Featured Post

Holobionts: a new Paradigm to Understand the Role of Humankind in the Ecosystem

You are a holobiont, I am a holobiont, we are all holobionts. "Holobiont" means, literally, "whole living creature." It ...

Saturday, August 27, 2022

The "Prescribed Burning" of Forests. Is it a Good Idea?






Fires have accompanied forests from the beginning of their existence, hundreds of millions of years ago. We are not completely sure of the role that fires play in the ecosystem, but it is not necessarily always bad. The resulting formation of "pyrolytic carbon" (PyC) removes carbon from the ecosystem and has a cooling effect on climate. 

In recent times, the concept of "prescribed burning" or "controlled burning" became fashionable. The idea is that a small fire now may prevent a larger fire later, especially since it removes the debris on the forest floor. But the question is hugely complex and, as always, the discussion becomes political and unhinged from the reality of facts and models. So, are prescribed burnings a good idea, or just an attempt of politicians to show that they are "doing something" on the problem of forest fires

Overall, the opinion of the experts who intervened on this subject in the "Proud Holobionts" forum is that prescribed fires are a bad idea. Nevertheless, the debate is ongoing. If you allow me a personal opinion, I tend to think that the validity of prescribed burning depends on where it is practiced. In forests, it may be awfully bad. In savannas and grasslands, it may be a good idea, at least in some circumstances. It may be that humans have been forced to take control of fires in grasslands and savannas after they exterminated the megafauna that thrived there. The megafauna had a beneficial effect on grass and helped maintain the fertility of the soil, whereas it probably did only damage to forests. But, once the large animals were eliminated, humans had to take upon themselves the same tasks. This is one more fascinating facet of the way Earth's ecosystem works. In any case, eventually, humans and forests must learn to live with each other as good holobionts are known to do.  

Here, I reproduce first a message that was posted on the "Proud Holobionts" discussion forum by Natalia Novoselova, coordinator of the Stop the Harmful Forms of PrescribedBurnings!” It is an ISEU (International Socio-Ecological Union) public campaign. Afterward, I am passing to you another posting to the holobiont forum by Helga Vierich, an anthropologist, who argues that the ancient practices of burning as implemented by the native people of the Kalahari and the Sahel are good for the local environment. These two viewpoints are not necessarily in contrast with each other. They just examine the problem in different environments and conditions (UB).

Should you be interested in joining the "Proud Holobionts" discussion group, write me at prudentlobster(twinklything)gmail.com


On prescribed Burnings

By Natalia Novoselova (ISEU) "Stop the Harmful Forms of Prescribed Burnings"
(slightly readapted from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)

It is a false statement that, since the native ancient people of North America (Indians) had implemented the practice of burning, the same burning practice must be used in our time. The correct understanding is that, no, it's not. The prescribed burning industry uses the idea of the “wise experience of burning” of the native folks to promote the practice of burning. Criticism of this opinion is considered in Part III of the campaign against prescribed burnings. The following text is a summary of the one presented there. 

The paradigm of prescribed burning is based on a dangerous belief about the necessity to continue the tactics of burning the natural territories of ancient native people. Many apologists of prescribed burning believe, that in current times people should continue the burning tactics of ancient native peoples (American Indians, Australian, and African Aborigines) who, for thousands of years burned natural territories for hunting and agriculture. The confidence that the ancient burnings were great wisdom that brought benefits to nature is one of the cornerstones of a philosophical system of prescribed burning paradigms in North America and Australia. Also, it is one of the principal arguments used in the propaganda of prescribed burning practices around the world. These arguments are often found in the press, scientific papers, websites, and social network groups devoted to prescribed burnings and wildfire fighting (see the references at this link).

However, the authors of the texts about the wisdom of the ancient traditions of burning and the need for their continuation in our days, do not explain the reasons for these beliefs. They do not explain why they think that the burning of ancient people did not harm wild nature, and why they think that modern people need to continue this practice. They do not try to analyze the ancient burning and comprehensively assess their impact on wild nature. The ancient practices of burning are called “wisdom and benefit for nature”, only because the ancient native peoples implemented them for a very long time, several thousands of years. Thus, these beliefs have the character of propaganda, the only purpose of which is to justify the modern methods and scale of the prescribed burning industry and convince society to burn more and more.

