James Lovelock, 1919-2022. One of the great minds of the twentieth century

The great rainforest holobiont is part of the even greater holobiont we call "Gaia"

James Lovelock left us at 103, after a life dedicated to science. His main contribution was the concept of “Gaia,” which will forever accompany his name.

There are many ways to be a scientist: some are collectors who collect facts as if they were stamps. Others are theorists, who spend their lives building castles in the air that never touch the real world. There are those who spend their lives criticizing, and many who see science as a competition to prove they are better than others.

Lovelock was in another category: he never wrote an equation, he never worried about cheap brawls between scientists, and never even an employee of a university or a research institute. He was a creative, one who was not afraid to build measurement tools using his hands, a characteristic of creatives who often combine manual and mental skills. Lovelock was part of the tradition of the great creative scientists of the past, walking on the same path that Charles Darwin had started tracing with his theory of evolution by natural selection. (like Lovelock, Darwin, never wrote an equation!)

For a scientist, being creative is risky. The creative seeks the perfect blend of data and intuition and does not always succeed. An intuition without data is nonsense, while data without intuition is nothing more than a telephone directory. But Lovelock managed to get the right blend with Gaia.

Like all creatives, from Newton onwards, Lovelock hoisted himself on the shoulders of giants, taking from them what he needed for his synthesis. Lynn Margulis and William Golding are equally responsible for the idea of “Gaia,” in the sense of the terrestrial ecosystem. But it was Lovelock who acted as the spearhead, launching the idea as early as 1972, after studying the data coming from the first probes that had landed on Mars. His basic intuition, that oxygen is the “signature” of the existence of biological life, was right. Then, he expanded this idea to explain how the whole planetary ecosystem self-regulates by a series of feedback mechanisms.

As always happens, also in science original and innovative ideas tend to be attacked with a vehemence that goes beyond the need for proper verification. Lovelock's idea had an undertone of mysticism, of "New Age," of hippies smoking weed, that kind of thing. And, above all, it went directly against the dominant paradigm of the time, that of “neodarwinism” which couldn’t conceive how the creature called “Gaia” could emerge without being in competition with others for the same resources.

You can imagine the controversy that came up. And, even today, officially we must use the term "Gaia hypothesis" to avoid the risk of being mistreated by the defenders of the orthodoxy. And yet, perhaps unexpectedly, Lovelock's idea “Gaia " was never completely discredited, despite the crossfire of critics.

Of course, Lovelock was not always right, and his ideas had to be refined, tuned, and sometimes radically changed. He had to back down from some interpretations that turned out to be too radical: for instance, he argued that an ice age is a perfect condition for Gaia to exist to maximize the ecosystem’s “metabolic rate.” It seems clear, nowadays, that it is not the case. Then, one of the regulation mechanisms he had initially proposed, the “CLAW hypothesis,” based on the role of phytoplankton in generating cloud condensation mechanisms, turned out to be probably wrong or, at least, not relevant. And sometimes his interpretations of Gaia as endowed with a certain volition of hers went a little too far on the side of mysticism.

But these mistakes are not crucial. The point is that the idea of Gaia is fundamental to understanding how it's possible that such a fragile thing as biological life has existed on Earth for at least three billion years. It was not by accident, but by the self-regulating capabilities of the system that allowed it to survive the various catastrophes that hit Earth during this long period. Then, you may call this capability with a different name. It doesn’t matter: "Gaia" remains a fundamental idea for today's science, still a source of new ideas, new insights, and new discoveries.

And I think the idea of Gaia also goes beyond the dry terms that science uses to describe phenomena such as “complex adaptive systems” or “self-regulating feedback systems.” I think that we can say that “something” exists, out there, that’s beyond our capabilities of understanding. If we want to call that “something” Gaia, it is perfectly legitimate. And if we wish to see “her” as a Goddess, it is legitimate, too. Who said that science must always be right? So, we can thank Gaia for having been so kind to James Lovelock, and giving him a long and productive life. May he rest in peace in the arms of the Goddess he created, and who created him.

How sloppy can science reporting be? Einstein never ridiculed Wegener's theory of continental drift

 

Alfred Wegener (1880–1930) -- one of the great minds of the 20th century, the developer of the "Continental Drift" theory that he formulated for the first time in 1912. It was a milestone in understanding how the Earth system works. Nothing of what we know of the great holobiont that's the world's ecosystem would make sense without the movement of the continents that causes a continuous exchange of matter from the mantle to the crust, and back. 

