Gaia's Web: How Digital Environmentalism Can Combat Climate Change, Restore Biodiversity, Cultivate Empathy, and Regenerate the Earth

by Karen Bakker

A riveting exploration of one of the most important dilemmas of our will digital technology accelerate environmental degradation, or could it play a role in ecological regeneration?

At the uncanny edge of the scientific frontier, Gaia’s Web explores the promise and pitfalls the Digital Age holds for the future of our planet. Instead of the Internet of Things, environmental scientist and tech entrepreneur Karen Bakker asks, why not consider the Internet of Living Things? At the surprising and inspiring confluence of our digital and ecological futures, Bakker explores how the tools of the Digital Age could be mobilized to address our most pressing environmental challenges, from climate change to biodiversity loss. Interspersed with ten elegiac, enigmatic parables, each of which is based on an existing technology, Gaia’s Web evokes the conundrums we face as the World Wide Web intertwines with the Web of Life.

A new generation of innovators is deploying digital technology to come to the aid of the planet, using spy satellites to track down environmental criminals, inviting animals to the Metaverse, and biohacking Frankenstein-like biobots as environmental sentinels. But will they end up doing more harm than good? In an engaging take on conservation technology, Bakker looks at the digital tech applications to environmental issues from predatory harvesting of environmental data to human bycatch and eco-surveillance capitalism. If we address these issues and mobilize digitally mediated forms of citizen science, she argues, digital tech could help reverse environmental harms and advance environmental sustainability. And in the process, Big Tech might be transformed for the better.

With its uniquely broad scope—combining insights from computer science, ecology, engineering, environmental science, and environmental law— Gaia’s Web introduces profoundly novel ways of addressing our most pressing environmental challenges—mitigating climate change, protecting endangered species—and creating new possibilities for ecological justice by empowering nonhumans to participate in environmental regulation.

Genres: Nature, Science, Environment, Nonfiction, Technology, Ecology, Climate Change

288 pages, Hardcover

Published April 16, 2024

Reviews

[emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

‘Humans are a litter-making species. While much has been made of our tool-making capacities, it is our ability to create cumulative garbage heaps at a planetary scale that is perhaps our most defining legacy.’

Loaded with interesting discourse, but comes with too many careless ‘claims’/assumptions, and (most annoyingly, to me) a too self-assured tone in general that ultimately made my biblio-experience a lot less wonderful. To repeat what Brian Clegg has mentioned in his write-up, the author (for no relevant enough reason except to (in my opinion) inserted a rather pointless and speculative (almost forcefully) ‘feminist’ (or rather simply (for the purpose of) insubstantial 'fun') titbit (no pun intended) — claiming so boldly that Ada Lovelace is the first person to ‘write the first computer program’ (divided views, etc.; I, for one, like Clegg, don’t stand with this view; and think it grossly misleading).

‘Over the past century, humans—mostly those in the wealthiest countries—have produced approximately 30 trillion tons of stuff: buildings and bridges, shopping malls and ships, cars and computers, tools and toys.1 This translates into 50 kilograms (over 100 pounds) for every square metre of the Earth’s surface. The scientific term for this massive stockpile is the “technosphere.’

Rather conflicted about the work as a whole because it’s got promising bits, but too much of a mess (which makes a lot of the writing more ‘questionable’ than it needs to be; like if you’re careless with this bit, how can I be sure that you’re not also careless with this other thing?) And I’m not sure if the interesting bits compensate enough (for the mess that it is; as I certainly didn’t enjoy the mental labour of sieving through which is legit and which isn’t)). A bit too much of a tiring read — probably better suited for a reader with less trust issues) for my taste. Also didn’t enjoy how the writing felt often like a ‘try-hard’ to convince the reader to think a certain way. If I wanted to be told what to do or what to think, I would be picking up ‘self-help’ books which evidently is not to my taste either. The patronising tone, to me, felt extremely counter-effective. Also really didn’t like how topics were introduced/opened with ‘Critics point out (this/that)[...]’. Why would you leave the mysterious figure(s) unnamed? To me, it all just very quickly translates to unreliability and carelessness.

