In his insightful book “Gaïa: Terre Vivante,” Sébastien Detreuil highlights on page 412 that Paul Crutzen introduced the concept of the Anthropocene precisely when he rejected the idea of Gaia as a framework for addressing the challenges of climate change within Earth System sciences (though this is a coincidence, and not expressed explicitly). There are fundamental differences between these two concepts, which largely arise from the ambiguities surrounding Gaia as understood by James Lovelock, differing from Lynn Margulis’s interpretation.
As Detreuil thoroughly documents, Lovelock’s scientific persona was multifaceted. On one hand, he conceived of Gaia as a sort of terrestrial superorganism, where life continuously transforms the planet, blurring the lines between living organisms and the non-living geological aspects (such as geophysics and geochemistry) of Earth. On the other hand, throughout his career, Lovelock served as a consultant for multinational companies and government agencies, primarily utilizing his expertise in chromatography. Interestingly, these two pursuits converged in his strong and sometimes almost militant defense of the industrial system, which he viewed as a key player in addressing the current instabilities caused by climate change. Lovelock regarded agriculture as a primary culprit in environmental issues, while believing that industry could provide solutions, including geoengineering. This ambivalence is resolved when we recognize that for Lovelock, Gaia is a “larger-than-human” entity that includes human technology as just another expression of life. He argued that industrial pollution is similar to pollution caused by bacteria. In his view of Gaia as a self-regulating living entity, human technology is just another emergent form of this self-regulation. While we can pursue misguided technological solutions, Gaia will ultimately work things out for us.
I propose that we refer to Lovelock’s concept of Gaia as “Techno-Gaia.” The technosphere is a part of Gaia, just like the biosphere. This perspective aligns with certain positions in ecological philosophy that argue there is no longer any ontological distinction between “nature” and the artificial. In contrast, the concept of the Anthropocene maintains a clear separation between the human domain and Gaia, as it is typically understood—namely, that life is distinct from human-created technology. As such, Crutzen could assert that humans are in control and, therefore, are now responsible as stewards of the Earth, whereas Lovelock would argue that Gaia, as a more-than-human entity, plays a crucial role in regulating the Earth’s physical and chemical states beyond the human.
One often-overlooked aspect of Lovelock’s Gaia concept is its limited focus on the diversity of life and the unique forms it takes. Gaia is described as a “macro” entity or, as Morton would term it, a hyperobject. Detreuil’s book provides fascinating insights into the conceptualization of the technosphere, which are essential for understanding how our actions can integrate into the Earth’s regulatory processes. The New Age interpretations of Gaia reveal that Lovelock’s original conception carries a spiritual, even theological dimension, prompting a Manichean perspective on the technosphere as a more-than-human force in conflict with Life for influence over human actions. However, Lovelock himself adopts a unitary view, seeing the technosphere as an integral component of Life. Interestingly, Lovelock also served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher, suggesting that his perspective on the technosphere aligns with Hayekian views of the market as a “cosmos” possessing more-than-human epistemological capabilities.
I would argue that such intellectual dilemmas arise from adopting an ontology that fails to recognize the individuality and diversity of all living beings. If we embrace an ethics of relationality and responsibility towards others, the regulatory powers of Gaia can be manifested in our everyday practices and interactions with both human and non-human beings. In this sense, the mythological origins of the concept of Gaia align closely with Indigenous spirituality, which emphasizes relationality. Unfortunately, and implicitly, the macro-level approach to Techno-Gaia is currently dominating global policies aimed at combating climate change through decarbonization. These policies have consistently failed, as evidenced by the ongoing rise in emissions. Designing policies based on aggregate and macro-level data essentially dilutes individual responsibilities. As many critics have pointed out, the term “Anthropos” in the context of the Anthropocene can lead to similar pitfalls by referring to an anonymous collective. However, approaching the Anthropocene as an era of relationality could help avoid these issues.
The technosphere, our agency, our planet 