Reading about science can be a confusing experience, where you wade among facts and factoids, and you try to make sense of what you read. Recently, I was dismayed to read that, apparently, "Einstein ridiculed Wegener's theory of Continental Drift" (the one now called "plate tectonics."). 

It was one of those flashing sentences that appear and disappear on social media. I can't find it anymore, but it puzzled me enough that I went to check the Web. And, yes, there is this story that Einstein had criticized, even ridiculed, Wegener for his theory. 

Alfred Wegener and Albert Einstein were two great scientists, both idols of my youth. It would be surprising if Einstein engaged in the kind of feeding frenzy that run-of-the-mill scientists engage in when they group together to defame someone smarter than they are. But it is true that Wegener's ideas went through a barrage of rabid criticism, not unlike the kind that hit the "Limits to Growth" 1972 study. Plenty of this criticism of his theory was politically motivated. Wegener was German and, after WWI, everything German became unpopular in the English-speaking world. A curse that lasted well until the 1960s, when the idea of "Continental Drift" was reconsidered and widely accepted under the name of "Plate Tectonics."

So, did Einstein really fall for the general denigration of Alfred Wegener and his ideas? But what is this idea based on? Let's explore the web a little. In a recent article in "Discovery Magazine," we read that "As late as 1958, a book rejecting continental drift included a foreword by Albert Einstein." But no reference is given, nor what Einstein actually said.

More work with the search engines, and we can find, on a site called "human-stupidity.com,"  a post where a reference is given. The link goes to a post in German from "Der Spiegel" where they say that "Selbst 43 Jahre später unterstützte Albert Einstein Wegeners Kritiker noch mit einem Buchvorwort" and even with my very limited German, I can understand that they don't say anything more than that Einstein wrote a preface of a book that supported Wegener's critics. But even here, no link, no reference.

Back to the search engines and, finally, the mystery is solved. I found (I didn't know) that Einstein gave some important contributions to geodynamics during his career. The story is told in detail in this article by Frias et al., where we can read how Einstein befriended a Geologist named Charles Hapgood, of whom he wrote in 1954 that: 

I frequently receive communications from people who wish to consult me concerning their unpublished ideas. It goes without saying that these ideas are very seldom possessed of scientific validity. The very first communication, however, that I received from Mr. Hapgood electrified me. His idea is original, of great simplicity, and—if it continues to prove itself—of great importance to everything that is related to the history of the earth’s surface. (Einstein, 18th of May 1954, courtesy of the Einstein Archives Online).

And here is the book cover: 

This book can still be found for sale, but it has become a collector's item, and it is atrociously expensive. From the snippets available on the Web, it is clear that Hapgood criticized Wegner, but his ideas were not so different. He did accept that the continents move, but he proposed a different mechanism for their movement. His idea was that continental plates were pushed by a mechanism related to the centrifugal effects of the growth of ice.

And how about Einstein? Nowhere in Albert Einstein's preface we can read a criticism of Wegener's ideas, a point clearly made by Frias et al. in their article. 

And there we are: Einstein remains a hero of mine. He correctly interpreted the way science should be done. Hapgood's work was serious science and it deserved to be taken into consideration. That's what Einstein said. 

In any case, the carelessness of people who write about science is bewildering. They simply rewrite what they read without worrying too much about verifying what they are writing. A similar story is that of the "horse manure catastrophe" where people still keep citing a sentence that was never written. And when you hear people still saying that "The Club of Rome made wrong predictions"............... So it goes.  

 

Oceans and Climate: we need more whales!

Judith Curry provides the link to a 10-year-old paper, still interesting for us

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL041961

The idea is of activating the ocean metabolism by artificially upwelling nutrients from the deeper layers to the surface, which can be metabolized by photosynthetic organisms. It is similar to that of fertilizing the ocean by dumping iron oxide in the water.

The interesting thing is how sensitive is the Earth holobiont to this kind of manipulation. According to the article, artificial upwelling would "be able to sequester atmospheric CO2 at a rate of about 0.9 PgC/yr," which is about a tenth of the current carbon emissions. In itself, it would not change the trend, but it is still a lot, and if it were continued for decades it would make a difference considering the unavoidable decline of fossil fuel production generated by depletion.

