Vernadsky's Biosphere, Teilhard's
Noosphere, and Lovelock's Gaia:
Perspectives on Human
Intervention in Global
Biogeochemical Cycles
Serafin, R.
IIASA Working Paper
WP-87-096
October 1987
Serafin, R. (1987) Vernadsky's Biosphere, Teilhard's Noosphere, and Lovelock's Gaia: Perspectives on Human Intervention in
Global Biogeochemical Cycles. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, WP-87-096 Copyright © 1987 by the
author(s). http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/2956/
Working Papers on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other
organizations supporting the work. All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work
for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial
advantage. All copies must bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. For other purposes, to republish, to post on
servers or to redistribute to lists, permission must be sought by contacting [email protected]
Working Paper
I
BITEIIHARD'S
NWSPHERE. AND UWEUXXS GAU:
Perspectives on Human Intervention
in Global Biogeocheaicnl Cyclea
-S
PUBLICATION NUMBER 51 of the project:
E m l o ~ Syb s t a i n a b k Dsvabpmunt of t h e Biosphws
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
A-2361 Laxenburg,Austria
BITEWMRD'S
NWSPHERE, AND LWEUKXS GAUk
Perspectives on Human Intervention
in Global Biogeacheaical Cyclea
S-
PUBLICATION NUMBER 51 of the project:
EcoLogireUy Sustainab& DBVeLopmmt of the Biosphare
Working h p e r s are interim r e p o r t s on work of t h e International
Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis and have received only limited
review. Views or opinions expressed herein d o not necessarily
represent those of the Institute o r of its National Member
Organizations.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE POR APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
ABOUT THE AUTEIOR
M r . Rafal Serafin i s a graduate student in Environmental Studies at Canada's
University of Waterloo. He w a s a Peccei Award winner in IIASA's 1985 Young
Scientists Summer Program, and worked on t h e staff of t h e Biosphere Project in
1986. His c u r r e n t mailing address is: School of Urban and Regional Planning,
Faculty of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L
3G1, Canada.
IIASA's Biosphere P r o j e c t h a s from t h e outset built upon t h r e e major c o n c e p
t u d pillars: t h e notion of biogeochernical cycles, t h e idea t h a t human activities
are increasingly a major f o r c e in shaping t h e e a r t h , and t h e idea t h a t a long term
historical perspective i s essential f o r understanding modern problems of sustaina b l e development. I t t h e r e f o r e gives me g r e a t pleasure to introduae Rafal
Serafin's p a p e r "Vernadsky's Biosphere, Teilhard's Noosphere, and Lovelock's
Gaia". This i s a work in t h e history of ideas
an e f f o r t to trace t h e intellectual
origins of some of t h e moet important concepts underlying contemporary concern
f o r global environmental change. I am particularly pleased t h a t M r . Serafin's pap e r illustrates how important t h e f r e e , multilateral exchange of ideas between east
and w e s t h a s been in t h e development of o u r modern understanding of t h e e a r t h ' s
environment, and man's role within it.
-
Dr. William C. Clark
Leader
Ecologically Sustainable Development of t h e Biosphere P r o j e c t
Thanks to Henry Regier, Mirko Tufescu, Jack Vallentyne, P i e r r e Dansereau,
Ferenc Toth, John Woodcock. George Zavarzin, Michael Antonovsky, Richard Laikin, and William Clark f o r t h e i r critical comments on e a r l i e r drafts; and to t h e
Canadian Max Bell Foundation and t h e International Institute f o r Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA) f o r financial support.
- vii -
Advances in analytical understanding of t h e biogeochemiaal cycles of t h e Bios p h e r e have spawned t h e concepts of Gaia and Noaephere. Though seldom acknowledged today, i t w a s t h e natural scientist Vladimir Vernadsky who f i r s t drew attention to t h e increasing s c a l e of human intervention into planetary biogeochemical cycles. He did so in his book BMqf&ra,published in 1926. In c o n c e r t with t h e
Jesuit paleontologist P i e r r e Teilhard d e Chardln, Vernadsky developed t h e notion
of Noosphere an evolving collective human consciousness on E a r t h which w a s exerting a n increasing influence on biogeochemical processes. More recently, t h e atmospheric chemist James Lovelock h a s introduced t h e notion of t h e E a r t h as Gaia.
In an attempt t o explain chemical disequilibria in t h e Earth's atmosphere, Lovelock
has postulated t h e E a r t h to b e a self-regulating system made up of biota and t h e i r
environment with t h e capacity to maintain t h e Earth's environment in a steady
state favorable to life. Gaia and Noosphere have come to r e p r e s e n t contrasting int e r p r e t a t i o n s of humanity's relation to planetary ecology, t h e r e b y providing pot e n t symbols f o r human action. With rapid advances in instruments of measurement
coupled with increased international scientific cooperation, a n analytical science
of t h e Biosphere i s emerging. The contradictions of t h e nature-centered view of
Gaia and t h e human-centered view of Noosphere could become i r r e l e v a n t as a
result.
-
Introduction
Vernadsky's Biosphere
Teilhard's Noosphere
Vernadsky's Noosphere
Interpretations of Noosphere
Lovelock's Gaia
Gaia and Noosphere: Complementary Paradigms
References
S-
B I 0 . m ' . TE[IlURIYS NOOSPHERE,
AND IXrVELOCICS GALA: Perspectives on Hunumn
Intervention in Global Bbgeachemical Cycles
INTRODUCTION
Sixty y e a r s ago, t h e Soviet natural scientist, Vladimir Vernadsky published
His book proved to b e a n important s t e p in t h e development of t h e
modern view of t h e Biosphere as t h e integrated living and life-supporting system of
Planet Earth. In i t f o r t h e f i r s t time, Vernadsky d r e w attention to t h e increasing
scale of human intervention into planetary biogeochemical cycles. This later led
him to speculate t h a t human activities w e r e modifying biogeochemical cycles to
such a n extent t h a t t h e Biosphere w a s undergoing transformation into a new configuration.
