James Lovelock: Any Further Interference Is Likely to Be Disastrous – New York Magazine

James Lovelock. Illustration: Stevie Remsberg/Intelligencer. Photo: Jeff Spicer/Getty Images

On September 23,the United Nations opened its Climate Action Summit here in New York, three days after theGlobal Climate Strike, led by Greta Thunberg, swept through thousands of cities worldwide more than 4 million protesters around the world, marching out of anger that so little has been done. To mark the occasion, Intelligencer is publishing State of the World, a series of in-depth interviews with climate leaders from Bill Gates to Naomi Klein and Rhiana Gunn-Wright to William Nordhaus interrogating just how they see the precarious climate future of the planet and just how hopeful they think we should all be about avoiding catastrophic warming. (Unfortunately, very few are hopeful.)

James Lovelock turned 100 this year and celebrated by publishing a new book on artificial intelligence. But he is known as much more of an old-fashioned scientist and compares himself to Darwin and Faraday in that he also likes to work alone, outside of institutions. Nevertheless, though you may not know his name, he is among the most influential scientists of the 20th century, having developed and then, over the course of decades of writing, refined and refashioned what is called the Gaia theory, or the principle that Earths ecosystem is a single, living, self-regulating entity. In early September, just a few months after his birthday, I met Lovelock one morning at his home on Chesil Beach in southern England, where we talked about nuclear power, his hope that AI might save the planet from catastrophic warming, and just how to integrate the disruptions and disturbances of climate change into a Gaia worldview.

At 100 years old, youve been alive for something like 90 percent or more of all the carbon emissions that have ever been produced from the burning of fossil fuels.Exactly. Well, I hope you dont blame me for that.

But the world really has changed an enormous amount in your lifetime.Yes. I grew up from 6 till about 14 years old in an area of London which was probably more polluted than anywhere in the world. Particularly vile air. It was so thick that not only could you not see a hand in front of your face, but people were dying on railroad platforms because they couldnt see where the platform ended. Thats coal for you.

On climate, your views have changed over time, I know. You were for a period more alarmed, and then you grew a little bit less alarmed. How do you see the big picture at the moment? Where do you think we are, and where do you think were heading? The big picture is that everything is continuing more or less as predicted by climate scientists. But the exact course, of course, depends on all sorts of things.

But taking seriously the main proposition of Gaia theory, if the whole Earth system is a kind of living, self-regulating entity of which human activity is also a natural part and one we shouldnt be trying to exclude, what is concerning about climate change? Why shouldnt we just accept that as being part of the same system? Up to a point, we have to, and we do, wrongly. I mean, if youre an ordinary man with a family, youve got to have an income. Youve got to work for somebody on something and that determines what you do, rather than any environmental concern.

But thinking more globally, people like you and me, who think about these things in somewhat bigger terms how concerned should we be? Well, at first you get into a panic. At least I did. And then eventually you realize that theres not a lot you can do about it. I mean, did you ever read that book by Martin Rees, Our Final Hour? Well, that was written quite a while back and I think hes right.

The warm-up of the sun is quite remorseless, and it will continue. Unless we do something like [physicist Edward] Tellers idea of putting up sunshades in the heliocentric orbit, weve had it. Thats it. There isnt any way you could survive if the sun continues to warm up.

But nobody can predict the climate in two or three years time. It could be almost anything. For example, there was news of a very large volcano eruption emerging in the middle of the Pacific, from below. Well, of course, if that develops and magma starts coming up, that could change the whole picture. Im hoping it wont happen and probably it wont.

When you allow yourself to be optimistic, how do you see the next few decades unfolding? Well, I wont be here for one, so I wont see them. But I think we will have to curb our tendency to burn fossil fuels. And I think the big companies are beginning to realize themselves that you cant make money that way. What replaces it, I hope, is nuclear, but probably theyll mess about with renewables for awhile until they find their way to nuclear.

Why do you think it has been so difficult to get nuclear power going again?Because theres propaganda. I think the coal and oil business fight like mad to tell bad stories about nuclear.

Why is that? Because historically they havent seen renewables as the same scale of threat? Yeah. I mean, when you look at the death rates in the nuclear industry, its almost ludicrously low. In this country, I think, it doesnt exist at all. Nobodys been hurt.

And even if you look at the worst disasters, theyre nothing compared with the damage thats done by burning coal. Thats right. Its a fake business. And its amazing that people have been persuaded by it. I wish you journalists would write out what happened, because just after World War II, there was a lot of interest in using nuclear power and the politicians are all for it. In fact, one of them said, itll be so cheap, it will be impossible to meter it. Which is would that it were true! But the people with loads of money in the oil industry made sure that never happened. And of course the greens played along with it. Theres bound to have been some corruption there Im sure that various green movements were paid some sums on the side to help with propaganda.

Just the word nuclear conjures such fears now. Its almost as though, if it had just been called a different thing, the public would have been much more receptive to it. And if we dont move into nuclear more aggressively, do you think theres any hope that we avoid, say, two degrees of warming? Or is that basically inevitable?I wish I knew. People have to ask the questions of the financial people theres the real driver. The reason were continuing to burn fossil fuels is that all the moneys invested in it, right? I find it almost hilarious.

