Gaia

by Nkiruka Chiemelu ‘04

Gaia is the Greek mythological name for the all-nurturing, all-encompassing Earth-Mother-Goddess, the oldest of all deities. Coincidentally, the idea of a Gaia figure can be found in almost every culture on Earth, suggesting that most human cultures have an intuitive sense of participating in a living, breathing ecology.  Gaian theory states simply that planet Earth is a self-regulating, living system that maintains conditions suitable for life. The planet, then, is ever evolving to adapt to the changing nature of the organisms that live within it.  This theory explains certain ecological phenomena, such as the fact that Earth’s surface temperature has remained approximately constant despite a 25% increase in heat from the Sun since life began.  Gaia—the Earth—responds to the changes in and around her environment in order to sustain life on the planet.

In Gaian theory, Mother Nature is alive and responding to everything we do, and we, whether we know it or not, react in turn.  This is not a “man vs. nature” relationship, but rather a set of symphonic interactions: those between human beings and those between us and our environment.  Our actions and interactions within society are bound and defined by certain principles we all adhere to because we view them as inherently “right”.  These practices, a Gaian theorist would argue, are natural because they support and sustain the life cycle of Gaia.

On a molecular level, we see the same kinds of interactions exhibited by the somatic cells, which make up our bodies.  Granted, we understand that observable biology dictates the actions of these cells, but is that all there is to it?  If the idea of Gaia is in fact true, if every self-sustaining system works in the same manner as every other, then we, like the cells in our bodies, must be only single parts of a greater whole.  Each system would be working for that same greater cause.  Therefore, it should be possible to observe our cellular behavior and gain some insight into the workings of our own society.

She posited that the eukaryotic cell evolved from primordial prokaryotic cells that formed symbiotic relationships with each other.

In the evolution of our cells, we see the evolution of ourselves.  Our associability (the pursuit of our own self-interest) and our sociability (the recognition that self-advancement cannot be achieved without cooperation) can be seen in just about every living system.  Individualism is dead; life, science, human nature—it’s a group thing.

Lynn Margulis may have picked up on the Gaian nature of the eukaryotic cell when she formed the endosymbiotic theory.  She posited that the eukaryotic cell evolved from primordial prokaryotic cells that formed symbiotic relationships with each other.  These self-sustaining organisms “realized” that through phagocytosis (the incorporation of one cell into another) they could increase productivity and efficiency by compartmentalizing—that is, delegating the work.   Half the time, double the output!  Sound familiar?

The cellular contract between the two autotrophic cells—organisms that make their own food—to form a more perfect union (in this case, a more complex eukaryotic cell) is much like the tacit agreement between a government and its people or a federation of states.  In a society, we agree to enter into a larger body politic because we can be more efficient and productive as a group than we can as individuals.  For example, carpenter by himself is just a guy making pretty things with wood; in order to survive, that carpenter would have to be a farmer, a tailor, and anything else that would be necessary to fulfill his daily needs.  Place that carpenter in a society, and now he can not only provide goods and services for others but he can receive payment in return, which he can then use to pay others to perform tasks so he doesn’t have to do them himself.  This is much like a prokaryotic cell, which without organelles can only manage subsistence living.  If said cell is incorporated into another larger single-celled organism, it can now focus on completing a specific task, such as making energy or proteins, without having to worry about food or protection because the larger, encompassing organism will take care of it.

One apple is good. Ten apples is better.

In a less technical, more logistical manner, we humans mirror this behavior.  The symbiotic relationship between an individual and the community is a covenant amongst individuals to work together to achieve a common good.  Whether this good be homeostasis or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the quid pro quo nature of our cells and ourselves reveals the Gaian processes that are inherently familiar to us, whether through DNA transcription or legal constitution.  All laws—laws of nature, politics, even physics—seem to work on similar premises.  There is a give and take in everything that occurs.  Our actions are not singular, nor are they isolated.  As individualistic as we may think we are, we must face the facts: we are born into the greater ecological system.

If, then, we are to see all life systems as fundamentally similar, what can we learn from what we are made of?  Is it possible to model human society on molecular biology?  If so, how do we reconcile the fact that human society places so much importance on the individual, while cell society focuses on the group and maintenance of the complete organism?

When living within a community, there are certain rights one must give up in order to benefit the whole.  At times, sacrifices must be made; the individual is often compromised for the sake of the group.  That which will produce the maximum good—that which will be most beneficial—is the main goal of the cellular system, which must, on the first level of importance, act for the benefit of the tissue and the organism and not itself.  While we are a society that would rather see ten guilty men go free than an innocent man go to prison, our cells would commit suicide if it took less energy to die than to maintain existence.  Our body’s apathetic utilitarianism diverges from humanity’s preoccupation with individuality.  The life of the individual cell is forfeited because its value is worth less than the value of the community as a whole.  One apple is good.  Ten apples is better.  Remove the rotten apple and nine are not as good as ten but still far better than one. If the apples were human beings, would the math be so simple?  It is if you’re a cell.

Apoptosis, programmed cell suicide, is just one of the many mechanisms employed by our biological systems to ensure the survival of the whole.  The mechanics of this process reveal the depths of cellular society.  Apoptosis mostly occurs when cells are perceived as dangerous to the whole tissue—if, for example, they are cancerous or anomalous.  Cells marked for death receive signal triggers that start a self-induced cellular breakdown.  Death is a necessary process for the development and survival of the group, as we all know, for it serves the same function in human society.  Yet programmed cell death is a form of self-sacrifice that is less common in human society.

Death is a necessary process for the development and survival of the group, as we all know, for it serves the same function in human society.

As the apoptotic cell destroys itself, it keeps its cellular membrane intact to allow adjacent cells to engulf it; this way, it does not release its contents and trigger an inflammatory response in the system.  The cell dies quietly, making its death as beneficial to the group as possible, while the others neatly remove any evidence of its prior existence.  The apoptotic cells are almost heroic—sweet and poetic in a way that has been romanticized in books and movies for ages.  But do we humans exhibit these unselfish traits?  We humans, after all, because of our insatiable desire for self-fulfillment, are more likely to destroy others for our own advancement themselves than to destroy ourselves for the advancement of others.  In a world of corporate greed scandals, ethnic warfare and genocide, how can human nature fit into the Gaian view of the world?  Can human and cellular society function in the same manner?  Where does individualism reconcile with Gaia?

Perhaps it is our individualism that prevents this Gaian convergence of self with the system.  True, the cell does exhibit more altruistic behavior than the human being, but as it self-destructs for the sake of the group, there will be no funeral, no family left behind to mourn, only the ever-present singular goal of survival, no matter what the cost.  In the moral decisions we make every day, we see that our cells are not ourselves.  A cell is a cell is a cell.  Where one fails another will pick up; if one dies, another will be formed to replace it.  Yet humans do not work that neatly.  Each of us were created with a unique and individual set of blueprints (Olsen twins and the like excluded, of course) that set us apart from any one else who will ever walk this Earth.  A cell is a cell is a cell, but I am not you, and no one else will ever be.

Cellular and human society cannot mirror each other due to the greater complexity of human beings.  Rather, we are in a constant state of progression on parallel paths.  Yet these paths are stratified in a hierarchical manner in which our cells work to benefit the group, first and foremost.  The group, being the whole organism, is us.  Herein lies the distinction between self and cell that ironically brings it all together.  We are not our cells, but rather our cells are us.  Our cells serve the survival of the group that makes up the individual; the survival of the individual means the survival of the group, and the survival of the group means the survival of the cell.  So our innate nature to look out for number one is also our struggle to protect the community of cells of which we are composed.  Our individualism and constant drive to be on top is not an anomaly but rather a product of Gaia.

So, then, are our cells the individualists and we the communalists?  No: one cannot be one without being the other, for the individual is tied in to the community and the two must coexist in balance.  This balance is the essence of Gaia, for Gaianism is the existence of the self-sustaining living natural systems we can observe in all things, that are not only in harmony with themselves as parts of the greater living planet, but also with all other systems.  This balance is the individual’s place in the biological and ecological framework called Earth.  Whether cell, plant, or human, we all have our roles to play for Gaia and therefore act accordingly.  But human and cellular societies do not necessarily have to function in the same manner in order to serve the same purpose, which is the synchronous coexistence with all other natural systems in the whole that is Gaia.

And so, this article comes full circle, like the cyclical nature of all systems, and it is at this point on the circle that we see that the end is the beginning is the end and just another go around.  

References

Bunyard, Peter (ed.), "Gaia in Action: Science of the Living Earth", Floris Books, Edinburgh, 1996

Apoptosis.  http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Apoptosis.html