To Vernadsky, t h e Biosphere w a s a stage in t h e evolutionary development of
t h e Planet Earth. He hoped t h a t emerging awareness of t h e n a t u r e and implications
of human intervention into planetary biogeochemical cycles would lead to a new
era of consciously directed human transformation of t h e Biosphere. While in P a r i s
in t h e 1920s, Vernadsky became interested in t h e ideas of t h e Jesuit paleontologist, P i e r r e Teilhard d e Chardin, which focussed on explaining t h e phenomenon of
humanity in terms of a global evolutionary perspective.
Teilhard thought in terms of thresholds of evolution which began with t h e app e a r a n c e of elementary corpuscles (protons, neutrons, electrons, photons), led to
t h e formation of molecules, then to cells, then to multi-cellular organisms and phyla, and to social groups. For Teilhard, t h e next evolutionary threshold w a s to b e
t h e r i s e of a collective human consciousness of t h e direction and purpose of evolution which would lead to d e l i b e r a t e human intervention in planetary evolution. He
called this new evolutionary phase, t h e Nooephere.
Vernadsky adapted Teilhardvs notion of Noosphere to help explain t h e nature
and impLications of increasing human intervention in planetary biogeochemical cycles. For him, t h e transformation of Biosphere through human i n t e r f e r e n c e in
biogeochemical cycles w a s t h e p r o c e s s of Noogenesis
t h e creation of Noosphere.
He looked to t h e growth of science and technology, coupled with social and
economic planning, to make inadvertent human intervention in biogeochemical cycles more deliberate, and so bring about a smooth transition from Biosphere to
Noosphere. According to Vernadsky, t h e Noosphere would enhance human development through r e s p e c t and management of biogeochemical cycles
t h e Limits of
planetary Life s u p p o r t systems.
Sinae Vernadskyvs death in 1945, t h e r e have been many advances in o u r
understanding of t h e biogeochemical cycles. Recently, t h e Scientific Committee f o r
Problems of t h e Environment (SCOPE) reviewed t h e c u r r e n t state of knowledge of
t h e major biogeochemical cycles and t h e i r interactions, and concluded t h a t human
activities induce fluxes of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur at magnitudes
similar to those of natural cycles of t h e s e elements. The mast important influences
&ma.
-
-
a r i s e from fossil fuel burning which may double atmospheric c a r b o n dioxide o v e r
t h e next century, and f u r t h e r increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulphur;
expanding of agriculture and f o r e s t r y with t h e widespread use of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers; and increased exploitation of freshwater f o r irrigation in
agriculture and industry and w a s t e disposal (Bolin and Cook, 1983).
Recent insights gained from atmospheric chemistry have drawn attention t o
t h e intense chemical disequilibria of t h e Earth's atmosphere. Attempts to explain
t h e persistence of t h e s e disequilibria have highlighted t h e importance of microorganisms in biogeochemical cycles. In t h e e a r l y seventies, t h e atmospheric chemist
James Lovelock and microbiologist Lynn Margulis formulated t h e Gaia hypothesis in
a n attempt to explain t h e r o l e of biota in t h e evolution of t h e atmosphere. Their
hypothesis r e f e r s to t h e possibility t h a t t h e p r o t r a c t e d chemical disequilibria of
t h e Earth's atmosphere have resulted from t h e combined activities of life. Gaia, a
systems perspective of planetary biogeochemical cycles, h a s been used to investig a t e t h e stability, robustness, and sustainability of biogeochemical cycles of t h e
Biosphere.
Noosphere and Gaia have come to r e p r e s e n t potent symbols of human understanding of Nature. As such, they constitute influential guides f o r making sense of
t h e implications of l a r g e s c a l e human interference in planetary biogeochemical cycles. Today, transnational problems of planetary management which have resulted
from human i n t e r f e r e n c e in planetary biogeochemical cycles such as t h e prospect
of global warming, increasingly widespread soil erosion and t h e damage of acid
deposition, are recognized to b e in need of solutions as n e v e r before. In this essay,
I explore how advances in our understanding of biogeochemical cycles and t h e Bios p h e r e have given rise to t h e concepts of Noosphere and Gaia. I a r g u e t h a t a unified East-West perspective i s emerging on dealing with common l a r g e scale problems of planetary management. This perspective incorporates both Gaia and N o o s p h e r e as complementary parts of a unified whole. I t i s possible because both Gaia
and Noosphere s h a r e a common quantitative understanding of t h e Biosphere and
biogeochemical cycles. As a r e s u l t of t h e posing of common analytical questions
about t h e functioning of t h e Biosphere, t h e contradictions of t h e nature-centered
view symbolized by Gaia and t h e human-centered one of t h e Noosphere could become irrelevant.
Vunadsky'm Biorphcrs
Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945) w a s p e r h a p s t h e m o s t prominent
Soviet natural scientist of t h e e a r l y twentieth century. Forty-one y e a r s a f t e r his
death, his ideas remain of considerable significance to understanding contemp o r a r y perspectives on t h e Biosphere and biogeochemical cycles.
Today, Vernadsky's notion of Biosphere h a s gained widespread acceptance as
denoting t h e living and life s u p p o r t system of our planet. What i s more, Biosphere
h a s come to r e p r e s e n t a powerful informing concept f o r humanity's relationship
with Nature. I t s s t r e n g t h lie6 i t i t s ability to embrace pragmatic and idealistic philosophies which guide human activities, t o g e t h e r with t h e perspectives of science.