‘Nanoparticles, for example, can be used to transform living plants into light-emitting objects. Salad lovers take note: spinach, arugula, watercress, and kale are apparently naturally high light emitters, which researchers have boosted with nanoparticles impregnated with luciferase, the enzyme responsible for bioluminescence in fireflies.10 Instead of street lamps made of steel, glass, and plastic, our streets may one day be lit with carbon nanotube-enhanced plant lamps. Plant-based biofuel cells are also in the works, as are plant-based microbial fuel cells. If these succeed, their designers hope that they could provide an environmentally friendly solution to some of our energy storage challenges.’

A lot of it felt hugely under-developed and weakly researched. It’s kind of like being fed information by someone who gets their stuff largely from unreliable sources — notably social media platforms. And since I’m not one who is well impressed/fascinated by that sort of messy form of information-overloading, (in a very similar way) I simply wasn’t impressed by the structure and delivery of this book as well. But evidently most people (esp. / presumably those who don’t ‘read’ much) are rather ‘addicted’ to that sort of ‘delivery’ and style, so perhaps this would suit them lot best. In addition to this freakish heap of complaints, I also thought a lot of the writer’s research and references ‘dated’. For instance, ‘CRISPR’ — has advanced/made massive progress in recent years from its shakier beginnings, so whatever was mentioned in the book ultimately felt quite ‘dull’ (and while I had hope for the discussion to be more science-leaning, it disappointingly deflated into a medley of questions about technological ‘anxieties’ and ‘ethics’).

‘Scientists refer to these impacts with terms like “auditory masking,” but in layperson’s terms the impacts are simpler and starker: orcas are lonelier, more stressed, more disoriented, and more malnourished in a noisy ocean. Oceanographer David Barclay offers a simple analogy: if orcas are trying to look for fish while swimming toward a ship, it would be like looking into the bright sun while trying to spot a bird. Humans no longer kill orcas with bullets and harpoons. Instead, we are serenading them to death.’

Because of how under-developed all of it is, it almost gives me the illusion of feeling like I’m already a bit over-acquainted with the matters being discussed (which soberly I know is untrue otherwise why would I be inclined to ‘know’ more), such as precision farming, augmented realities/VR, and the whales stuff, etc.; whatever the writer wrote about it didn’t make me feel ‘excited’ at all. Unfortunately, all it did was make me ‘nit-pick’ the flaws and inaccuracies of the writing. Also, I absolutely didn’t like how a lot of the chapters ended with ‘questions’. This wasn’t what I wanted. Give me some proper and substantial shit and fucking enlighten me, not leave me with questions I would have to look elsewhere for? To be fair, if the text was better-researched, I would be satisfied enough, but it couldn’t even do/be that. On top of that, there is too much straying away from ‘science’ that I didn’t vibe with, like when the writer writes about how trees are ‘sacred’ and the whole bit(s) about ‘honouring’ ancestors, etc. — just kills the mood for me. I also didn’t think that the odd poem about robots wedged awkwardly into the latter half (interestingly and ‘seriously’) exploring bioethics and biopolitics was necessary?

‘In a small lab in Raleigh, North Carolina, a graduate student is working late into the night. A tiny cocoon the size of a pencil eraser sits on her workstation: a pupal moth, yet to be born. Bent over the cocoon, she handles her instruments carefully. Her job is to implant tiny, flexible microprobes into a precise spot on the pupa inside the cocoon, without damaging it. The technique she is using—Early Metamorphosis Insertion Technology—takes advantage of the uniquely receptive nature of the fast-growing immature moth. As the pupa develops, its ventral nerve cord will fuse to the implanted wires, ensuring a seamless bond with its living tissues. When it emerges, the insect will not perceive the electrodes as foreign objects. The student will stimulate the nerve with small electrical pulses, either through a wire tether or remotely via a radio signal. When she stimulates the nerve, the moth’s muscles will contract, which will change its direction as it flies. The MothBot will be controllable at a distance, a living drone.’

‘MothBot has never perceived the electrodes as foreign objects. She came into this world as a living drone, engineered to be controllable at a distance. Exquisitely sensitive to smell, she can detect chemicals commonly found in explosives. The code directs her to a nearby minefield, sensing hot spots and safe zones, a silent sentinel.
When she is longer useful, she will be discarded.’

I expected a lot more from this especially because the cover is so fucking cute? I wondered if ‘it’ was all inevitably rushed (and filled with too many self-contradictory points (esp., and most unfortunately with regards to the writer’s stance on technological growth/de-growth), which to me just evidently proves a lack of editorial work) since the writer passed shortly after this was published. Regardless, not a terribly written book, but not one I’d re-read either. Also, I probably have slightly higher expectations when it comes to ‘pop-science’ — I want it to not be over-simplified/over-explained — and something closer to texts that ‘academics’ would also read/reference, find useful rather than otherwise.

‘The autonomy of nonhuman designers is the leitmotif of this speculative living architecture agenda. The plants, mediated by the robots, shape the overall design of the structure as it grows, creating structures that are more livable for the plants themselves. The engineers’ innovations—like vascular morphogenesis controllers—enable responsive, real-time collaboration between robots and plants, which can autonomously shape their own growth, in response to (but not controlled by) human desires.’

‘As the building grows, structural features develop (walls, roofs, benches) and the plants eventually begin supporting the robots’ weight. The scaffolds are braided and woven in complex forms that look like ethereal coral braided with 3D-printed kelp; flexible, biodegradable, and repositionable by tiny robots stationed at key nodes, the scaffolding is calibrated to growth patterns of different plants, and gradually becomes absorbed into the “living weave” of the building. Human input is limited; rather, machine learning algorithms, combined with input from a comprehensive array of sensors that measure plant health and growth, enable the robots to learn the plants’ preferences and reshape the scaffolding accordingly.’

To be fair, this should be 3*, but because (in hindsight) I think I would rather have the time I spent reading the text back, I have to give it a 2* (which by GR standards, equates to ‘it’s okay’). But oh fuck it, I’ll begrudgingly settle for a 3*. At least I don’t feel completely indifferent to the text? I can see how it would benefit/delight other readers a great deal more.

‘Offshore, the robot continues drilling in the darkness. As noise cuts like a knife through the water, the deep-sea life is slowly covered in fine dust. Never sleeping, never ceasing, the robot’s sensors catalogue the sacrifice zone.’

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this for school. Bakker does a good job of introducing readers to digital inventions that can be useful for conservation and addressing climate change, but overall, the concepts seemed too far-fetched to have a material impact on climate action. Many of these technologies come with deep ethical concerns or show no signs of scaling quickly, and at a time when we actually do have all the resources we need to address climate change, why would we turn to these? It's certainly an interesting thought experiment, but I am not convinced by the argument here.

[renée · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started this book pretty skeptical about digital and technocratic fixes to climate issues, but Karen Bakker’s optimism did shift my perspectives on certain facets of digital environmentalism.

For one, I recognize the potential of AI for real-time, dynamic environmental monitoring and conservation efforts (Mobile Marine Conservation Areas!), it’s a much preferred usage than generative AI in my opinion.

I am intrigued by ideas of non-human/human communication and the rights of the non-human. The nihilist in me asks « will humans even listen? » if information can be shared and understood. Technology, in so far, has been harnesses to further inequality and surveillance efforts. What even is privacy in the digital age? Perhaps what Bakker is suggesting through her optimism is the need for a paradigm shift in humanity. There needs to be a break from current ways if we want technology and digital advances to not only clean up what is happening but fundamentally change the root causes behind current climate issues. Regulation will be key.

Some research borders on the sci-fi realm and the musings about breaking the bio/digital frontier seems so abstract to me. Computing embedded into the natural and the natural embedded into computers. Encoding data in DNA? Building machine-animal hybrids?

Overall, I still feel digital environmentalism has a way to go and the intentions of corporations investing in it should continue to be questioned. Yet, I would say there is a lot to be hopeful about.

[Danielle Reneé · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Gaia's Web: How Digital Environmentalism Can Combat Climate Change, Restore Biodiversity, Cultivate Empathy, and Regenerate the Earth* by Karen Bakker is an insightful and thought-provoking exploration of how technology and digital tools can be harnessed to address the urgent crises facing our planet. Bakker, a leading scholar in environmental science, presents a compelling vision of how digital platforms, data systems, and artificial intelligence can play an essential role in restoring balance to ecosystems, reversing biodiversity loss, and combating climate change.

Bakker’s writing is both accessible and authoritative, drawing on her extensive knowledge of environmental issues while making complex ideas easy to understand for readers across disciplines. The book is structured in a way that showcases both the potential of digital technologies and the risks they pose. Bakker doesn’t shy away from acknowledging the challenges of digital environmentalism, including issues related to data privacy, technological inequality, and the ecological footprint of digital infrastructure itself. However, she also makes a persuasive case for why these challenges are surmountable and why the digital revolution, when properly guided, could be the key to a more sustainable future.

The most fascinating aspect of *Gaia's Web* is Bakker’s exploration of the intersection between digital technology and empathy. She argues that digital tools have the potential to foster a deeper, more global understanding of environmental issues, helping people to connect with distant ecosystems and species in ways that were previously unimaginable. Whether through immersive virtual experiences, data-driven conservation projects, or platforms that facilitate collective action, Bakker envisions a future where digital platforms not only inform but also inspire a more profound emotional connection to the planet.

Bakker also emphasizes the importance of collaboration between environmentalists, technologists, and policymakers to create systems that align with nature’s rhythms rather than exploit them. She introduces the concept of "digital ecosystems"—a network of digital technologies that can work in harmony with the natural world to regenerate and protect it. This is a novel perspective that places digital innovation not as a competing force but as a complementary tool in the fight for environmental justice.

While *Gaia's Web* is optimistic in its outlook, Bakker doesn’t underestimate the complexities involved. She gives readers a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape, touching on digital activism, the role of social media in environmental advocacy, and the growing influence of data in conservation efforts. One of the most significant takeaways from the book is that digital environmentalism is not just about using technology to monitor the environment, but about transforming our relationship with the Earth—shifting from an extractive, exploitative mindset to one of regeneration and care.

In conclusion, *Gaia's Web* is an inspiring, timely, and deeply informative book that offers a hopeful vision of how digital innovation can be leveraged to heal the planet. Bakker provides a roadmap for how digital tools, when used responsibly, can support the regeneration of Earth’s ecosystems, foster empathy for the natural world, and create a more sustainable and equitable future for all. It is an essential read for anyone interested in the intersection of technology, environmentalism, and social change.

[Brian Clegg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sadly deceased in 2023, Karen Bakker combined geographical, environmental and technology interests, a crossover that she presented in her last book, Gaia’s Web. The idea here is to make use of the abilities of modern information technology, from machine learning to specialist sensors and satellite data to monitor both the state of the environment and those who are misusing it.

As such there is some fascinating material here. Bakker shows the power of digital eco-surveillance to protect the environment from everything from overfishing to forest fires, but emphasises rightly the accompanying danger that the same technologies can be used for surveillance by states. But Bakker sometimes undermines her own powerful arguments by taking a simplistic academic’s ‘capitalism bad’ approach that fails to recognise that without capitalism we wouldn’t have all this wonderful technology. There’s hypocrisy here.

This leads to the (highly confusing) sentence: ‘Researchers have raised concerns that some contemporary discourses about conservation conflate security and environmental concerns; in some cases, conservation agencies become use [sic] violent force against people they identify as poachers, counterinsurgents or terrorists.’ It’s not really clear what is being said, but is the argument that taking action against poachers is good, but not against terrorists?

In an effort to remain approachable, some of the text can be oversimplistic to the point of being inaccurate. As something of a fan of Nagel’s famous ‘What is it like to be a bat?’ paper, I am uncomfortable with level of anthropomorphism used in the opening story about orcas. Much of the text is effusive, sometimes leading to hyperbole such as ‘digital trackers are affixed to the tiniest of insects’. Actually it’s only possible with midsized insects. Tiny insects like thunder flies are still far too small as yet.

Topics outside the author’s direct areas of interest can feel under-researched. Sadly, we get one of the most commonly wheeled out incorrect history of science clichés: no, Ada Lovelace did not ‘write the first computer program’. Another frequently used doubtful piece of information, stated as if it were fact, is that ‘ even a handful of Google searches used significant energy - equivalent to boiling a kettle to make a cup of tea’ - but the source is the Daily Telegraph, not the original researcher behind this 2009 story, who didn’t say that, and whose figures are way out of date. (To be fair, Bakker does point to the way IT companies are reducing carbon footprint, though rather spoils this by suggesting it’s just to look good. That has to be part of it, just as it is when academics posture, but most of the IT people I speak to genuinely care for the environment.)

