am always a little hesitant about relying on a science book that is 16 years old - so much can change. Apparently, Gaia is still an open issue, and even though there must have been developments since this book, it is still a fascinating look at the beginnings of the issue.

Joseph is sympathetic towards the Gaia theory, and obviously an admirer of Lovelock and Margulis, but he approaches the subject with some scepticism, explaining critical points of view and sometimes agreeing that theory is weak at points. Perhaps his attitude is best summed up by his dedication: " ... to James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis and everyone who gives them a good argument". He also mentions controversies that Lovelock has been involved in, such as his failure to support the banning of CFCs. I am somewhat relieved to realize that one of the reasons that I have never been too clear on the exact meaning of the theory is that Lovelock isn't entirely clear and has shifted over the years.

I've been doing some study of science history lately, and it strikes me that it is not as important whether or not Gaia is correct if it is fecund. If it gets researchers to look at the relationship of organism and their environment in new ways, to ask questions that they haven't previously thought of, then it will have been valuable, even if it is ultimately disproved. I will admit that a friend who is a geologist was rather distressed at my lackadaisical attitude.

Joseph also discusses the spritual aspects of the theory, e.g., how it is used by neo-pagans. He also relates to to historic religions and philosophies. I'm not sure if Lovelock, and particularly Margulis, are grateful for this, but it is interesting. My one complaint about the writing style is Joseph's tendency to use metaphors anthropomorphizing Gaia. This may be fine literary form, but it risks further confusing the reader on this somewhat vexed point.

The book includes extensive notes and an index. ( )