But, of course, things like pipes and flap valves could hardly be deployed in the necessary amounts, considering that humans see it as much more important to use their remaining resources to make war on each other. Yet, it is impressive to think that what the pipes are supposed to do used to be done by whales before they were exterminated (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1502549112). So, humans have already modified the Oceans' system in the opposite direction. 

Likely, more whales would cool the planet. And they would produce themselves if just left in peace, no need for huge pipes and pumps!

Return the land to nature!

by Bulat K. Yessekin


The European Commission’s proposal for a Nature Restoration Law is the first continent-wide, comprehensive law of its kind. It is a key element of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which calls for binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems, in particular those with the most potential to capture and store carbon and to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters. Europe’s nature is in alarming decline, with more than 80% of habitats in poor condition. Restoring wetlands, rivers, forests, grasslands, marine ecosystems, and the species they host will help increase biodiversity, secure the things nature does for free, like cleaning our water and air, pollinating crops, and protecting us from floods, limit global warming to 1.5°C, build up Europe’s resilience and strategic autonomy, preventing natural disasters and reducing risks to food security. Draft EU Nature Restoration Law: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/nature-restoration-law_en

Land conversion is one of the biggest threats to biodiversity in the modern world. In two related papers, the amount of unconverted land and the degree of connectivity among landscapes were measured, painting a clear picture of both what needs to be protected and the urgency of this task.

Ambitious conservation efforts are needed to stop the global biodiversity crisis. James R. Allan from the University of Amsterdam estimates the minimum land area to secure important biodiversity areas, ecologically intact areas, and optimal locations for representation of species ranges and ecoregions. «We discover that at least 64 million square kilometers (44% of terrestrial area) would require conservation attention (ranging from protected areas to land-use policies) to meet this goal. More than 1.8 billion people live on these lands, so responses that promote autonomy, self-determination, equity, and sustainable management for safeguarding biodiversity are essential. Spatially explicit land-use scenarios suggest that 1.3 million square kilometers of this land is at risk of being converted for intensive human land uses by 2030, which requires immediate attention. However, a sevenfold difference exists between the amount of habitat converted in optimistic and pessimistic land-use scenarios, highlighting an opportunity to avert this crisis. Appropriate targets in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to encourage conservation of the identified land would contribute substantially to safeguarding biodiversity» https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl9127

Similar studies (Viktor Gorshkov​, Anastassia Makarieva,​ et al.) have shown that in order to preserve conditions suitable for life, humanity must return at least 50% of the land to nature:​ ​https://www.bioticregulation.ru/index.php

For more details:

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/publications/nature-restoration-law_en


https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en

Bulat Yessekin is an International expert based in Kazachstan in environment, green economy and sustainable development. He is engaged at present in the Aral Sea Basin program, Balkhash Lake ecosystem management, Ural river transboundary cooperation. https://www.facebook.com/bulat.yessekin/

The bad holobionts in the European Parliament will pass, but good holobionts are forever

 

Good holobionts would never think that gas and nuclear are "green." Holobionts know how to survive, they know how to prosper, they know how to help each other, they know how to last for a long, long time. The bad holobionts of the European Parliament will pass, but good holobionts are forever. 

Feathered Dinosaurs -- The Many Faces of Gaia

 

A feathered T-Rex? Why not? (Image from Safari Ltd.)

A recent paper by Olsen et al. appeared on "Science Advances". It discussed the fauna and the climate of the Earth of Late Triassic, just before and during one more of the great mass extinctions of its long history.

The authors claim that "The Late Triassic and earliest Jurassic are characterized as one of the very few times in Earth history in which there is no evidence of polar glacial ice sheets," which I am not so sure about. Anyway, this Late Triassic Iceless age is interesting for us because it is where we may end as the result of the current burst of fossil carbon combustion, deforestation, and marine desertification. It is another example of ice-free earth, probably similar to the Eocene epoch, some 30-50 million years ago.

It seems that the Late Triassic was not so hot, despite the high CO2 concentrations (maybe 1000-6000 ppm). In the high latitude regions, the temperature was cold enough that ice would form in winter, likely not perennial. Dinosaurs lived in the Northern and Southern areas of the Pangea, and they already had "filamentous integumentary cover" -- beautiful term! -- that is protofeathers, clearly used for thermal insulation. In the equatorial regions, instead, the heat made life easier for cold-blooded animals, the pseudosuchia -- which indicates crocodile-like creatures. Apparently, it was too hot for dinosaurs there.

