Richard Dawkins Argument

The earth as an organism has been a popular topic over the last hundreds of years throughout science. However, James Lovelock’s approach of the earth was, and still is, an extremely controversial concept among scholars. He describes his theory as, “A complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet” (148). In other words, the surface organisms of earth, or biosphere regulate the atmosphere at an optimal level to maintain life. James Lovelock was criticized by many well-respected scientists, and at no point (until early 2000s) did any of Lovelock’s arguments get corrected; they were blatantly rejected. Fellow professional scientists of Lovelock and Margulis, such as Dawkins, were threatened by …show more content…
This idea gets Darwinians upset and the idea turned around. Richard Dawkins, a main critic of Gaia, expresses that natural selection thrives on the basis of self-centeredness for organisms in order to survive and flourish. Dawkins argument is weak and at the same time actually helps support Gaia. Gaia is based on final causation, and natural selection is all about survival of the fittest. These two are correlated because at the end of the system, when one species dies out, it is benefitting the rest of the ecosystem whether it be through decaying minerals or allowing another species to increase in numbers. Dawkins states that there is no final causations in natural selection, but that’s exactly what it portrays. He says, “Natural selection always acts first for the good of the individual; benefits for the whole arise as fortunate side effects” (27). This clearly shows that natural selection does some way or another relate to benefitting the world as a