Lovelock does it better. Bigoil dominated science does not want us to think of the universe or the environment as an interdependent system. If we can no longer be convinced that our actions have no impact on the whole, our world view changes - and our choices become more important to us.

Lovelock isn't the only voice out there among scientists, just one of the most articulate ones. While he has maintained his independence from institutionalized science, he has consulted for all kinds of groups including oil companies & the military. Just goes to show that it's possible to maintain independence of mind even while working with the "enemy". And that it can be dangerous to label everyone associated with large institutions as the "enemy", too. Sometimes I need to remind myself of that.

Lynn Margoles (if i got the spelling right)
Is a brilliant cell biologist who is right with Lovelock - She can hold her own in a room full of em. I spent a lot of time attemping to understand how and why science parted ways with such thinking in the first place while researching the origins of the organic movement.
Found some great Academic papers (that of course almost no one reads) that helped me.

Haha, Lovelock was a little disturbed when modern Pagans took up his Gaia idea and personified & deified it... But, yah know, for the majority of people science is hard but religion (or something like it) is easier, more likely to speak to them and get them 'obeying' the commands of nature... Whatever it takes...

Recently I listened to an hour-long interview with Lovelock on CBC Radio -- it was really intriguing, but I couldn't help thinking that Lovelock's very personal-seeming Gaia also sounded a lot like 'intelligent design'. Maybe someday I'll make the time to actually read his books, and see if that impression remains.

I do find his analysis of energy needs to be very realistic: "alternative energy" will only meet our needs if we drastically cut our per capita energy use. Failing an 80% or 90% cut in energy usage per person in the western world (and I see little evidence of that even among self-proclaimed environmentalists) I would agree with Lovelock that an expansion of nuclear power is one of our best options. Unfortunately, the environmental movement so far has blocked nuclear power while failing to make much of a dent in energy usage.

Thanks for your thought-provoking post on some key issues!

Snowden, I think you mean Lynn Margulis. Another scientist I admire greatly. I'd love to hear her speak. One of the problems we scientists have is that the great majority of us are not dynamic, much less charismatic speakers. Sort of goes with the territory, & there's no training aimed at improving the situation in science programs. One reason science often loses arguments with the media & politicians. Emotion appears to trump reason almost every time. Especially fear, which can be whipped up out of nothing at all.

Myriad, I'm sure Lovelock would prefer for Gaia to remain in the realm of science. I happen to think that embracing the notion is so important that it doesn't matter if a little anthropomorphizing is done along the way. Which is how I interpret the pagan usage of the concept. You're quite right that many people find it easier to swallow. If only science was not presented to young people as difficult, or worse, boring.

Thanks for the comments, Bart. I didn't hear that particular interview, but I find it difficult to see Lovelock as a proponent of "intelligent design" in any way, shape or form. Do read some of his work, and see what you think afterwards. There's also an excellent biography of him, well worth a read, Gribbin & Gribbin "He Knew He Was Right: The Irrepressible Life of James Lovelock".

Rachel Louise Carson (May 27, 1907 – April 14, 1964) was an American marine biologist and nature writer whose writings are credited with advancing the global environmental movement.

Carson started her career as a biologist in the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, and became a full-time nature writer in the 1950s. Her widely praised 1951 bestseller The Sea Around Us won her financial security and recognition as a gifted writer. Her next book, The Edge of the Sea, and the republished version of her first book, Under the Sea Wind, were also bestsellers. Together, her sea trilogy explores the whole of ocean life, from the shores to the surface to the deep sea.

In the late 1950s, Carson turned her attention to conservation and the environmental problems caused by synthetic pesticides. The result was Silent Spring (1962), which brought environmental concerns to an unprecedented portion of the American public. Silent Spring spurred a reversal in national pesticide policy—leading to a nationwide ban on DDT and other pesticides—and the grassroots environmental movement the book inspired led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Carson was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter.

I became a freshman at Howard university in Washington, D.C. in September of 1964, the year that Rachel Carson died. "Silent Spring" was required reading in the biological sciences survey course all first year liberal arts students were required to take and pass....
What I learned in reading that book has been with me my entire life....I have spent most of my adult life focused on the issues and problems presented by race and racism in this country...It is the reason why I went to law school....

However, I respect, admire and commend those of you who have developed a focus on the need to defend and preserve the resource known as the planet earth.....

Rated

Ron, thanks for that. I too read Rachel Carson -- she and writers on overpopulation such as the Erlichs awakened my interest in the environment & had a lot to do with me becoming a biochemist & later a toxicologist.

If you like Carson - you might like Bookchin - who wrote Our Synthetic Environment about the same time as Carson wrote silent spring.