A Gaian Revolution

 

Unlike the connotations of “revolution” that arise in most people’s minds these days, a Gaian Revolution does not entail a violent overthrow of a government or social order from the top down, as in the French Revolution, the American Revolution, or the Communist Revolutions. Rather, I refer to the older, less violent, but more comprehensive meanings of the word, as implied by such concepts as the Industrial Revolution, the Scientific Revolution, the Gutenberg (print) Revolution, the Reformation, the Italian Renaissance, the Carolingian Renaissance (12^th Century)—and long before that, the rise of Islam and Christianity from combined Hebraic and Hellenic roots, and the rise, in the Far East, of Buddhism—and giving rise to all of the above, the worldwide Agricultural Revolution, starting around 10,000 years ago. Each of these revolutions changed everything; they arose when pre-existing socioeconomic, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual orders had clearly become obsolete, and could not adapt to the changing world around them. Some (but not all) of these revolutions were spearheaded by charismatic leaders; others arose out of a zeitgeist created or activated by some new technological innovation or scientific discovery. (Neither Gutenberg nor Galileo nor Darwin, for example, were charismatic leaders; they were simply tinkering, and stumbled upon an innovation, an insight, or an observation that changed everything, through calibration and feedback.)

So what is the Gaian revolution?  It begins, like many of these others, with a new insight by a scientist—Dr. James Lovelock—a British atmospheric chemist who, as a consequence of his research (for the US Jet Propulsion Lab) into the startling difference between the (equilibrium) Martian atmosphere and the (far-from-equlibrium) atmosphere of our own planet, derived an explanation, based on systems theory, that seems perfectly obvious in retrospect, but that no others had thought of: that life itself—the biosphere—is directly responsible for the constant mixing of our atmosphere (through photosynthesis, respiration, and other biogenic reactions) that keeps it in a stable, but far-from-equilibrium state, and has done so for several billion years. This insight might well have become buried in the scientific literature and had no cultural influence whatsoever, if Lovelock had not taken a walk with his neighbor, novelist William Golding, who, with his classical background, suggested that Lovelock call his new theory the ”Gaia” hypothesis, after the ancient primordial Greek Earth-mother goddess. Lovelock took Golding’s advice, published his findings as Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth—and all hell broke loose in the scientific community, because he had violated a deep taboo within the scientific literature: never to mix myth and science. So they attacked his theory with a vengeance because it also violated their other major premise—scientific reductionism, or the idea that all causality can be explained from the bottom up; that is, by looking first at mechanisms at the atomic and molecular scale, then working up from there to larger and larger macro-scales. But Lovelock’s theory began from the insights of emerging general systems theory and cybernetics: that while the parts constitute the whole, the emergent characteristics of the whole reciprocally influence the behavior of the parts. That is, causality is a two-way street, from parts to whole and back again. Hence a simple explanation of Gaia theory is this: life creates, sustains, and propagates the biosphere, which in turn sustains and further propagates life.

But while Gaia as a scientific model was already revolutionary, it still retained the mythic resonance of its name, and this led to its embrace by the counter-culture (arising out of the cultural convulsions of the Sixties and Seventies) and simultaneously to its vehement denunciation by Christian fundamentalists, who saw it as a heretical resurgence of paganism. So Lovelock and his colleague, Lynn Margulis, managed to alienate both the mainstream scientific community and the religious right! And this endeared them even more to the “new age” counter-culture—much to their own dismay.

But besides being both a myth and a scientific model, Gaia gained cultural currency among intellectuals  as a metaphor for the holistic way of thinking championed by leading-edge philosophers such as Fritjof Capra, William Irwin Thompson, Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana, and Ken Wilber. And because it resonated with the worldwide environmental movement, it likewise became a new banner for activists in that movement as well. Finally, of course, entrepreneurs saw dollar signs in its rapid cultural dissemination, so (with no understanding of, and even less concern for) its revolutionary implications, they trivialized the Gaia concept, turning it into a niche-marketing device for cosmetics, tarot cards, and yoga paraphernalia. (see Gaia.com).

But while all this was happening, another revolution was occurring, well beneath the radar of mass media. Around the same time as Lovelock was working out his revolutionary hypothesis, the Australian agronomist Bill Mollison, inspired by Stewart Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog and the systems thinking that infused it, conceived of a revolutionary new, Earth-friendly approach to the design of landscapes, gardens, and human habitat, which he called “Permaculture”—a portmanteau word for “permanent agriculture” (later expanded to “permanent culture”).  Mollison likewise acknowledged Lovelock’s Gaia theory as the source of his inspiration for emulating natural systems in his designs. And significantly, he and his colleague David Holmgren designed a 72-hour curriculum for teaching others the principles and basic practices of permaculture design, and this curriculum became self-replicating, and has spread all around the world, simply because these design principles are universal, and apply to every conceivable bioregion and ecosystem.

And so now we have two of the prime prerequisites for a global Gaian revolution: Gaian theory (i.e. general systems theory, as applied to living systems) and Gaian praxis (permaculture or regenerative design). The third prerequiste, of course, is the obsolescence of our existing status quo of “More is always better”--industrial consumer culture and media-driven politics as a blood sport, all while the forests burn and ecosystems collapse worldwide. (There is little need, these days, to elaborate on this!)

And the fourth, which is yet to come, are effective means of codification and dissemination, since the Gaian revolution presently goes under a bewildering variety of names, each appealing to distinct constituencies that are often unknown to one another, or even in competition for limited philanthropic donations or grants to their respective nonprofits. Hence we have the proliferation of concepts and entities like Postcarbon Institute, Transition Towns, Biodynamics, Steady State Economics, Ecovillages, Green parties, etc. etc.—all pursuing their own variations or portions of a common goal: what Paul Hawken and Daniel Christian Wahl refer to, in their latest books, as “regeneration.”

This is all very inspiring for intellectuals or activists—people like me, who are already “on board” with the whole Gaian vision of a human culture that is symbiotic with, rather than parasitic upon, its biological support system. But what about the ordinary Joe and Darlene out there, driving their pick-ups or SUVs to Walmart or Costco to fill them up with processed food wrapped in plastic, trying to make ends meet, worried about their children getting gunned down in school, getting brainwashed daily by strident corporate media and 24/7 advertising everywhere they look, which constantly drums in the notion that to be is to buy; that their identity and value are entirely contingent on how much stuff they own. How can a Gaian Revolution reach, and involve, the broad masses of stressed-out and brainwashed humanity, here and elsewhere?

If I had a good answer to this, I would already have accepted my Nobel Peace Prize. I don’t. But I have, at least, an idea worth sharing. What are two things that those of us who live in individual suburban homes or duplexes are likely to have in common with our neighbors—even if we don’t know them at all, and even if they are polar opposites in their politics? First, we both eat food and drink water. Second, we both own, or at least have some control over, the land we occupy.  That is the starting point for a Gaian revolution. We are both Gaians, whether we know it or not!

The next step is to find a good occasion to meet our immediate neighbors, where they are less likely than usual to be hostile or suspicious of our motives. One of the easiest ways to do this is to be out in our yards when they are out in theirs, and use the occasion to strike up a chat about gardening. Or even, during harvest season, bring our neighbors some fresh tomatoes or strawberries!

And here is where I can introduce our Gaian marching orders: Grow Gardens, Grow Community, Grow Awareness. In that order.  By growing gardens, we become less dependent on Glomart (e.g. our global market economy) and more dependent on Gaia (our topsoil). By growing community, we become less isolated—less dependent on television and the internet, and more habituated to actual conversation with our neighbors.  Then we can form Garden Guilds, which are “cells” of Gaian consciousness, where we can meet periodically in potlucks, keep in touch online, sponsor gardening educational events at our homes or elsewhere, organize neighborhood work parties to assist one another in expanding our self-reliance by growing more food, teach Permaculture principles and skills to our children and youth, and donate our surplus produce to feed, house, and teach in turn, the growing masses of homeless and landless people all around us. It is through such simple mechanisms—growing gardens, growing community, and growing awareness, that the Gaian revolution can gain traction, and transform or displace Glomart—one backyard at a time.  But as we all know, there is no time to lose!