothesis. “We had to do that, otherwise our work might have been ignored.” But he then added: “I now realize that doing so was a mistake. The evidence we should provide is the best thing to convince the conservatively minded opponents.” By then, the situation had already undergone a fundamental change: quite rich scientific evidence had accumulated regarding the Gaia hypothesis, though there were still some people opposed to it.
People who dislike theology and dislike religion may think that Lovelock had absolute priority in originating the Gaia hypothesis, and point out that he already had similar ideas back in the 1960s. Others have noted that “in the ‘On the Professional Literature on Gaia’ appendix on page 428 of *Tilted Truth*, there are four Lovelock items from 1965, 1967, 1967, and 1968, all earlier than Zell’s; perhaps the formal adoption of the term Gaia did not come until 1972, but it is clear that the basic idea took shape independently before Zell.” (Guchu 2007) This description is actually not accurate. Similarly, the series of works Zell did in the 1960s of course also had to do with the Gaia theme he would later establish. If we confirm today that the “Gaia hypothesis” is a good thing, it is easy to handle it according to the procedure Tian Song describes as “what is good is assigned to science, what is bad is assigned to the devil.” A fair account would seem to be this: Zell and Lovelock each independently developed similar ideas, but Zell was the first to use the term “Gaia” to name his idea, in 1970. Lovelock used the term “Gaia” in 1972, and Lovelock’s collaborative Gaia paper with Margulis was published in 1974. Considering later developments, Lovelock’s contribution to the scientifically meaningful “Gaia hypothesis” is absolutely dominant, whereas Zell later had almost no influence on the “Gaia hypothesis.” Saying this does not mean that Zell made no substantive contribution to the Gaia hypothesis.
The question is: can someone with such a background make a contribution to contemporary scientific ideas? Scientism and strong reductionists think not. Historians of ideas may be a bit more tolerant, or may find similarities and points of identity between Zell’s thought and scientific theories grounded in strict contemporary science. The rise of the “Gaia hypothesis” is obviously closely related to global problems and ecological deterioration, and is also closely related to feminism and ecofeminism; for this aspect, one may refer to Ye Shuxian’s “The ‘Revival of the Goddess’ in the Search for Roots in Western Culture: From the ‘Gaia Hypothesis’ to ‘Goddess Civilization’” (Ye Shuxian 2002).
Comments(9)┆Quote┆Read(65)┆Circle┆Print┆Rewarded report
Article Comments
The following comments by netizens represent only their personal views and do not represent the views or positions of Sina.com
[Anonymous] Guchu
2007-02-04 22:07:36
“Some have pointed out……”
I do not dislike theology and religion, but I still think it is inappropriate to discuss the issue of “priority” between Lovelock and Zell. By way of comparison, some people also like to say that Bohr’s “principle of complementarity” was already proposed in China’s *Yijing*, that this or that principle had long been proposed in the *Mohist Canons*, and so on. I think that fighting over priority like this has no real meaning, and may even undercut one’s own standing. If one is talking only about ideas, then any scientific insight can probably be traced to “it existed in ancient times”; but proposing a similar idea does not amount to scientific priority. Holistic views, and the idea of seeing the Earth as a living organism, have long existed as well. Even scientists who compared the Earth to a living thing may have existed long ago; for example, if I remember correctly, I once read an essay collection by Lewis Thomas, *The Lives of a Cell*, published in 1974, which spoke of comparing the Earth to a “cell.” In short, seeing the Earth as a whole, seeing the earth as life—these are not the key points of the Gaia hypothesis. The innovation of the Gaia hypothesis lies in turning this philosophical idea into a scientific hypothesis—that is, a scientific hypothesis is something that can be stated in relatively clear and rigorous language and that in principle can be further tested. Lovelock’s proposal of the Gaia hypothesis was related to research in planetary biology, and the questions he faced included whether life exists on Mars. Lovelock proposed that life cannot exist in isolation; if there is life on a planet, then the planet as a whole must also display some special characteristics. If the planet itself is dead, there will be no life; if there is life on the planet, then the whole planet also seems alive. (For Lovelock’s intellectual development, see the first article collected in Sanlian’s *The Story of Life*.) As for Margulis, her starting point was different from Lovelock’s. She began from her theory of symbiogenesis, and through their efforts the Gaia hypothesis gradually became Gaia theory. But in any case, in Zell’s case the Gaia doctrine was not only not a scientific theory, it probably cannot even really be called a hypothesis. If it is merely an idea, then it is not qualified to compete for scientific priority. If one is only comparing ideas, then China would have no shortage of priority claims.