The term Biosphere h a s taken on t h e connotation t h a t to sustain i t s activities,
humankind must l e a r n to conduct them with increased appreciation and r e s p e c t f o r
o t h e r life forms as w e l l as t h e life s u p p o r t capacity of o u r planet. Thus, w e increasingly speak of humanity's relationship with t h e Biosphere, r a t h e r than with
Nature.
Vernadsky set out his thinking about t h e Biosphere in his book, Biosy'bra,
which a p p e a r e d in Russian in 1926. In 1929 a revised French edition w a s published
in P a r i s as L a Biosphere. Vernadsky's views on t h e Biosphere stemmed from his
widening perception of global biogeochemical cycles which h e had discussed in a n
e a r l i e r book entitled L a Geochmie (1924). His ideas were syntheses of his e a r l i e r
work in geology and crystallography, grounded in an already r i c h Russian natural
science tradition and a cross-fertilization of ideas with P i e r r e Teilhard d e Chardin
(1881-1955), the Jesuit scholar and paleontologist. I t w a s in P a r i s in t h e 1920s
t h a t Vernadsky's concept of t h e Biosphere and Noosphere emerged amid lively debate with French scholars o v e r t h e c h a r a c t e r and evolution of human, biological,
and geologio processes operating at t h e planetary scale (Grinevald, 1985).
P r i o r to arriving in P a r i s during t h e early 1920s Vernadsky was already a n
established international scientist and had travelled widely. He had visited France,
Britain and Germany, having worked with P i e r r e Curie (1059-1906). and M a r i e
CurieSklodowska (188'7-1934) at t h e Radium Institute in Paris, as w e l l as in t h e laboratory of Henry-Louis Le Chatelier (1850-1936) where h e learned chemical
thermodynamics (Balandin, 1982). Vernadsky had pioneered t h e r e s e a r c h of silicate s t r u c t u r e , aluminosilicates in particular, which constitute a major p a r t of t h e
earth's crust. A s a result, he became preoccupied with the geochemistry of rare
and trace elements, the role of radioactive elements in t h e e a r t h ' s evolution, and
t h e determination of t h e a g e of rocks. In this early work, Vernadsky helped to lay
the foundations f o r modern crystallography and advanced a new evolutionary
theory on t h e origin of minerals (Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 19'78).
In 1922, Vernadsky travelled to P a r i s to give a course of lectures in geochernistry at t h e Sorbonne. Here h e m e t t h e mathematician Eduourd Le Roy (18'70-1954)
and Teilhard who attended his lectures, and also the philosopher Henri Bergson
(1859-1941). I t seems t h a t t h e many discussions and exchange of ideas t h a t took
place between them marked a broadening of outlooks f o r all concerned and t h e
genesis of Teilhard and Vernadsky's thinking on Biosphere and Nmsphere. In p a r t
this led Vernadsky to publish a popular booklet on m e B e g i n n i n g s and E t e r n i t y
o f L W (1922), and strengthened his belief t h a t science, philosophy and religion satisfied different human endowments and t h a t progress in one did not necessarily
lead to decline in t h e o t h e r s (Vucinich, 1984).
The concept of Biosphere w a s derived from Austrian geologist, Eduard Suess
who had discussed t h e various envelopes of t h e E a r t h with r e s p e c t to t h e genesis
of t h e Alps. In his L a Geochemk (1924), Vernadsky expressed t h e now familiar notion of geochemical cycles of t h e Biosphere and discussed t h e energetics of life.
Later in La Biosphere, Vernadsky proposed t h a t life on E a r t h should not be considered as a n accidental but r a t h e r as a geological and evolutionary phenomenon.
He distinguished living m a t t e r from i n e r t m a t t e r and emphasized t h e i r interdependence. Vernadsky argued t h a t a close and cosmic connection exists between life on
E a r t h and t h e geochemical processes taking place on t h e planet. He had become
convinced t h a t this connection could and should be studied quantitatively.
In L a B i o s p b r e , which w a s aimed at geologists and not biologists, Vernadsky
discussed the Biosphere in t h e Cosmas (pp. 1-92), t h e Domain of Life (pp. 93-201)
and t h e Evolution of Species and Living Matter (pp. 203-230). In considering time
to be irreversible, h e argued t h a t "physical theories should consider inevitably
t h e phenomenon of life" and put forward t h e notion t h a t t h e human transformation
of t h e e a r t h which i s taking place "is a change of a new kind which, with time, accelerates with a n extraordinary rapidity", because "the increase, in t h e course of
time, of machinery in t h e s t r u c t u r e of human society also proceeds in geometrical
progression like reproduction of any o t h e r kind of living matter."
Vernadsky conceived of t h e Biosphere as t h e envelope in which living matter
exists and which comprised: ' t h e whole atmospheric troposphere, the oceans, and
a thin l a y e r in t h e continental regions expanding down about t h r e e kilometers or
more1'. He observed t h a t "man tends to increase t h e size of t h e Biosphere ... which
-
i s distinguishable from all t h e o t h e r geological envelopes of our planet ... not only
because i t (the Biosphere) i s inhabited by Uving matter, which reveals itself as a
geologiaal force of immense proportions, completely remaking the Biosphere and
changing its physical, chemical and mechanical properties, but also because the
Biosphere i s t h e only envelope of t h e planet into which energy permeates in a notable way, changing i t even m o r e than does living matter" (Vernadsky, 1945).
Vernadsky's notion of t h e Biosphere w a s t h a t of a medium f o r living m a t t e r
and proved to b e t h e p r e c u r s o r of t h e modern conception of t h e Biosphere as a n
"integrated living and life-supporting system comprising t h e peripheral envelope
of Planet Earth together with its surrounding atmosphere so f a r down, and up, as
any form of life exists naturally" (Polunin, 1984).