The book “Fire in Nature” authored by Ed Komarek (American enthusiast and propagandist of prescribed burning practice, founder of several Facebook groups dedicated to prescribed burning propaganda in the world) is a clear example of the exaltation of the ancient Native American burning practice, and justification of the mass prescribed burnings implemented in the USA by this ancient experience. Even in terms of the science that accompanies the modern practice of prescribed burning, Ed Komarek describes his proposal as a transfer of the experience of the ancients to modern realities. The same author fiercely criticizes the academic opposition to prescribed burning (that is, those scientists who reject the usefulness of prescribed burning practice) without giving rational arguments for his criticism. Actually, it is known that the impact of ancient people was a real catastrophe for the biological diversity and natural ecosystems of the planet on all continents and on most of the islands where people settled.

According to archaeological data (Harari, "A brief history of humankind" 2011), since the separation of modern humans (Homo sapiens) from other hominins, about 70-100 thousand years ago – humankind has become the most destructive species for ecosystems on the planet. As soon as people arrive at a new continent or an island – the result is the quick (in terms of hundreds or thousands of years) loss of about 60-90% of the species diversity of large animals (mammals, reptiles, and birds). Ancient people were the direct or indirect cause of the death of hundreds of species of insects and mollusks. Most of the megafauna of mammal and bird species disappeared on all continents and islands because of ancient humans which spread there. In particular, it is known that the human colonization of Australia (45 thousand years ago) and both Americas (16 thousand years ago) caused there an environmental catastrophe, the disappearance of the majority of large animal species, and significant changes in natural ecosystems. For example, the fossils of plants confirm that 45 thousand years ago eucalyptus trees grew in a small area in Australia. But after the arrival of Homo sapiens on this continent, the eucalyptus trees suddenly spread everywhere, displacing all other trees and bushes. This change in the vegetation composition affected significantly the animals of Australia. Many species of animals of all sizes could disappear in Australia because of changes in their habitat, caused by ancient people. Similar processes can be supposed on all continents and islands inhabited by people. The main instruments of this influence of ancient people on natural ecosystems and biodiversity were the burning of forests and hunting, and later – the cutting of trees. Some huge deserts of the planet may have been, in part, the result of such activities of ancient people (the Saharan desert, the deserts of central Australia, and others).

It can be concluded that the ancient human practices of burning on all continents and islands were catastrophically destructive to natural ecosystems and the biological diversity of the planet. Ancient people caused the extinction of a huge number of animal species of all sizes and almost all the megafauna of the planet. In our time, there are no rational reasons to continue the destructive practices of ancient people – the burning of natural lands and hunting. Therefore, the confidence that, currently, people should continue the burning tradition of ancient people - is another false postulate or misconception at the base of the prescribed burning paradigm, which contradicts common sense and worldwide objectives of nature conservation.

It is important to say that ancient people burned natural areas for survival; it was their way of life and the method of food production. In early times, the burning of wild forests was implemented for hunting purposes. Later, the burns were conducted for primitive slash-and-burn agriculture. These actions caused catastrophic destruction in the nature of all territories, where people lived. Since burning was necessary for the survival of ancient people, we (modern people) can forgive them for the damage they caused to the natural ecosystems and biodiversity of the planet. But, obviously, it is impossible to idealize these activities and consider them as useful practices that should be continued in our time! But this is exactly what the apologists of prescribed burning do, who have made the ancient practice of burning the cornerstone of their philosophy.