[Anonymous] Guchu
2007-02-04 22:07:54
If one wants to prove that Zell made a “substantive contribution” to the Gaia hypothesis, one ought to find evidence that Lovelock was actually inspired by Zell, rather than discussing who came first and who came later. Even if one says that “the series of works Zell did in the 1960s of course also had to do with the Gaia theme he would later establish,” if those works had nothing to do with Lovelock’s work either, then they cannot represent anything. Before discussing who had priority, one should first confirm what kinds of doctrines are even qualified to participate in the contest for priority. To what extent are the ideas of *Yijing* comparable to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? If there is evidence that Bohr’s ideas were indeed inspired by *Yijing*, then one can certainly say that Chinese culture made a contribution to contemporary scientific ideas; but if Bohr’s ideas formed independently, and if Lovelock’s ideas formed independently of Zell, then one cannot say what sort of contribution Zell made. — “The rise of the ‘Gaia hypothesis’ is obviously closely related to global problems and ecological deterioration, and is also closely related to feminism and ecofeminism” — The main relation between Zell, Lovelock, and the others is that they all existed within such a cultural background. It is certain that there was a connection among them, a relation of common origin and co-emergence, but it is hard to say that someone like Zell made a contribution to contemporary scientific ideas. Of course they may well have promoted one another, but to examine this mutual relationship one must first insist on a pluralist perspective—science, theology, and philosophy each have their own different discursive systems. The ideas within these different discourses are not incomparable, but translation and correspondence between languages are complicated. Scientific insights and theological insights are very hard to compare on the same scale. Debating the priority of these two completely different doctrines is meaningless.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-04 23:05:55
From the standpoint of intellectual history, I now do not believe there are independent fields called science or religion. IDEAS can be invented and used by anyone. Zell has Zell’s contribution, and Lovelock has Lovelock’s contribution. As for depth, it is also hard to say who is less deep.
Of course I think Lovelock is a truly remarkable figure; his mathematics are also quite good, for example his use of Lotka’s model to study “Daisyworld.” Margulis is an especially outstanding contemporary scientist whom I greatly admire.
In intellectual history, it is quite difficult to explain clearly who influenced whom, and how much influence there was; sometimes it is impossible.
*Yijing* and the principle of complementarity cannot be compared with this matter. The Gaia theme and the Gaia hypothesis arose almost in the same period, and have similar historical backgrounds, problems, and contexts.
Doing this work, I want to show that various cultural subsystems can each offer distinctive interpretations of the difficulties of today’s world and propose solutions. Science is only one path among them, though of course an important one. Environmental problems are absolutely not merely scientific problems.
2007-02-04 23:20:27
Xiao Gu: following your suggestion, I slightly revised the relevant wording.
[Anonymous] Guchu
2007-02-05 00:11:35
“From the standpoint of intellectual history, I now do not believe there are independent fields called science or religion,” — I agree. But when you say “make a contribution to contemporary scientific ideas,” what does “scientific ideas” mean here? I can only understand it as meaning that, at the level of ideas, they are inspiring or promoting contemporary scientific theory, and that seems doubtful to me.
“The Gaia theme and the Gaia hypothesis arose almost in the same period, and have similar historical backgrounds, problems, and contexts.” — So similar historical backgrounds are the key point. If there were no influence from the historical background, then no matter how “prior” the Idea is, it is meaningless. My view is precisely that comparing Zell and Lovelock in terms of priority is meaningless; what needs to be examined is the common background and context of the two.
“Various cultural subsystems can each offer distinctive interpretations of the difficulties of today’s world and propose solutions. Science is only one path among them, though of course an important one. Environmental problems are absolutely not merely scientific problems.” — I agree wholeheartedly.
[Anonymous] Guchu
2007-02-05 00:27:12
“Various cultural subsystems can each offer distinctive interpretations of the difficulties of today’s world and propose solutions. Science is only one path among them, though of course an important one. Environmental problems are absolutely not merely scientific problems.” — So, the ability to make a contribution to environmental problems is by no means limited to science. I of course agree that other paths such as religion and theology can make contributions to environmental problems. What I doubt is whether these paths make contributions to science. They may of course also contribute to science, but one must be cautious in making such assertions. Moreover, in fact this issue is not important: even if they did not contribute to science, that would not erase their importance. On the contrary, the reason these different paths are important may be precisely that they exist outside science. One can contribute to environmental problems without contributing to contemporary science. Emphasizing their contribution to science seems instead to have something of a scientistic flavor.
[Anonymous] ME
2007-02-05 09:41:12
That makes sense; I’ll revise it again. Today I’ll look for some Pagan magazines to read and learn more about Zell.
[Anonymous] Somebody
2007-02-06 09:57:05
“Science is only one path among them, though of course an important one.”
As for environmental problems, I personally doubt whether science can provide a path forward. Neither Zell nor Lovelock began from a scientific path.
[Anonymous] Guchu
2007-02-06 19:05:10
Science is not the only important thing, but one should not completely deny the importance of science. The work of Lovelock and Margulis and the others is obviously representative of a “scientific path”; as for what is meant by “beginning from” something, I am not very sure what that refers to. Scientific development always originates in certain non-scientific motivations, or in the inspiration of certain initial ideas—and as for thoughts and ideas themselves, there is no independent scientific field. In fact, in history, any new scientific idea cannot possibly arise from within an already existing so-called scientific path. The starting point of a new scientific path is always inseparable from cultural background, philosophical and theological ideas, and a variety of other factors; and only after those new currents of thought are gradually systematized, perfected, regulated—in short, only after they are gradually “scientized”—do they form a relatively independent “path.” (Kuhn pointed out that boundary-drawing in science is impossible during scientific revolutions; only science after it has taken shape can be independently identified.) As for a scientific path once it has taken shape, it will in turn promote changes in the ideas of the age. The impact of scientific development on culture is often extremely significant, for example mechanical naturalism, evolutionism, and so on. In short, a “scientific path” is first of all possible, and secondly important.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply