THE idea that we live on a planet that takes care of us is intuitively appealing. So it鈥檚 no wonder that James Lovelock鈥檚 Gaia hypothesis 鈥� that the biosphere acts like a living organism, one that self-regulates to keep conditions just right for life 鈥� became so popular. Although rooted in science, Gaia appeals to the same side of human nature that gods and guardian angels do.
It鈥檚 a complex hypothesis, and was never going to be easy to test. But the evidence has been mounting since , and now the first major review of that evidence has been conducted. The verdict? Gaia doesn鈥檛 hold up (see 鈥�My verdict on Gaia hypothesis: beautiful but flawed鈥�).
Gaia may yet bounce back. But if it has been struck a fatal blow, it could be the most fitting example yet of what T. H. Huxley called 鈥渢he great tragedy of science 鈥� the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact鈥�.
Advertisement
That鈥檚 science. Some will lament the demise of a beautiful, comforting idea, but Gaia should be remembered for being an elegant hypothesis that stimulated vital research on what is now (inelegantly) called the Earth system. There will be no tragedy in its passing.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淒eath of a beautiful idea鈥�
