Compared to the documentary, Grinspoon elaborates more on human actions. When he writes “Galileo was able to detect the noisy radio chatter of the civilization that made it,” it implies that human footprint are prominent to the point where they can be witnessed from space (81). This inflates our perception of human actions on Earth because it shows that humans are making an obvious enough impact that is viewable from space. On the other hand, Life’s Rocky Start discusses more in depth about microbes, which makes viewers reconsider humans’ impact. Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin, authors of “Defining the Anthropocene,” explain that extensive farming from roughly 8,000 years ago caused a “CO2 inflection in glacier ice” (Lewis and Maslin). However,
…show more content…
Grinspoon talks about the relationship between abiotic and biotic world, and how that is why Gaia is a living organism. However, there have been debates about what it means to be “alive”. According to Grinspoon, some scientists believe that Gaia is “seeking something” and striving to sustain life, as opposed to simply stabilizing itself (70). In the documentary, the discussion on whether or not Earth is alive is left out. However, in the article “Gaia Hypothesis,” there is a range from weak Gaia to strong Gaia. Weak Gaia says it does not matter that Gaia does not reproduce. It is alive simply because“biota minimally influences” the world (“Gaia Hypothesis”). On the other hand, strong Gaia supporters believe that the Earth is “consciously manipulating the climate to make conditions more conducive to life” (8). Gaia’s aliveness should not be dictated by whether or not it is conscious. I believe it is alive even without having intentions because plants for example. They are alive, yet all they do is rely on stimulus. I wonder if the significance of this debate is that it will make humans feel less responsible for their actions because they know that the Earth will “fix” itself. I believe that the Gaia Hypothesis and the Anthropocene build off of one another rather than contradict for two reasons. Firstly, human actions (that spur the Anthropocene) initiate feedback
Grinspoon talks about the relationship between abiotic and biotic world, and how that is why Gaia is a living organism. However, there have been debates about what it means to be “alive”. According to Grinspoon, some scientists believe that Gaia is “seeking something” and striving to sustain life, as opposed to simply stabilizing itself (70). In the documentary, the discussion on whether or not Earth is alive is left out. However, in the article “Gaia Hypothesis,” there is a range from weak Gaia to strong Gaia. Weak Gaia says it does not matter that Gaia does not reproduce. It is alive simply because“biota minimally influences” the world (“Gaia Hypothesis”). On the other hand, strong Gaia supporters believe that the Earth is “consciously manipulating the climate to make conditions more conducive to life” (8). Gaia’s aliveness should not be dictated by whether or not it is conscious. I believe it is alive even without having intentions because plants for example. They are alive, yet all they do is rely on stimulus. I wonder if the significance of this debate is that it will make humans feel less responsible for their actions because they know that the Earth will “fix” itself. I believe that the Gaia Hypothesis and the Anthropocene build off of one another rather than contradict for two reasons. Firstly, human actions (that spur the Anthropocene) initiate feedback