Vernadsky distinguished living matter, t h e totality of living organisms in t h e
Biosphere, from life. He proposed t h e concept of t h e Uving organism as a living nat u r a l body, and the totality of living natural bodies as the living matter of t h e Biosphere. He considered t h e notion of life as one which should occupy t h e minds of
non-numerate philosophers who do not make use of precise scientific data.
Nevertheless, Vernadsky was convinced that human reason, thought and consciousness could also be subjected to scientific study. It w a s this belief that led him to
adopt and develop Teilhard's notion of t h e Noosphere.
Tcilhard's N o m p h e n
Teilhard's vision of t h e Noosphere w a s that of a n evolving collective human
consciousness. He devoted his Life to analyzing t h e e n t i r e human phenomenon in
o r d e r to t r y to reconcile t h e science of evolution with Christian teaching. To
Teilhard, t h e transition to t h e Noosphere w a s a transcendence of biological to
psychomcia1 and spiritual evolution (Teilhard, 1958; 1959; Grenet, 1965). Teilhard
(1958) argued t h a t "biological change of state terminating in t h e awakening of
thought does not r e p r e s e n t merely a critical point t h a t t h e individual or even the
species must pass through. V a s t e r than that, i t affects life itself in its organic totality, and consequently i t marks a transformation affecting t h e state of our e n t i r e
planet". He continued, 'We have been following successive stages of t h e same grand
progression f r o m t h e fluid contours of the early e a r t h . Beneath t h e pulsations of
geochemistry, of geo-technics. and of geo-biology, w e have detected one and t h e
s a m e fundamental process, always recognizable t h e one which was given material
form in the f i r s t cells and w a s continued in t h e construction of nervous s p t e m s . W e
s a w Geo-genesis promoted to Bio-genesis. which turned out in t h e end to be nothing
else than Psycho-genesis ... Psychogenesis has led to man. Now i t effaces itself, relieved or absorbed by another and higher function
t h e engendering and subsequent development of t h e mind, in one word noogenesis".
For Teilhard, the Noosphere w a s t h e next evolutionary s t e p towards t h e r a m ification and cornplexification of t h e Universe (Teilhard, 1958; 1959). By complexification, Teilhard r e f e r r e d to t h e e v e r increasing complexity of phenomena appearing in t h e Universe during t h e course of its history. Whereas by ramification,
h e meant t h e ordered, harmonious and systematized evolution of increasingly organized forms of life.
-
-
Vernadsky reasoned t h a t living matter actively regulates the geochemical migration of atoms and molecules between t h e hydrosphere. barysphere, lithosphere,
atmosphere, and Biosphere through biogeochemical processes. As a result of this,
h e argued, over t h e aeons of geological history the Biosphere has remained stable
while both t h e Biosphere itself and t h e living organisms within i t have been evolving. This dynamic equilibrium of Biosphere and living matter h a s led t h e Biosphere
to actively transform and accumulate energy on a n e v e r increasing scale, complicating biospheric organization and enriching t h e Biosphere with information (Kamishilov, 1976).
This led Vernadsky to consider humankind as a n increasingly dominant p a r t of
t h e planet's biogeochemical processes, and so a n increasingly influential f a c t o r in
t h e Biosphere's evolution. Vernadsky w a s greatly influenced in this view by t h e
proposition of his colleague, t h e geologist Aleksei Petrovich Pavlov (1854-1929),
t h a t humanity had c r e a t e d t h e anthropocentric era of geological time. Vernadsky
had already recognized t h a t humanity w a s bound by a seemingly infinite number of
ties to t h e Biosphere. Incorporating Pavlovss view into his own, h e became convinced t h a t humankind's existence w a s not just modifiable, but i n t h e p r o c e s s of being modified by human thought and effort. Consequently, h e came to believe t h a t
t h e physical limits of t h e Biosphere w e r e t h e only constraints to human development.
Influenced also by Teilhardss ideas of human evolution, Vernadsky observed
t h a t t h e Biosphere w a s passing into a new condition, a new evolutionary stage, t h a t
of t h e nous or human reason, t h e Noosphere. He w a s convinced t h a t this transition
w a s taking place through t h e influence of scientific achievement and human l a b o r
and w a s impatient f o r humanity to recognize this phenomenon and to control i t
consciously (Vernadsky, 1944). He reasoned t h a t securing t h e transition to t h e
Noosphere constituted t h e g r e a t e s t challenge facing humanity, namely t h e "problem of reconstruction of t h e Biosphere in t h e i n t e r e s t of f r e e l y thinking humanity
as a single totality" (Vernadsky, 1945).
Vernadsky put g r e a t faith in nuclear developments when looking to t h e rapid
development of science and technology as t h e means by which t h e Biosphere could
b e transformed to t h e Noosphere, although h e w a s reportedly also v e r y much conc e r n e d about t h e improper use of nuclear technology (Mochalov, 1985). He believed t h a t humanity could fulfill i t s needs and d e s i r e s without impairing t h e planet a r y life support functions in t h e Noosphere. This w a s because t h e application of
science w a s revealing a n understanding of t h e workings of biogeochemical cycles
and t h e Biosphere which would enable humanity to manage and d i r e c t them consciously, deliberately and rationally.
Vernadsky conceived t h e Noosphere as anthropogenic in t h e sense t h a t h e
viewed i t as both 'human creating" and "created by human". Thus, humanity could
r e a c h t h e apex of i t s existence through i t s own efforts. Vernadsky grounded his
optimism in t h e rapidly increasing understanding of global biogeochemical
p r m e s s e s , resulting from international initiatives such as t h e Second Polar Y e a r
(1932-3) which involved scientists from f o r t y nations in global measurements of radiation, ozone, glaciology, biology and hydrography. He predicted t h a t technological development would accompany improved forms of human society and organization which together would a l l o w t h e conscious and rational reshaping of t h e Bios p h e r e into t h e Noosphere.
Intcrpretationm of Noorphcre
There are t w o possible interpretations of t h e Noosphere as described by
Teilhard and Vernadsky. The f i r s t i s t h a t t h e Noosphere r e p r e s e n t s t h e total pattern of thinking organisms a n d t h e i r activity, including t h e p a t t e r n s of t h e i r interrelations. The o t h e r i s t h a t of a special environment o r medium f o r humanity,
the systems of organized thought and i t s products in which humans move and have
t h e i r being - as fish swim and reproduce in r i v e r s and t h e sea. Huxley (1958) has
r e f e r r e d t h e former as t h e Nocxrphere and t h e l a t t e r as t h e Noosptem in a n attempt to draw attention to t h i s ambiguity. To Teilhard t h e Noosphere w a s t h e planetary l a y e r of consciousness and spirituality which w a s emerging from a biospheric
mass of vitalized substance. To Vernadsky, t h e Noosphere w a s above all t h e medium
within which humanity could find material (and s o spiritual) fulfillment. He believed
t h a t humanity could achieve this through exercising deliberate and conscious control o v e r i t s milieu.
Despite his association with Teilhard, Vernadsky a p p e a r s to have remained
essentially technocratic and materialistic, as opposed to spiritual in his own ideas.
Unlike Teilhard's conception of t h e Noosphere which t r i e d to d r a w t o g e t h e r material and spiritual interpretations of t h e development of t h e Universe, Vernadsky
s a w t h e Noosphere in s t r i c t l y materialistic terms as a n historically inevitable
stage in t h e evolutionary development of t h e Biaephere. Nevertheless, h e firmly
believed t h a t a wide r a n g e of philosophical criticism, such as t h e idealistic postulakes of Teilhard. w e r e useful because they inoreased t h e p r e s s u r e on science to
s h a r p e n i t s methods, logic and verification (Vucinich, 1984). For both Teilhard and
Vernadsky, t h e N-phere
concept r e p r e s e n t e d a deep-rooted conviction t h a t t h e
destiny of humanity lay within i t s om grasp.
Imdock'm Gaia
Since t h e e a r l y seventies, a systems perspective o n biogeochemical cycles h a s
been rediscovered as a r e s u l t of attempts to explain chemical disequilibria of t h e
E a r t h ' s atmosphere by t h e atmospheric chemist James Lovelock and t h e microbiologist Lynn Margulis. They proposed a n explanation called t h e Gaia Hypothesis
which postulated t h e E a r t h to b e a self-regulating system made up of biota and
t h e i r environment with t h e capacity to maintain t h e chemical composition of t h e atmosphere and hence k e e p t h e climate in a steady state favorable f o r life (Lovelock
and MarguLis, 1974; Lovelock, 1979).
While a consultant to NASA's program f o r detecting life on o t h e r planets in
t h e sixties, Lovelock took t h e view t h a t "if life c a n b e taken to constitute a global
entity, i t s presence would b e revealed by a change in t h e chemical composition of
t h e planet's atmosphere. This change of composition could b e compared with t h a t
of t h e abiological steady state of a lifeless planet". He reasoned t h a t "planetary
biota would b e obliged to use any mobile medium available to them as a source of
essential nutrients and as a link f o r t h e products of t h e i r metabolism", concluding
"such activity would r e n d e r a planet with life recognizably different from a lifeless
one." (Lovelock, 1986). Analysis of t h e chemical composition of planetary atmos p h e r e s by means of infra-red astronomy revealed t h a t all planets o t h e r than
e a r t h have atmospheres not f a r from chemical equilibrium, t h e r e b y suggesting t h e
absence of life. US and Soviet p r o b e s s e n t in t h e s e a r c h of life in our solar system
have so f a r failed to d e t e c t any signs of life.
The notion t h a t t h e Biosphere or Gaia h a s o p e r a t e d as does a living organism,
modifying i t s own environment and so maintaining conditions suitable f o r i t s survival, has caught t h e attention of t h e scientifio community. Lovelock and Whitfield
(1982) have argued t h a t "evidenoe from t h e geological r e c o r d and t h e persistence
of life suggest t h a t neither global freezing n o r boiling conditions have e v e r prevailed. Indeed mean s u r f a c e temperature h a s probably n e v e r d e p a r t e d from t h e ,
range 5-50" C." This led them to propose t h a t a mechanism of biological automatic
thermostasis h a s o p e r a t e d since t h e beginning of life 3,500 million y e a r s ago, in
which atmospheric abundance of c a r b o n dioxide h a s adjusted to r e s i s t t h e warming
tendency of t h e sun's increased solar luminosity.
In essence, Lovelock h a s proposed t h a t Gaia o p e r a t e s on cybernetic principles "with a sensor, a n input, a gain (the amount of amplification in t h e system) and
a n output. In o r d e r to achieve stability t h e output i s compared with t h e set or
operating points such t h a t errors are corrected. E r r o r c o r r e c t i o n means t h a t t h e
output must in some way feed back to t h e sensor such t h a t t h e new input c a n compensate f o r t h e change in output. Positive or negative feedback, usually both, are
involved in error correction." (Sagan and Margulis, 1983). Lovelock h a s attempted
to demonstrate by means of 'a daisy world mathematical model' t h a t such a cybernetic system could b e a mechanism by which Gaia h a s regulated i t s surroundings. In
the model, t h e world i s populated only by black and white daisies with different albedos. A s fluctuations in solar luminosity o c c u r r e d , diversity increased, which in
t u r n led to a n increase in t h e ability to regulate planetary s u r f a c e temperature,
as w e l l as to a n increase in biomass. Lovelock h a s used t h e model to demonstrate
t h a t a cybernetic Gaian regulatory system does not have to plan in advance o r b e
foresighted in any way in o r d e r to show homeostatic tendencies (Lovelock, 1983;
Sagan and Margulis, 1983; Watson and Lovelock, 1983; Lovelock, 1986).