It seems to me that the public is slowly waking up to this story. Especially over the past couple of years, there has been a kind of a change. Well, I hope youre right. I look at those affairs like the Paris conference more as parties. So, great, get together, youll have a great time. But the conferences are not serious.

And no country in the world is honoring the pledges it made during the Paris accords. But in your new book, you put a lot of faith in the possibility that superintelligence will arrive and, among other things, address this problem and maybe save us from ourselves.The reason I speculated along those lines was that Darwin has been an amazingly right during his lifetime. And it is a natural follow-on from Darwinism that we dont just stay still as humans. Theres this extraordinary belief amongst most people, that future humans are going to be just like us. Were beginning to see things like AI developments yielding the possibility of existing as the independent life forms, in which case youve got a new kingdom of life. Thats the way I see it.

I owe this to my colleague Lynn Margulies. She likes to divide life up into the kingdoms vegetable, animal its almost childish, but I think its absolutely solid. The AI stuff represents a new kingdom. Theyre about 10,000 times faster than we are, so it would look on us much in the way that we look on plants, which are 10,000 times slower than us. Its just another kingdom. But were all needed were all part of the same system, or thats how I think. Which is how you get Gaia.

But if you think about our relationship to plant life as having not exhibited what you could call a perfectly responsible relationship to the natural world, why should we expect better from a superintelligence?Because they need us.

But we need plant life, right?We do need plant life. We cant go to war with it.

So why should we expect it to be more responsible toward humans and the natural world than humans were to the plant world? As you say, were much more impressive cognitively than other animals, and certainly more than plant life, yet in many ways weve managed the planet much less well than those kingdoms did.Its a good point.

So why do you think AI would be a better steward of the planet than humans?I have a feeling that stewardship doesnt come into it. Its just what they will have to do to survive. Its nice to think that stewardship is important, but I rather suspect we talk about it but we dont practice it.

Whats a better model for how we should relate to the natural world?Accept it.

And you think AI would take that view?The reason they would limit warming is quite simple: the properties of water. Thats the deadly thing, which youve written about in your book. The ocean, at the moment, an awful lot of it is approaching 15 Celsius. Now that, what could be harmful about that? Everything. If you go anywhere in the world where the temperature is, the water is 15 and looked down, its beautifully clear and you can see down to 100 fathoms down, because theres no life in that water. Its a complete desert. And the reason for that is that the nutrient-rich lower waters cant get to the top.

Youve always written about the human role as being part of the greater Gaia ecosystem. But the theory of Gaia as Ive seen it picked up by environmentalists often sets human activity against the rhythms of the natural world as though we are outside the natural world, in fact its enemies.Thats absolutely right. Theyve gotten it dead wrong.

Why do you think that is? Why do you think theyve been so blind to the sort of basic formulation you put forward? I think its a series of reasons. I think its high time that science was treated in much the same way as the church was treated in the Middle Ages. You need a dissolution of the universities, because its quite ridiculous taking students and teaching them a single subject, with no idea whats going on in the rest of science. But thats what goes on. And you kind of cannot possibly understand a complex system like Gaia unless youre looking at not just one, but the great bulk of the sciences, together.And that may seem a dreadful task, but it isnt really because you dont have to understand the whole of all of the sciences theres a sort of crossover. You can in your mind cross over between the various parts and understand much more than you might think was possible.

But let me tell you just the story of how it all started. I was invited to go to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to NASA, only three years after NASA had formed. Soon after I was there, I was deposited for a bit in a meeting with a great group of biologists. Quite a few of them had Nobel Prizes in various things. Theyd been picked up by NASA to design a life-detection experiment. I was asked what I thought of that, and it was appalling. Most of them went out into the Mojave Desert and said, Mars is just like this, so if we can grow something here, we can do it there. Which was just crazy. What little we knew about Mars even then suggested it was totally different. It was a daft assumption. They got very cross with me cause I kept on saying, You know, youre wasting your time on that. And I got called to see one of the head what you might call rocket scientists. He said, Why are you upsetting all these biologists? You go on like this and hell be out of a job. But then he added, Well, what would you do to detect lives? And Id just read that little book by Schrdinger called What Is Life? I said, If you read that, that offers a good standard. Oh my God, they said, give me a practical example that we can put on a rocket.

I said, Ill have to think about it, you cant ask me a question like that across the table. They said, Well, youve got till Friday. I was pretty worried! Thursday night I could see my job going down the tubes. But then suddenly it came to me. God, dead easy. All I have to do is measure the composition of Marss atmosphere. If its made of gases that react with each other chemically and produce heat or products or whatnot, then that fulfills the definition of life, according to Schrdinger entropy. And you could do the same thing for the surface: If the surface reacts with the atmosphere or the ocean and you get heat produced, then the planets alive, because that can never happen by chance. And he said, Ah, now youre talking. And that became Viking.

And then you just applied the same perspective to Earth. It may be that Im too worried about climate change, but I have a hard time adopting the same point of view.I think we can extend the lifespan of the current system using nuclear power. But we are near the edge, in terms of keeping the thing going. Any further interference is likely to be disastrous.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Continued here:

James Lovelock: Any Further Interference Is Likely to Be Disastrous - New York Magazine