At 11:20 PM 8/2/98 GMT, Eva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Gaia concept always sounded like a phantasy picture
>to me. too mistyeyed and humanised. Like saying, that
>the solar system was just so stable in the las few million years
>because it had the hidden agenda of maintaining that
>wierd third planet. It is now demonstrated that there were
>quite a few inbalamces, prominent but different life-forms,
>total extinctions and re-starts through earth's history.
Hi Eva:
Perhaps one's perception of 'Gaia' depends on where and how you first heard
of it, and also what sort of ideas resonate with your personality.
There are four GPC definitions of Gaia: Myth, Model, Metaphor and Movement.
[expanded in our web page]
As a technically oriented person, Gaia the Model is my key to understanding
the purely physical nature of:
^^Sun's energy in - to Earth's chemistry;
^^entropy reversals from the energy flow;
^^which are in the form of millions of weird and wonderful biological
creatures including humans;
^^some energy is stored on Earth in the form of biomas as the creatures die,
some fossilized;
^^while some energy is reflected back to space in degraded form.
^^In the mean time, the Gaian system's atmosphere waters the flowers and
makes the wind blow. And through consciousness, we humans have the privilege
of enjoying an nice day. (I suppose monkeys do too, to some degree.)
All of these events are part of a big interactive system. For ease of
communication, the system needs a name, so why not a nice name like 'Gaia',
mythical goddess of Earth?
Thoughts of Myth and Metaphor within the Gaian concept bond people who
resonate more on the spiritual or romanticist side, while cumulative
organizations and individuals who feel attuned to one or more of these views
of Gaia may be considered a Movement, even though that's a tad optimistic yet.
>The environment needs preserving because we need it for
>an endurable human existance. This is a good enough argument
>for me...
Yes, I believe that selfish motivation is at the heart of all of us who
ponder resolution of the problematique, that's the way we are. Gaia
Preservation for humans, OK?
>I doudt the principles, very wishy-washy and unconvincing for the
>following reasons mainly:
>
>- The problems we are encountering at the present are not yet
> the consequence of overpopulation. A sane social-economic
> structure could maintain the present population on a good
> standard with the preservation of the environment.
I agree that the giant storeroom of Earth's Gaian capital resources, which
now sustain us, could be distributed far more equitably with a sane social
system. However, if population is not addressed as a part of the solution,
what would be the point? Any serious attempt at analyzing human Carrying
Capacity indicates that our 6 billion is far beyond that which renewables
could support.
>- People are not free to make their own decisions and to
> be "responsible" for them. If you are poor, you go to the nearest
> supermarket and buy the cheapest, and therefore probably the
> most unhealthy and most environmentally destructive product;
> if you poor in the third world, you cannot choose not to live your
> life in a shantytown, scavenge for firewood, stop erosion etc.
Yes.
>So, again, we have a theory that dances around the idea, that it is
>the capitalist social/economical structure that hinders any change
>and not the millions making the "wrong choices".
I don't understand how the Gaia theory relates to the rest of your sentence.
>Blaming people for their own predicament is not only wrong but
>counterproductive; also it is not pointing into a clear actionplan
>in all circumstances. The idea of public ownership and
>self-determination in a democratic framework is more practical and
>comprehendable for all. If and only if this condition exists, the
>defence of the environment is possible, making people really "free"; towards
>getting information and acting in their own interest, and than we may
>discuss if this interest may ge the same as "Gaia's"...
>
>
>Eva
I agree with everything in your last paragraph.
The purpose of the 12 principles is not to blame people, but to help them
acknowledge the depth and personal involvement in, and responsibility in,
the problematique. They are an attempt to plagiarize a known and relatively
successful process in braking of denial and/or addiction, which seems to be
a part of what keeps people from behaving as if their survival is on the
line, which it is.
Suggestions for improvment of the principles are always welcome.
Thanks for your input,
////////\\\\\\\\
Don Chisholm
416 484 6225 fax 484 0841
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Gaia Preservation Coalition (GPC)
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc
personal page: http://home.ican.net/~donchism/dchome.html
"There is an almost gravitational pull toward putting out of mind unpleasant
facts. And our collective ability to face painful facts is no greater than
our personal one. We tune out, we turn away, we avoid. Finally we forget,
and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth." -
psychologist Daniel Goleman
\\\\\\\\\/////////