The problems with the book are irritating because Bakker’s message is largely right. There’s a lot that’s interesting in this book, yet it could have been so much better.

[Rohit Balay · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am an early career professional practicing ecological restoration, I am a staunch environmentalist, a person who is exited every year when CES rolls around but is aware of the strong possibility of a technofuedal world. I am a solar punk hopeful.

This book is not a literature review of the application of new technology in ecology, it may not be the most scientifically accurate or up to date in some respects. It is however a fantastic book nonetheless.

It covers a wide variety of (sometimes farfetched) but very real technologies that are currently being implemented, and experimented with. I thought Karen Bakker did a phenomenal job weaving a coherent narrative of the possibilities that will present themselves in the future with a healthy does of skepticism, and optimism in an APPROACHABLE WAY to appeal to a broader audience.

Every time I put the book down I was filled with wonder, hope, questions and critiques. It makes you think! As any great book should.

I would recommend this book to EVERY environmentalist (who is not already working with or aware of these technologies), especially those of us that work in the field, and are early in our careers. We grew up with technology integrated into our lives, and it is unlikely that technological momentum will recede anytime soon. We must learn, embrace, and responsibly guide and use these technologies when applicable and reject, raise concerns and oppose those that are far to dangerous, impractical or harmful. WE can only engage in DISCOURSE if we know and understand the possibilities, and this book is a phenomenal primer. Somewhere to start!

No matter what your initial beliefs and values regarding technology or environmentalism, it will probably broaden your horizons, you WILL learn something new, and maybe (Definitely!) it will inspire you to continue blazing forward towards a better world in whatever way works best for you!

The poetry between chapters was a beautiful touch!

[Reader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bakker describes a pivotal dilemma in environmentalism as it intersects with the advancement of technologies, and pushes for embracing the new and foreign. A fair portion of this book reads as descriptions of modern advancements in digital and biodigital technologies as they relate to environmentalism, with a lense somewhat too altruist and under cautious in its pragmatism. The focus is somewhat too broad for the length and asks more questions than it seeks to answer, yet still creates a thoughtful dialogue on where we stand in the increasingly digital age in relationship to the biological environment, and how the intersections of these forces are inevitable. That being said, some thoughts feel unfinished and at times the information is seemingly piled on without relating back to main points of the book, for example VR and AR technologies are covered seemingly meaninglessly, as the the author says in her own concession, a topic which I wish had been replaced with a more thorough discussion on safeguards against digital technologies from use under disaster capitalism or surveillance capitalism. Worth the read, but some sections are better off as individual articles on novel technologies then as included in the overarching argument this book seeks to make.

[Abigail Kudrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed the fact that this book made me think about climate change solutions that I have never thought of before and gave me a new perspective into the bio digital research going in right now, as well as offered actionable solutions. However, although the research is cool the author doesn’t really highlight the aspect of how expensive this research and implementation for all these things are. She does mention skeptic arguments regarding digital surveillance and privatization of data, but I feel like there is a whole other issue she didn’t mention about the fact of where is all this money coming from to research and implement these things and how can we allocate funds or align with other countries to help implement these technologies.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a very illuminating factual book, there are several elements of this books that I wouldn’t have never considered without picking it up. It was well written and engaging and I love the inclusion of factual data to give a wider picture of the world in which we live. I think everyone in interested in the digital world and how it impact nature should read this book as it is a cornerstone in this kind of literature..

[Franny · Rating 5 out of 5]

A beautiful, insightful look at the intersection of cutting edge technology and our environment.

[Robin Perkins · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received this book as part of a Goodreads giveaway.

Lots of information. If you like this genre, or any similar, this is a good book.

[Dee McLadha · Rating 3 out of 5]

A magnum opus of futurist research, detailing the different ways in which we can achieve our collective Black Mirror destiny with the environment (computational ecology, etc.). Not particularly engaging - reads like a long string of nouns or a research paper - but fiendishly well researched nonetheless.