The Gaian perspective of a n interactive co-evolution of biological and abi*
logical components of o u r planet h a s spawned new avenues of scientific inquiry
aiming to understand biogeochemical cycles, especially in t h e atmospheric scie n c e s (Schneider, 1986). F o r example, t h e importance of methane in climate
change has only come to b e seriously explored with t h e recognition t h a t biological
organisms play a vital role in regulating t h e atmospheric environment (Ehhalt,
1985). Lively d e b a t e has taken place on t h e n a t u r e of t h e sulphur cycle in t h e cont e x t of Gaia (Shaw, 1985; 1986; Rodhe, 1986).
Gaia h a s also c a p t u r e d t h e imagination of a wider public through popular
scientific publications, such as The Gaia Atlas o j P l a n e t a r y Management (Myers,
1985). the numerous articles in t h e EcoLogist which have explored t h e notion of
Gaia (see f o r example, Hughes, 1983; Sagan and Margulis, 1983), as w e l l as
Lovelock's beautifully written book, Gaia.A Nsw Look a t Life o n E a r t h (Lovelock,
1979). Recently. Gaia provided the backdrop to a British made-for-TV t h r i l l e r
Edge o j h r k n e s s . I t has given a new focus to writings on 'alternative living' (see
f o r example, Pedlar, 1979), and h a s even prompted a mass and a (bad) disco
record.
The image of Gaia as E a r t h Goddess has been invoked by Lovelock himself, and
later by o t h e r s as a new symbol f o r understanding human relations with Nature
(Lovelock, 1979; Hughes, 1983; Clark, 1983; O'Riordan, 1985; Myers, 1985). For example, Clark (1983) has developed a philosophical theme concerning human activit y prfthin t h e context of t h e Biosphere initially raised by Lovelock, "Gaia i s adept
at turning pollutants into necessary elements, and i s likely to survive, most probably even a nuclear spasm t h a t eliminated us ...". This i s because what matters i s
t h e maintenance of Gaia and h e r constituent ecosystems
not t h e preservation at
all costs of any single species including t h e human one. "... Gaia subsists in t h e
changes and relationships of species and ecosystems ... Her stability i s not t h a t of
unchanging emptiness; different kinds play t h e i r parts and d e p a r t , and w e have no
g u a r a n t e e t h a t t h e human s p e c i e s has any different sort of lease" (Clark, 1983). In
s h o r t , t h e evolution of t h e Biosphere may be a p r o c e s s beyond t h e full comprehension, control and even participation of t h e human species.
Recently, Lovelock (1986) h a s coined t h e term geophysiology to denote a n emerging systems approach to earth science t h a t "might assist in t h e design of pr*
c e d u r e s f o r t h e diagnosis and prevention of incipient maladies of our planet". By
wing t h e term geophysiology, Lovelock i s trying p e r h a p s to distance himself from
t h e teleological criticisms t h a t have come to surround t h e notion of Gaia. According to Lovelock, "...we inhabit and are part of a quasi-living entity t h a t h a s t h e
-
capacity f o r global homeostasis ...I1 but warns "...It is t r u e t h a t a system in homeastasis i s forgiving about disturbance, but only when i t i s healthy and well within the
bounds of i t s capacity to regulate. When such a system is stressed n e a r t h e limits
of i t s capacity to regulate, even a small jolt may cause i t to jump to a new stable
state or even to fail entirely." (Lovelock, 1986).
Consequently, t h e challenge of geophysiology is to b e t t e r understand the implications of human intervention into biogeochemical cycles in a way t h a t distinguishes situations which threaten the planetary operating system from those that
do not. P e r h a p s in this way, human development can b e channelled into ecologically
sustainable paths.
G a i a and Noorpherc: Complementary Paradigmm
Followers of Vernadsky in t h e Soviet Union have continued t h e detailed and
quantitative study of biogeochemical cycles, especially through t h e construction of
numerical computer models. Attempts have been made to investigate t h e carrying
capacity of a Biosphere which i s evolving partly through processes beyond human
influence and partly as a result of human intervention (Ryabchikov, 1975;Kamishilov, 1976;Budyko, 1980;Zavarzin, 1984;Moiseev, Svirezhev, Krapivin and Tarko,
1985).
The important outcome of such r e s e a r c h h a s been increased attention to
thresholds of Biospheric carrying capacity and t h e implications of not respecting
them. Large models of Biospheric processes have been used, however crudely, to
ask analytical questions about how and to what degree human activities may b e
responsible f o r l a r g e scale changes in biogeochemical cycles. For example, what
would be the implications f o r the carbon cycle, if a q u a r t e r of existing forests
w e r e removed? If t h e loss of a q u a r t e r of o u r planet's forests does not lead to radical transformation of biogeochemical processes. then would t h e loss of a third
make a difference? What might be the implications of deforestation of a q u a r t e r of
existing resources o v e r a period of thirty years? What if such deforestation happened o v e r sixty y e a r s ?
Meanwhile, Lovelock's geophysiology aims to tackle questions such as, how
stable i s t h e planetary operating system? What will p e r t u r b i t ? Can t h e effects of
perturbation be reversed? And can t h e world maintain i t s present climate and compotsition without t h e humid topics in t h e i r present form? (Lovelock, 1986).