Also, the pyrophytic ecosystems formed as a result of the burning of ancient people (natural territories with a predominance of flora and fauna adapted to frequent fires and a state of constant pyrogenic succession) cannot be considered a benefit. Maybe some of these artificial natural landscapes can be preserved by special measures, but the main territories should be free from the anthropogenic pressure of burning because modern people do not need to burn natural lands for their survival. Modern society is organized according to principles that did not exist in ancient times and modern people do not need to get their food and clothes by hunting and slash-and-burn farming. Therefore, there is no rational reason to continue the destructive practice of burning. On the contrary, now there is an opportunity to finally free wild nature from this long destructive anthropogenic pressure – artificial burning and hunting.
 


Ancient Cultural Burning Methods


Helga Ingeborg Vierich (Anthroecology.com)
(from a post to "The Proud Holobionts" discussion group)


Out-of-control Wildfire is a killer. It may well have been one of the first and most overwhelming challenges faced by our distant ancestors - learning to reduce the scale and scope of such a menace... "taming" fire was more than creating campfires and cooking fires, and using it as a tool. It was figuring out how it interacted with life and developing strategic practices that turned it into a useful tool in making our beloved natural world and fellow creatures safe from the worst risks it posed. You know what else the Bushmen told me? They said that there were only two things that crossed the barrier between the material world where we exist, and the spiritual immaterial unknown realm beyond, where the creator dwells. These two manifestations were FIRE and LOVE... and by carefully deploying both of these humans can learn the truth about themselves - why are we here??.  I have always found this a comforting thought. 

I studied the use of cultural burning, both in the Kalahari and in the Sahel. In both locations, people set small "cool" fires to remove excess dry leafy, and grassy material. This is done to reduce the risk of extreme wildfires, which can apparently get so hot they will kill the organisms under the surface of the soil, including fungal networks and living roots of vegetation.

Humans evolved as a keystone species of ecological engineers, and tend to manage each ecosystem by encouraging greater plant and animal diversity. They do this not just by creating mosaics of secondary growth by periodic burning, but also by replanting many species of plants, including trees and shrubs, that provide them with food. They also recognize important species that fix nitrogen. They are aware that these are critical in keeping soils healthy and restoring soils in areas that are recovering from drought. In the Kalahari, I was told that the giraffe was rarely hunted because it was essential in spreading the seeds of the tall acacia - a nitrogen-fixing species. 

Here are some further references:

New research in Arnhem Land reveals why institutional fire management is inferior to cultural burning

Indigenous knowledge reveals history of fire-prone California forest

Study offers earliest evidence of humans changing ecosystems with fire | YaleNews

'Fire is medicine': the tribes burning California forests to save them | US news | The Guardian

Never has there been a greater need for Aboriginal fire-stick farming - » The Australian Independent Media Network

(1) Controlled Aboriginal Fires: Australia's Experience - YouTube

Reassessment of the use of fire as a management tool in deciduous forests of eastern North America. - PubMed - NCBI

Indigenous impacts on North American Great Plains fire regimes of the past millennium | PNAS

Fire responses to postglacial climate change and human impact in northern Patagonia (41–43°S) | PNAS

Research suggests First Peoples were firestick farming in North Queensland for up to 140,000 years | Sovereign Union - First Nations Asserting Sovereignty

fire ecology Table of Contents — June 05, 2016, 371 (1696) | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Fire history in a western Fennoscandian boreal forest as influenced by human land use and climate - Rolstad - 2017 - Ecological Monographs - Wiley Online Library



Thursday, August 25, 2022

Savannas and Grasslands: Holobionts Adapting to a Changing Earth

 


The Savanna of the Tarangire Park, in Tanzania (image from Wikipedia)


A recent paper by Carla Staver and Carolyne Stromberg on Savannas, recently appeared on "Science" -  It is a fascinating, although brief, review of what we know about savannas and grasslands. The interest in this kind of studies lies, in my opinion, in their "deep time" perspective. We are used to the existence of savannas and grasslands, but we often tend to forget that they are a relatively recent innovation in the biosphere. Staver and Stromberg estimate that they appeared "just" 20 million years ago. To compare, the forest biome is at least 400 million years old.