Does this have some relevance to the current climate? Everything is correlated, although it must be said that the conditions of the earth some 200 million years ago were quite different. The fact that there was ice at the poles, despite a very high CO2 concentration, is no proof that CO2 is not the greenhouse gas we know it is. Among many other things, the solar insulation at that time probably around 2% lower than it is today.

Today, if we were to go back to those CO2 concentrations, crocodiles may still have a good time, but they will probably invade a much larger share of latitude. On this point, this is a paleontological study, so they don't mention modeling the climate of those times. They tend to attribute the low temperature to volcanic ashes. They seem to say that the mass extinction was caused by cooling, unlike the later K-Pg event. That despite the fact that the CO2 concentration was so high. Their main conclusion is that dinosaurs were adapted to cold temperatures, and they were mostly feathered. Which means that the creatures seen in "Jurassic Park" are all wrong!

They also report this interesting graph with the CO2 concentrations over 300 million years. It is stuffed with acronyms, apparently well known by paleontologists, but not so much by us, mortals. Anyway, "EPE" stands for "End Permian Extinction" (the huge one)   "ETE" stands for "End Triassic Extinction" (less well-known, but it was not a joke). "T-OAE" stands for "Torcian Oceanic Anoxic Event" (quite an event, it must have been). The "K-Pg-E" is an acronym of acronyms, but you know what it stands for: it is the end of the dinosaur age -- the big asteroid falling on Earth (maybe) or/and the Deccan giant igneous province (more likely). Finally, the PETM is the "Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum", quite a maximum in temperatures, but it didn't do as much damage as one would have expected. 

Why Agroecology is the future of food production: How to feed the land holobiont so that it feeds you

Ian Schindler is a mathematician originally from Los Angeles, now based in Toulouse (France). He has gradually moved his interests from pure mathematics to resource depletion and collapsology, and now he is interested in permaculture and holobionts.

By Ian Schindler

Agroecology aka restorative agriculture aka regenerative agriculture is characterized by:

1. Control of pests through biodiversity.  Thus no mono-cultures.

2. More labor as there are no mono-cultures so harvesting must be done with human labor.

3. Yields (for humans) are lower than with intensive farming but biomass is far greater than with intensive farming.

4. No (or very little) artificial fertilizers or pesticides are required.  

1- LaCanne and Lundgren 2018, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428 found fewer pests on agroecological farms than on the surrounding pesticide using farms.

2- The labor is much more intense the first few years. It is less monotonous than in intensive agriculture because there is no mono-cultures so it is less repetitive.  It is perhaps more rewarding if one enjoys contact with wildlife.

3- The biggest difference between intensive agriculture and agroecology is between the ears.  Different metrics are used to define success.  The goal in agroecology is to design a food producing, self-sustaining system.

4- The cost structure is quite different from intensive agriculture.  While intensive agriculture requires recurring high level investments, agroecology requires a high initial investment, but once the system starts self-sustaining, costs are very low.

Agroecology is essentially food production with the food kept in its holobiont. Globally about 50% of terrestrial biomass is below the surface of the soil. Of course there are plant roots, but according to Paul Stamets, about 1/3 of the carbon in the soil is contained in the mycelium of fungi. Fungi are particularly important in forests. Well informed practitioners of agroecology pay particular interest in the health of the soil. Note that in https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428 the authors found profit was not correlated with yield, but it was correlated with soil quality. It can take several years to obtain high quality soil. The fastest way to improve the soil is to add animal excrement (herbivore excrement works the best). Plants help to improve the soil. Plants growing in poor soil will devote at least 1/4 of their photosynthesis to creating sugars excreted by their root systems to encourage bacterial and fungal growth.

Agroecology addresses  the following problems:

1. Climate change.  
2. Mitigating the effects of climate change.
3. Peak oil.
4. Peak soil (https://energyskeptic.com/2017/peaksoil/).
5. Peak water (http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/135192 and
   https://science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6540/418).
6. Decreasing biodiversity
7. A declining agricultural population.
8. Public health.
9. World hunger
10. Water pollution.

1- At least 1/4 of all greenhouse gas emissions come from land use while all of transportation is less than 15% (see
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data and
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac018e). Switching to agroecology would transform land use from a source of CO2 emissions to a sink (see https://4p1000.org/).

