Dear George Monbiot, What makes you certain that Earth is a living planet? (suite)
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and respond to my first post, where I asked what makes you certain that Earth is a living planet. Between the lines, your reply seems to suggest that, no, Earth is not a living planet yet, yes, it is acceptable to use this expression.
Please bear with me once again. I feel my question has not yet been fully addressed. This miscommunication likely stems from my failure to frame my initial post properly. The issue I am raising is not that the term Living Planet implies Earth is literally alive. The real issue is that this expression acts as a red herring. The term Living Planet obscures the fact that life is actually in a struggle against the planet.
Like the Trump’s government firings of so-called inefficient officials have nothing to do with their efficiency, the term Living Planet has nothing to do with the living. It serves as a powerful diversion to quietly let go life deemed unnecessary.
In my view, your defence of this term only brings water to my mill. ○ The over-interpretation argument suggests that you, too, do not truly believe in this expression. ○ Not endorsing Gaia theory is not a satisfactory position, as both endorsement and non-endorsement mainly serve the same function of agnotology. ○ If we are to emphasise the more-than-human world, we must categorically reject any portrayal of Earth and life as a single whole, as such portrayals, however vain, are still attempts to rationalisation. ○ The geographical explanation (life on Earth) conflates life’s extension (where life is) with its intension (what life is), to the detriment of life itself. ○ The thermodynamic explanation (Earth systems), in which life interferes with Earth’s systems, does not make life Earth, nor Earth life but proves that they are incommensurable thermodynamic entities.
Throughout my readings, I have encountered diverse pro-living-Earth arguments, ranging from modern interpretations of the Bible to the belief that life forms a closing circle with the planet, passing through ideas like the Blue Marble and more. Some of these arguments are weak, while others are more compelling, yet none truly grasp reality. We are still behind it. If I mentioned Lovelock in my first post, it was because I believe his discovery (not Gaia itself, which is his interpretation of it) may have been a genuine scientific step forward.
If I may, let me try another approach to engage you with my question. Please speak my language for the sake of this argument: Like democracy, the idea that life fights the Earth must be tested against the touchstone of practice to reveal itself. Recall for instance this moment you described in Feral, when you encountered with a corncrake after you had both faced deadly elements in Wales. You wrote: “I felt, too, a sense of solidarity with this frail little bird, battling the same forces as me.” My bet is that you’ve got here a genuine sense of solidarity, in that intense moment, coming from the trivial fact that being alive means struggling against the Earth, a counterpart to life ever since it freed itself from it. Sometimes, this particular struggle fills us with the sublime; most times, we take it casually; other times, we just suffer. But beyond our feelings stands one truth: we differ from, thus we face the Earth, and its higher whole the universe. Isn’t this precision on life’s relationship with the Earth essential for raising awareness? I think people should know.
I deeply appreciate your engagement with this discussion and your willingness to explore this question. I look forward to your thoughts.