In evolutionary terms, if something exists, it is because it has a reason to exist. Savannas and Grasslands are mostly a reaction of the ecosystem to the profound changes that occurred during the Cenozoic, the past 66 million years. Earth emerged out of the End-Mesozoic disaster, the one that destroyed the dinosaurs, as a hot and lush planet. But, some 50 million years ago, a phase of cooling started, and it is lasting in our times (except for the recent human perturbation). 



My personal interpretation of this cooling phase is that the outgassing of CO2 from the mantle could not compensate for the carbon sequestration operated by the biosphere and that the cooling is the result of the gradually lower CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. (image from Zhang et al.)


At some moment, plants had to adapt to a CO2 concentration as low as 170 ppm -- never seen before in Earth's history. This adaptation led to the appearance of the "C4" mechanism of photosynthesis that uses less water and less CO2. The result was a major rebalancing of the ecosystem: for some reasons, probably linked to the water pumping mechanism from roots to the leaves, trees are not happy to use the C4 mechanism, preferring instead the older "C3" one. That led to the widespread appearance of savannas and grasslands, better adapted to a CO2-poor climate. 

From then on, two different holobionts have populated Earth: Forests and grasslands. The main difference is that a Forest has a closed canopy, whereas a savanna has an open one. The effects on the water cycle management are profound: the forest can trigger the biotic pump mechanism to carry water vapor from the oceans, while the savanna, probably, cannot. Both biomes are adapted to the conditions that they themselves create: forests thrive in humid environments and they tend to create it using the biotic pump. The savannas prefer a dry environment: they create it to keep forests away. Savannas also tend to thrive in the presence of mega-herbivores, which instead may be a cause of damage to forests. We may see this situation as a tug of war between the two biomes, although it is also true that the ecosystem knows no "war," only adaptation. Those holobionts that adapt best, survive. It may be possible that grass and trees are two sides of a single, large holobiont that includes savannas, grasslands, and forests. The concept of holobiont is fractal. 

And now? The savanna monkeys (aka "humans") have changed everything. They have methodically razed the forests but, at the same time, they recently engaged in a major re-forestation effort. They have destroyed forests by fires but have also done incredible efforts to suppress forest fires. They have also damaged grassy ecosystems turning them into pastures and removing the large herbivores, but they are also trying to preserve the remaining herbivores. In short, they can't decide what they want to do! The only sure thing is that they have been raising the CO2 atmospheric concentration by burning fossil carbon, gradually returning it to the levels of the early and mid-Cenozoic. That favors trees against grasses. Indeed, we are seeing a remarkable defined reforestation trend all over the Earth. 

So far, we cannot say how this heavy intervention of the savanna monkeys will affect the ecosystem in the long term. The pumping up of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere may be a short-lived pulse, or it may affect the planet for millions of years. Whatever the case, Gaia has been around for a few billion years, and she surely knows what to do. She can deal with these monkeys as they deserve. 



h/t Mara Baudena. To know more of the evolution of forests and savannas, see this post on "The Proud Holobionts" If you cannot access the paper by Staver and Stromberg, ask me for a copy at ugo.bardi(thingamajig)unifi.it

   


Saturday, August 13, 2022

Forests: Holobionts that Dominate the Land's Ecosystem

 

The beech ("Fagus") forest of Abbadia San Salvatore, in Tuscany, Italy. A living holobiont in all its splendor. (photo by the author).

Not many people, today, have a chance to see a fully grown, mature forest. Of course, trees are common even in cities, and there are many places where trees grow together in sufficient numbers that they can be termed "woods." But mature forests have become rare in our urbanized environment. 

One such mature forest survives on the slopes of the Amiata mountain (Monte Amiata), an ancient volcano located about at the center of Tuscany, Italy. Not really a "pristine" forest, but managed by humans with a sufficiently light hand so that it can grow according to its tendency of forming a "monodominant" forest. It is composed nearly completely of a single species of trees: the Fagus sylvatica the European beech. In the photo, below, you can see the east side of the Amiata mountain seen from the valley. 