In his analysis of modern environmentalism, Timothy OIRiordan (1981) has
identified ecocentric and technocentric ideals as representing opposite ends of a
continuum governing human relations with Nature. Ecocentrism i s a naturecentered view of t h e e a r t h , grounded in a belief t h a t humankind and i t s activities
are subject to a natural o r d e r according to which the Universe operates. In considering t h e future of environmentalism, O'Riordan (1985)suggests t h a t Gaia has
emerged as the guiding concept of ecocentrism. In contrast, technocentrism i s a
'man-centered' view of t h e Earth, based on the belief t h a t humanity can manage
and control Nature. If Gaia r e p r e s e n t s an ecocentric guiding concept of t h e
Universe in such a schema, then Noaephere r e p r e s e n t s a technocentric one.
Vernadsky, like Teilhard, believed t h a t human beings are t h e planet's consciousness with the right, responsibility, and now ability, in the words of George
Sessions (1981)to "seize t h e tiller of t h e aimlessly drifting planet" and direct evolutionary forces. In contrast, t h e ecocentrists or 'nature-centrists' would r e j e c t
this notion of ecological anthropocentrism, and call f o r a n ecological egalitarianism to end all forms of human domination. According to Saint Francis, 'Man' would
be deposed from his monarchy o v e r Creation and a democracy of all God's creation
would prevail. According to ecologist Aldo Leopold, 'Man' would cease to try
managing t h e Biosphere and would instead become a 'plain biotic citizens (Sessions,
1981). Lovelock's G a i a encapsulates a conception of an evolving planetary entity
which i s fundamentally ecologically egalitarian with "man a t t h e periphery". In
contrast, Vernadsky's Noosphere is not only ecologically anthropocentric, "mancentered", but also "man in charge".
Thus, Gaia and Noosphere a p p e a r to represent contradictory informing concepts about humanity's relationship with Nature, and so could b e interpreted as
the latest in t h e dialectic of technocentrism versus ecocentrism which has colored
much of t h e thinking on environmentalism. The question: 'Is humankind at t h e
c e n t e r or at t h e periphery of ecological processes?' has consistently been a prominent one in environmental literature (for reviews see OsRiordan, 1981; Pepper,
1984). However, I would propose t h a t because Gaia and Noosphere s h a r e a common
analyticorl basis, a science of t h e Biosphere, they are unlike previous adversaries
of t h e technocentrism versus ecocentrism debate.
In conceptions of both Gaia and t h e Noogphere, Biosphere represents human
understanding of t h e biogeochemical cycles taking plaoe on our planet. Thus, t h e
contradictions of technocentrism and ecocentrism become irrelevant with t h e asking of common analytical questions about t h e functioning of t h e Biosphere. On t h e
basis of c u r r e n t answers to such questions, Lovelock and t h e Gaians might concede
t h a t some portions of t h e Biosphere and biogeochemical processes, such as t h e
hydrological cycle or t h e stratospheric ozone budget a r e within t h e partial control of humankind, while o t h e r s such as international control of industrial sulphur
emissions may w e l l become subject to human regulation in t h e n e a r future. On the
other hand, Vernadsky might have conceded together with modem protagonists of
t h e Noosphere t h a t some portions of t h e Biosphere and biogeochemical processes,
such as large scale control of climate, w i l l remain f o r e v e r beyond t h e reach of human science and technology.
Increasingly, public as w e l l as scientific debate has c o m e to take t h e form of
asking empirically orientated questions about humanity's socio-economic and technological influence on t h e Biosphere and its biogeochemical processes: 'which
processes?', 'where?', 'how?', 'when?', and 'to what extent?'. Thus, t h e injbrming
concepts of G a i a and Noosphere can be viewed as complementary as each i s founded on a n a n u l y t i c interpretation of Biosphere. The concept of Noogphere focusses
on what w e do know and understand about t h e workings and management of biogeochemical cycles, while t h e notion of G a i a emphasizes what w e do not know and
understand.
Advances in our analytical understanding of biogeochemical cycles and t h e
Biosphere have spawned philosophic concepts of Gaia and Noosphere. They complement each other as guides to human living and understanding in terms of t h e cons t r a i n t s of t h e biogeochemical processes of the Biosphere. This i s because taken
together as p a r t s of a unified perspective, Gaia and Noosphere can help distinguish what w e do understand from what w e d o not about humanity's ability to conduct i t s activities on our planet so as to ensure t h e survival of o u r own species, as
well as t h a t of t h e Biosphere. Such a perspective offers t h e opportunity f o r a common currency philosophical perspective which would not occur merely due to
methodological common ground between East and West, scientists and policy make r s , as w e l l as interests of public and industry.
Far from being contradictory guiding concepts f o r human action, Gaia and
Noosphere represent a unified interpretation of humanity's relationship with Nature. As long as protagonists of both G a i a and Noosphere continue to r e i n t e r p r e t
t h e i r paradigms in t h e light of scientific advances in our understanding of biogeochemical cycles, such concepts are likely to strengthen as useful guides to t h e
design and evaluation of policies f o r dealing with global problems of Biosphere. I t
i s the unified philosophical perspective of Gaia and Noosphere, firmly rooted in
analytical understanding of the Biosphere, that i s embodied in the emerging notion
of joint East-West 'Sustainable Development of the Biosphere'.
Balandin, R.K. (1982) Madimir Tbrncrdsky. Moscow: MIR Publishers.
Bolin, B. and R.B. Cook (eds.) (1983) The Ma,jor Biogeochgmicd Cycles and t h e i r
Interaction. Scope 21. Chichester, Brisbane, New York and Toronto: John Wiley.
Budyko, M.I. (1980) Global Ecology. Moscow: P r o g r e s s Publishers.
Clark, S.R.L. (1983) Gaia and Other Forms of Life. Pages 182-200 in R. Elliot and
A. Gare. E n v i r o n m e n t d Philosophy. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of
Queensland Press.
