:00:00. > :00:14.Now it's time for meet the author. 35 years ago, James Lovelock came up
:00:15. > :00:18.with the guy a theory, the idea that life once a bolt on earth and
:00:19. > :00:23.consciously manipulate the planet in ways to make sure that life itself
:00:24. > :00:26.continues to flourish. The earth, in other words, is a self`regulating
:00:27. > :00:31.system. It's an idea he has revisited many times over the years.
:00:32. > :00:36.Now, at the age of 94, he has published a memoir, part the series
:00:37. > :00:55.of reflections on the impact man has had on that self`regulating system
:00:56. > :01:09.and on what the future may hold. You've called this book a Ross Ride
:01:10. > :01:15.To The Future. For mankind could be a difficult future. Quite a lot of
:01:16. > :01:22.us may not make the journey. Yes, I think it's a great mistake to think
:01:23. > :01:29.we are the end product of evolution. I think this is ridiculous. We are
:01:30. > :01:33.just a step on the way station. Part of the problem you observe now if
:01:34. > :01:40.there are simply too many of us. I think so. What can we do about that?
:01:41. > :01:45.I don't think we can do too much about it, it will level off of its
:01:46. > :01:49.own accord. A lot of thinkers, people like Fred Pearce, have
:01:50. > :01:54.suggested that once women get their freedom around the world, the rate
:01:55. > :01:58.of population increase will rapidly level of. They don't want to spend
:01:59. > :02:05.their lives as baby factories. They would rather get on with things, as
:02:06. > :02:11.well as reproducing. As you say, we are not, in your view, the end point
:02:12. > :02:14.of evolution, we are mainly `` merely a stage in the evolution of
:02:15. > :02:19.the Earth. One of the fascinations of this book is you look a very long
:02:20. > :02:23.way into the future in parts of it. You suggest the ways in which we
:02:24. > :02:26.might evolve. One of the things you suggest might happen is the
:02:27. > :02:35.development of a life form that is a sort of Saint biosis between us and
:02:36. > :02:40.our machines. Yes, a great friend and colleague of mine was Lynne
:02:41. > :02:48.Margulis, an American biologist. She introduced the concept of endo Saint
:02:49. > :02:51.biosis. This was the coming together of two individual living cells to
:02:52. > :02:56.form a unit that, instead of chewing at each other and fighting to the
:02:57. > :03:01.death, formed a union that was better than either of them alone. It
:03:02. > :03:07.was through that union that things really started moving in evolution.
:03:08. > :03:11.Before that, we'd spend 2 billion years just as free swimming cells,
:03:12. > :03:18.not going any further. It gets more and more exciting as it goes on. I
:03:19. > :03:25.fear now that animals like me, taking on electronic beats, it may
:03:26. > :03:31.be another future kind of life. Incorporating them in ourselves, so
:03:32. > :03:35.that we have a joint life. We supplied the power that keeps them
:03:36. > :03:41.going that they can do their jobs and thinking with. That's something
:03:42. > :03:44.for the very distant future. A lot of this book is about the nearer
:03:45. > :03:49.future. Particularly, what we should do to counter global warming. You
:03:50. > :03:54.are not by any means a sceptic about global warming, but you do admit
:03:55. > :03:57.that you and other scientists may have been wrong in the projections
:03:58. > :04:03.you made for what would happen over 20, 50, 100 years, because, you say,
:04:04. > :04:10.we are too reliant on mathematical models. That is true. Not only that,
:04:11. > :04:15.it's very difficult for the average scientist nowadays employed by a
:04:16. > :04:19.government Department, University or big corporation to ever admit that
:04:20. > :04:23.they were wrong. You are not allowed to make mistakes. I think it's
:04:24. > :04:27.absolutely vital to make mistakes, because only then can you really see
:04:28. > :04:32.the way ahead and see what you've done wrong. You have been a lone
:04:33. > :04:36.scientist almost your entire career. You've worked on occasion
:04:37. > :04:41.for NASA, in medical research, organisations like Shell, but mainly
:04:42. > :04:54.you work for yourself. That gives you a freedom but it also means you
:04:55. > :04:58.have to fight to be taken seriously. Not really. Can I take you up on the
:04:59. > :05:00.word you used there? I don't think I've ever had a career. To me,
:05:01. > :05:03.science was a vocation. I see a scientist as somebody like an
:05:04. > :05:08.artist, who does it as a vocation. If you told most good artists that
:05:09. > :05:13.they were in a career, they would want to spit! But most scientists
:05:14. > :05:18.would want to spit if you like and what they did to the lives of an
:05:19. > :05:21.artist, they think of themselves as rational. They are too rational.
:05:22. > :05:26.They don't use their intuition enough. Artists use their intuition.
:05:27. > :05:32.Then other people explain what they've done afterwards. New, as an
:05:33. > :05:36.inventor, also used your intuition to try and come up with some
:05:37. > :05:40.suggestions for dealing with this issue of global warming. One is we
:05:41. > :05:47.are all moving into cities anyway. We should do more of that, we should
:05:48. > :05:52.make more of cities. You liken them to ants nests or bee hives, that we
:05:53. > :05:56.could be developing almost into a super species that evolves through
:05:57. > :06:02.communities rather than as individuals. It was the great
:06:03. > :06:07.American biologist, Wilson, that first suggested it. I'm riding on
:06:08. > :06:13.his card, so to speak. When you think about it, the insect
:06:14. > :06:16.communities went into nest living about 100 million years ago. They've
:06:17. > :06:22.been doing it ever since and seem to like it. They think it's a very fine
:06:23. > :06:27.and stable way of doing things. I think we can follow their example
:06:28. > :06:32.very well. In fact, we are doing it. And you point to one particular
:06:33. > :06:36.city, Singapore, as an example of how we might adapt to global
:06:37. > :06:42.warming. As you point out, the climate of Singapore is not by any
:06:43. > :06:51.means ideal, and yet the place flourishes. Not only is it not
:06:52. > :06:53.ideal, it's more than twice as hot, their annual average temperature, as
:06:54. > :06:56.the worst case of the IPCC predictions for future climates of
:06:57. > :07:00.the world. If twice as hot is not that bad, perhaps we've been
:07:01. > :07:04.worrying too much about the world heating up and not enough about
:07:05. > :07:08.ourselves heating up. The Singaporeans have excellent air
:07:09. > :07:15.conditioning. One of the things about Singapore is it is not
:07:16. > :07:20.democracy. It looks like one but is really a non`democratic state. You
:07:21. > :07:25.suggest that might be the model we have to adopt in future. A lot of
:07:26. > :07:31.people will find that chilling. I'm sure they would. But this is the
:07:32. > :07:33.wrong way to look at it. If you consider Britain and the United
:07:34. > :07:37.States, for example, during World War II, we had to give up democracy
:07:38. > :07:42.during that period. It was done with the consent for the duration. I
:07:43. > :07:50.think that global warming is just as serious as a major war. We should be
:07:51. > :07:53.prepared to give up democracy if necessary for the duration. James
:07:54. > :08:06.Lovelock, thank you very much indeed.
:08:07. > :08:07.Now it's time for the weather forecast. This should