Our remote ancestors were, most likely, savanna creatures: they weren't used to forests. We may only imagine the awe they felt when they migrated north, from their original African home, to walk in the great forests of Eurasia, by then emerging out of the last ice age. It is a sensation that we can still feel, today. Not many of us are acquainted with the subtleties of a forest ecosystem, but we can recognize that we are looking at something gigantic: an enormous creature that dominates the land. 

A forest is much more than just trees -- it is the true embodiment of the concept of "holobiont." (at least in the version called "extended holobiont" by Castell et al.).  It is an assembly of different creatures that live in symbiosis with each other. The beauty of the concept is that the creatures that form a holobiont are not altruistic. Individual trees don't care about the forest -- they probably don't even know that such a thing as a "forest" exists. They all act for their own survival. But the result is the optimal functioning of the whole system: a forest is a holobiont is a forest.

It has been only in recent times that we have been able to understand part of the intricate network of relations that create the forest holobiont. You may have heard of the "mycorrhiza," the association between tree roots and fungi -- a concept known since the 19th century. It is a typical symbiotic relationship: the plant provides food (carbohydrates) to the fungus, while the fungus provides minerals for the plant. The intricate network of tree roots and fungi has been termed the "Wood Wide Web" since it connects all trees together, exchanging sugars, nitrogen, minerals, and -- probably -- information. 

But trees also get together above ground to support each other. A monodominant forest, such as the beeches of Monte Amiata forms a relatively uniform canopy that provides several advantages. It shades the ground, maintaining it humid, and avoiding the growth of competing species. The trees also shield each other from the gusts of wind that may topple an isolated plant. 

The canopy is the interface between the ground and the atmosphere. Trees evaporate enormous amounts of water in a process called "evapotranspiration." Trees do not do that to favor other trees -- it is their way to exploit the sun's heat to pull water and nutrients all the way from the roots to the leaves of the crown. Evaporated water is a byproduct of the process and, yet, it is fundamental for the survival of the forest. 

It is a complex story that sees water being transferred from the ground to the atmosphere, where it may condense around the particles of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), also emitted by the trees. The result is the formation of low-height clouds that further shield the ground from solar heat and that will eventually give back the water in the form of rain. 

But it is not just a vertical movement: the condensation of water droplets above the canopy of a forest creates a depression that generates wind. This wind may transport inland humid masses of atmosphere from the oceans, where the water had evaporated. It is the mechanism of the "biotic pump" that guarantees abundant rain whenever forests exist. Cut the forest, and you lose the rain. It is not enough to plant trees to have the rain back. You have to wait for the forest to mature and form a full canopy to trigger the biotic pump. 

So, we have all the reasons to be awed at the sight of a fully grown forest. And we have all the reasons to keep it the way it is. The whole planetary ecosystem depends on healthy forests, and we have only recently learned how important forests are. Yet, we keep cutting and burning them. Is it too late to remedy the damage done? Maybe not, but we'll have to see. 

To learn more

Holobionts: https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/08/holobionts-new-paradigm-to-understand.html

About the biotic pump: https://www.bioticregulation.ru/pump/pump.php

About the role of forests on climate: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24551-5, see also https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/08/forests-do-they-cool-earth-or-do-they.html

For a more detailed discussion of forests as holobionts: https://theproudholobionts.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-greatest-holobiont-on-earth-old.html

Below: one of the beeches of the Monte Amiata, shown with Ugo Bardi's wife Grazia, and his Grand-Daughter, Aurora




Thursday, August 4, 2022

Forests: do they cool Earth, or do they warm it? A comment by Anastassia Makarieva

 

Anastassia Makarieva, giving a talk. Together with Viktor Gorshkov, she developed some fundamental concepts on the functioning of the ecosphere: the "biotic regulation of the environment" and the "biotic pump." Here, with her permission, I reproduce a message that she sent to a discussion forum on these matters. If you are interested in joining the forum, write me at "ugo.bardi(thingette)unifi.it"



by Anastassia Makarieva


Dear colleagues,

thank you very much for these fascinating discussions. I am learning so much from this group, just to mention a couple of more recent things, thanks Svet for reminding us of those important mice studies, thanks Mihail for the note about agroecology in North Korea and thank you, Christine, for sharing your experiences as a farmer. It is indeed a very hard job, I am no farmer but I lived in the wild where you have to care about most things that are vital, and this job leaves little time for doing science, especially in a cold climate. (you can find some photos here). And I am overwhelmed with more things discussed in the group, trying to catch up, and will write later.

