The Relationship Between the Earth's Biota and Physical Environment in John Lovelock's book The Ages of Gaia
John Lovelock in his book The Ages of Gaia presents an argument for a theory governing the relationship between the earth's biota and its physical environment. Lovelock holistic view of nature combines biology and geoclimatology as one science, which he calls geophysiology, "the study of living and non-living Earth as a single system (Lovelock 11)." Lovelock's theory states that life is necessary to maintain the planet's thermodynamic and chemical composition in its current state of homeostasis (the tendency of a system to maintain stability even with external disruptions) until some external force interrupts it, at which point it will move to a new stable state. He terms this theory "Gaia", after the Greek goddess of Earth. The Gaia theory delivers two primary implications: living organisms regulate their planet, and the evolution of species and their physical surroundings are a single inseparable process. The hypothesis points to stable conditions, such as oxygen levels, carbon dioxide concentrations and climate, as evidence that living organisms maintain a life-sustaining environment.
The Gaia Hypothesis is a metaphor in itself that helps describe the planet as a living organism; a metaphor for the Earth as seen as a single physiological system. Lovelock describes the planetary ecosystem as alive because it behaves like a living organism by regulating its temperature and chemistry at a constant state favorable for life to develop.
Another metaphor used by Lovelock is Daisyworld. Daisyworld is a computer-stimulated model of an imaginary planet developed by Lovelock to specifically demonstrate his Gaia hypothesis. In...
... middle of paper ...
...s blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Dawkins vii). By calling human beings "survival machines" and "robots," Dawkins implies that we are not in control for our own actions. Again, his metaphors takes the reader away from his scientific reasoning and make them think of a distinct individual that is pulling the strings of evolution for its own good. This statement also conjures up moral implications that suggest that we are not in control of our lives and there is no point for our own existence. The point Dawkins wants to make is that metaphorically genes do possess a selfish ability. However, Dawkins' metaphors make it difficult to remove the selfish gene theory from its moral implications.
Bibliography:
WORKS CITED
Dawkins, Richard. "The Selfish Gene." Oxfod University Press, 1989.
Lovelock, James. "The Ages o
The book draws its name from the first essay, "The Lives of a Cell," in which Thomas offers his observations on ecology and the role of cellular activity. He writes that the "uniformity of the earth's life, more astonishing then its diversity, is accountable by the high probability that we derived, originally, from some single cell, fertilized in a bolt of lightning as the earth cooled" (3).
Lovelock, James. “The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth”. New York: Norton, 1995.
Biosphere The Realm Of Life. Authors: Robert A. Wallace, Jack L.King , Gerald P.Sanders – 1998
The ethics behind genetic engineering have been discussed and argued for years now. Some arguing points often include competitive advantages, playing God, and the polarization of society, but Sandel takes a different approach in explaining society’s “unease” with the morality of genetic engineering. Broadcasted through several examples throughout the book, Sandel explains that genetic engineering is immoral because it takes away what makes us human and makes us something else. He states that by taking control of our genetic makeup, or the makeup of our progeny, we lose our human dignity and humility. Our hunger for control will lead to the loss of appreciation for natural gifts, whether they are certain talents, inherited from the genetic lottery, or the gift of life itself.
Utilitarianism tells us society should be ran on impartiality. Also, that in society justice cannot foreclose the sacrificing the innocent for the good of humanity. I believe in the film Gattaca the happiness or in other the words utility of utilitarianism, of the lives of those deemed invalid was sacrificed. Utilitarianism is also the basic idea that one person’s consciousness is as worthy of consideration as any others. The film Gattaca is about a world where your life is pre-determined by your D.N.A. I will further discuss how the main theme of the film Gattaca, genetic engineering’s role in society, is the root cause of natural fallacy within the new world Gattaca exhibits and does not cure the imperfect world. Then to conclude I will explain how for these same reasons genetic engineering’s use of utilitarian views is a contradiction of utilitarianism.
Another example she uses to make her point is about coral. When thinking of coral, the idea that comes to most is it is a plant that lives in the ocean and provides a beautiful color. Coral provides more than that for the ocean as we see it provides “Thousands-perhaps millions- of species have evolved to rely on coral reefs, either directly for protection or food, or indirectly, to prey on those species that come seeking protection or food” (Kolbert 130). When carbon dioxide enters the ocean, it forms into an acid called carbonic acid, which has been eating away at most of the coral and not allowing it to grow or survive in the water. This other example used by the author showing humans how we are destroying important aspects to earth. We should be more alarmed to what is occurring in the ocean because we also depend on it for some of our resources. It also goes to show if we are capable of putting other animals in danger we are fully capable of erasing our own
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
Thomas Hobbes in Chapter 13 of Leviathan, and David Hume in Section 3 of An Enquiry Concerning the Princples of Morals, give views of human nature. Hobbes’ view captures survivalism as significant in our nature but cannot account for altruism. We cover Hobbes’ theory with a theory of Varied Levels of Survivalism, explaining a larger body of behavior with the foundation Hobbes gives. Hume gives a scenario which does not directly prove fruitful, but he does capture selfless behavior.
In the wild and brutal game of life, the only measure of true success is whether genes are passed on. Like any other animal, this measure of success measures man's success too. For all creatures, to survive is the chance at continuing a gene line, and it is this necessity to continue the line that is innately embedded in man and all other creatures.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
...ne starts life with an equal chance of health and success. Yet, gene therapy can also be thought of as a straight route towards a dark outlook, where perfection is the first priority, genes are seen as the ultimate puppeteer, and personal freedom to thrive based on one’s self isn’t believed to exist. With the emergence of each new technological discovery comes the emergence of each new ethical debate, and one day, each viewpoint on this momentous issue may be able to find a bit of truth in the other. Eventually, our society may reach a compromise on gene therapy.
Earth is the element of life found here because with the sun, earth nurtures all plants and
Different theories have been developed which relate to this theme of moral decay throughout history, even several centuries after Hesiod's life. This idea of evolutionary decay seems to corroborate with the widely received, contemporary theory of evolution, or Darwinism, brought forth through the designs and beliefs of Charles Darwin in which he states that, in nature, only the fittest creatures will survive ...
Most would agree with Taylor’s first two elements of the biocentric outlook on nature. The first element it is undeniably true; humans are indeed members of Earth’s community. Taylor pushes this further and asserts that humans are non-privileged members of the earth’s community of life. Humans, just like all other living organisms, have biological requirements to live. Moreover, “[w]e, as they, are vulnerable. We share with them an inability to guarantee the f...
Scientists and the general population favor genetic engineering because of the effects it has for the future generation; the advanced technology has helped our society to freely perform any improvements. Genetic engineering is currently an effective yet dangerous way to make this statement tangible. Though it may sound easy and harmless to change one’s genetic code, the conflicts do not only involve the scientific possibilities but also the human morals and ethics. When the scientists first used mice to practice this experiment, they “improved learning and memory” but showed an “increased sensitivity to pain.” The experiment has proven that while the result are favorable, there is a low percentage of success rate. Therefore, scientists have concluded that the resources they currently own will not allow an approval from the society to continually code new genes. While coding a new set of genes for people may be a benefitting idea, some people oppose this idea.