2- Two of the primary characteristics of high quality soil are increased water capacity and resistance to erosion. High quality soil does not wash away in heavy rain and is more resilient to drought as it can store more water.  Because the soil can absorb more water, flooding is reduced in the case of very heavy precipitation.

3- Agroecology is far less energy intensive than intensive agriculture.  In the U.S., to produce 1.75 calories of food requires about 2 calories of energy inputs.  If one looks at the entire food process (packaging, processing, storage, etc.) 14 calories are required for every calorie consumed.  See
https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/food/us-food-system-factsheet
and also https://www.postcarbon.org/publications/the-future-is-rural/

4- Agroecology creates soil rather than destroying soil.

5- Water management is a key feature of agroecology.  Ditches or swales are created to keep water from draining off the land.  On slopes retaining walls are built so that water can soak into the ground.  High quality soil reduces the need for irrigation.  In many biomes, irrigation is not required.

6- Because holobionts are preserved, so is biodiversity.  

7- The average age of a farmer, both in the U.S. and Europe is greater than 55 years. In France, a farmer commits suicide every day. Many young people who would like to farm, would like to apply agroecological techniques. Currently they have difficulty getting bank loans and finding land to begin
their activity. At the 2022 commencement ceremony at AgroParisTech (a prestigious French agronomy school) several students took the stage, complained that they had been trained to destroy the planet, and voiced their intention of practicing agroecology. A link to a video of the event (in French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOVOC2Kd50.

8- Food produced with agroecological methods is healthier.  For example the milk from cows fed on grass contains a higher ratio of Omega 3 fatty acids to Omega 6 fatty acids than the milk from cows fed soy.  See also https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54785505-inflamed and https://book.umanaidoomd.com/.

9- Agribusiness pushes yield as a metric to solve world hunger. However the food produced by intensive agriculture is too expensive for people in poor countries (where labor is cheap). In fact this high yield food is exported from poor to rich countries leaving poor local people hungry. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/agroecology-is-the-solution-to-world-hunger/.

10- Agroecology actually purifies water.  See Dan Barber's talk linked to below.

Remarks:

1. Agroecology is a group effort.  It requires many people per unit area.    Currently woofers make up a large part of this effort: https://wwoof.net/.

2. Currently in France the profitable farms are either very large or very small (less than 2 hectares). The large farms are profitable because they receive the most subsidies from the European common  agriculture policy. In (Kirsch, Kroll, and Trouvé 2017 http://journals.openedition.org/economierurale/5223) the authors found that subsidies were positively correlated with pesticide use per unit area. Small farms are profitable because they sell directly to consumers.

3. Solutions are not unique. Sepp Holzer (http://www.seppholzer.info/) never prunes fruit trees but at the garden of the workers fraternity the fruit trees are pruned intensively (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVLlkToPuU).

4. Starting an agroecological project is not easy.  It can take up to 7    years for the system to stabilize.

5. Agroecology is profitable after the first few years. See    https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4428. There are many examples of successful farms practicing agroecology (see below).

6. Agroecology would require less land than industrial agriculture to feed the world.  Much land used in agriculture today is used to grow grain to feed animals.  It is a very inefficient system.

7. An efficient policy to encourage agroecology would be to pay farmers to sequester carbon.

Examples:

1. Agroecology is a key element of permaculture. David Holmgren, one of the founders of permaculture, has been successfully practicing agroecology since the the mid 1970s: https://holmgren.com.au/.

2. Dan Barber's wonderful 19 minute Ted talk: "How I Fell in Love With a Fish",
   https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.

3. Kirsten Dirksen's 55 minute documentary on the Kailash Ecovillage in Portland, Oregon which is a mature, urban permaculture design. These people are not farmers, but part of their rent is participating in their own food production. They demolished parking lots to grow food. Note that they compost their own excrement on site:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCGXVk-cBVk.

4. Kirsten Dirksen's 53 minute documentary of a mature large agroecology farm in Wisconsin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso

5. Sepp Holzer: http://www.seppholzer.info/

6. Jean-Martin Fortier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Martin_Fortier

7. The Garden of the Worker's Fraternity in Moscou, Belgium grows with agroecology since 1969 (in French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dNKG20-GrE

8. "The Biggest Little Farm" is an excellent documentary on the 80 hectare Apricot Lanes Farm (https://www.apricotlanefarms.com/) in Moorpark, California.