Here I thought that I would share my understanding of whether the forests cool or warm the Earth, I did discuss it a few times so sorry if it is a repetition.

In the review article recently quoted by Ugo, as Mara rightly noted, there is nothing controversial or revolutionary. Everybody knows that when a certain part of solar energy is captured by evaporation, the surface gets locally cooler than in the absence of this process. Just because, by energy conservation, a certain part of solar energy, instead of heating the surface, is spent to extract water vapor molecules from the liquid phase by overcoming intermolecular attraction.

But, importantly, this energy remains in the biosphere -- unlike the part of solar radiation that is reflected back to space by a bright surface.

So, whether the Earth as a whole will get cooler or warmer in the presence of evaporation, will depend on how the biosphere dispenses this latent energy.


Take a look at this figure, above. It shows how condensation occurs in the rising air. The latent heat is released in the upper atmosphere and can radiate to space from those upper layers without interacting with greenhouse absorbers (that are mostly concentrated below). This will serve to cool the planet, by effectively making the planetary greenhouse effect smaller. Once again: a certain share of solar energy will leave the Earth with less interaction with the greenhouse absorbers. It is a cooling effect of evaporation.

Importantly, this effect will be stronger if the warm air spends more time in the upper atmosphere. If it descends shortly after condensation, all latent heat becomes sensible and just warms the surface. But if there is a large-scale circulation pattern with the air traveling thousands of kilometers, the effect will be more pronounced. So the biotic pump circulation will make this effect stronger (more than in a local shower). (*)

But, besides this cooling effect, there are warming effects. One of them is the mere presence of more water vapor in the atmosphere over moist surfaces. Since water vapor is a greenhouse substance, its presence over land increases the concentration of greenhouse absorbers. The share of energy leaving without interacting with them increases, but the total number of molecules increases as well. Which effect will win?

Furthermore, more water vapor and convection mean more clouds. And some of the cloud types warm the Earth. Others cool the Earth. Which will prevail?

These arguments show why the message about cooling by forests will never spring up from global climate models. They are not suitable to estimate whether it exists and how strong it might be.

My personal position is that focusing on cooling or warming is strategically harmful to the forest protection case. What natural forests definitely do is that they minimize the fluctuations of the water cycle, heat waves, droughts, and floods. While these extremes are currently officially attributed to CO2 emissions, it is well-known that this attribution suffers from many problems. I would recommend this short video by Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqNHdY90StU on this topic.

So in fact to argue that a particular (LOCAL) heatwave has to do with forest destruction (which is known to severely change LOCAL temperatures) might be much easier and more productive than to argue about the role of forests in global warming or cooling -- where there is no simple argumentation.

So, think how it works now: we have a heatwave, and people are told it is due to CO2 emissions, to cut emissions people use "biofuel" by cutting more forests. With more natural forest loss, the water cycle is further disturbed and we have more heatwaves, which are again attributed to global warming, etc. It is a complex situation.

Anastassia



Holobionts: a new Paradigm to Understand the Role of Humankind in the Ecosystem

You are a holobiont, I am a holobiont, we are all holobionts.


"Holobiont" means, literally, "whole living creature." It is a concept known in biology at least from the 1930s, but that was rediscovered and diffused by Lynn Margulis in the 1990s, to emphasize how life is more than all a question of collaboration. Everything in life is an exchange of matter, energy, or information: holobionts are the building blocks of everything in the ecosystem, and also of human-made systems: families, companies, associations, markets, and more. The concept of holobiont gives us a new paradigm to rebuild our relationship with the ecosystem and with our fellow human beings.

Onward, fellow holobionts!


Tuesday, August 2, 2022

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.




Friday, July 22, 2022

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.