Ehhalt, D.H. (1985) Methane in t h e Global Atmosphere. Environment 27(10):6, 12,
30-33.
G r e a t Soviet Encyclopedia (1978) A Translation of t h e Third Edition. N e w York:
MaaMillan Educational Company.
Grenet, A.P. (1965) m i l h a r d d e C h a r d i w the Man a n d his Theories. Profiles in
Science Series. London: Souvenir Press.
Grinevald, J. (1985) The Forgotten Sources of t h e Concept of Biosphere. P a p e r
presented at t h e A n n u d Meeting @ World CouhciL f i r t h e Biosphere and
Joint P l a n n i n g Session with t h e InternationaL Society for Environmental
Education, held in Les Avants. Montreaux, Switzerland, June 18 22, 1985.
Hughes. J.D. (1983) Gaia: a n Ancient View of Our Planet. Ths Ecologist 13(23):54-60.
Huxley, J. (1958) Introduction. In P. Teilhard d e Chardin, The Phenamenan of Man.
London: Collins Fountain Books.
Kamishilov, M.M. (1976) E v o l u t i o n of the Biosphere. Moscow: MIR Publishers.
Lovelock, J.E. and L. Margulis (1974) Atmospheric Homeostasis by and f o r t h e Bios p h e r e . TeLLus 263-10.
Lovelock, J.E. (1979) Gaia. A New Look at Li@ o n E a r t h . Oxford: Oxford Universit y Press.
Lovelock. J.E. and M. Whitfield (1982) Life Span of t h e Biosphere. Nature
296:561-563.
Lovelock, J.E. (1983) Gaia as Seen Through t h e Atmosphere. In P. Westbrook and
E. deJong (eds .) The F b u r t h a m p o s i u m o n B i o m i n e r a l i z a t i o n . Dordrech t ,
The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.
Lovelock, J.E. (1986) Geophysiology: A N e w Look at E a r t h Science. In R. Dickinson
(ed.) GeophysioCogy in Amazonia: P-&getation a n d Climate Interactions.
Chichester, Brisbane, N e w York and Toronto: John Wiley.
Mochalov. 1.1. (1985) P i e r r e Curie and Vladimir Vernadsky on t h e Threat of Nuclear Omnicide. Pages 91-105 in Institute of t h e History of Natural Science
and Technology, History of Science.- Soviet Research. Volume 1. Moscow:
USSR Academy of Sciences.
Moiseev, N.N., Yu.M. Svirezhev, V.F. Krapivin, and A. M. Tarko (1985) Biosphere
Models. In R.W. Kates, J.H. Ausubel, and M. Berberian (eds.) Climate Impact
Assessment. Scope 27. Chichester, Brisbane, New York and Toronto: John Wiley.
Myers. N. (1985) The G a i a Atlas o f P l a n e t a r y Management. London: Pan Books.
OsRiordan, T. (1981) Environmentalism. 2nd ed., London: Pion.
-
08Riordan, T. (1985) Research Policy and Review 6. Future Directions f o r Environmental Poliay. Environment and Planning 17:1431-1446.
Pedlar, K. (1979) TAe Quest Br Doria. St. Albans, Herts.: Granada Books.
Pepper, D. (1984) TAe Social Roots ofEnuironmentaZism. Beckenham, Kent: Croom
Helm.
Polunin, N. (1984) Our Use of 'Biosphere', 'Ecosystem', and now 'Ecobiome'. Editorial Note. E n v i r o n m a t u l Conservation 11(3):198.
Rodhe, H. (1986) Correspondence. Mimatic Change 8:91-92.
Ryabchikov, A. (1975) The Changing Facs # the E a r t h . Moscow: P r o g r e s s Publishers.
Sagan, D. and L. Margulis (1983) The Gaian Perspective in Ecology. TAe Ecologist
13(5):160-167.
Schneider, S.H. (1986) A Goddess of t h e Earth? The Debate on t h e Gaia Hypothesis
a n Editorial. Climatic Change 8:l-4.
Sessions, G. (1981) Book Review of Bonifazi, C., The Soul of t h e World: a n account
of the Inwardness of Things, 1978. E n v i r o n m m t u l Ethics 3:275-281.
Shaw, G.E. (1985) Biooontrolled Themostasis Involving t h e Sulfur Cycle. Climatic
Change 5:297-303.
Shaw, G.E. (1986) Response to Dr. Rodhe. CZimatic Change 8:93.
Teilhard de Chardfn, P. (1958) TAe Phenomenon of Man. London: Collins Fountain
Books.
Teilhard d e Chardin, P. (1959) TAe F b t u r e ofMan. London: Collins Fountain Books.
Vernadsky, V.I. (1922) TAe B e g i n n i n g s and E t e r n i t y of L W . Petrograd (in Russian).
Vernadsky, V.I. (1924) La Geochemie. Paris: Felix Alcan (in French).
Vernadsky, V. I. (1929) L a Biosphere. Paris: Felix Alcan (in French).
Vernadsky, V.I. (1944) Problems of Biogeochemistry 11. The Fundamental MatterEnergy Difference between t h e Living and Inert Natural Bodies of t h e Biosphere. f i a n s a c t i o n s of t h e Connecticut Academy of Arts a n d Sciences
35:483-517.
Vernadsky, V.I. (1945) The Biosphere and Noosphere. American S c i e n t i s t 33
(1):l-lz.
Vucinich, A. (1984) Empire of Knowledge: the Academy 4J Sciences of t h e USW
1917-70. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Watson, A.J. and J.E. Lovelock (1983) Biological Homeostasis of t h e Global Environment: t h e parable of t h e daisy world. Tellus 358:264-289.
Zavanin, G.A. (1984) Bacteria and the Composition of the Atmosphere. Moscow:
Nauka (in Russian).
-