Tech | February 12, 2012 | 91 comments

Gaia Theory: Is It Science Yet?

source: http://theconversation.edu.au/gaia-theory-is-it-science-yet-4901?utm_source=feedburner&utm_m...

Image
coolplanet
James Lovelock’s “Gaia hypothesis” has challenged conventional thinking about the nature of the earth as an integrated system. Gaia proposes that the earth acts like a living organism — that life is part of a self-regulating system, manipulating the physical and chemical environment to maintain the planet as a suitable home for life itself. Lovelock has developed this idea in a series of books, from “Gaia: A new look at life on earth” (1979) through to “Revenge of Gaia” (2006) and “The Vanishing Face of Gaia” (2009). He argues that as changes in the physical earth system occur, living systems respond so as to mitigate such changes.

How can a planet be alive?

In claiming that Gaia is “lifelike”, Lovelock notes the difficulty of defining life. He points out that a biological emphasis on (potential for) reproduction would, for example, exclude postmenopausal women. On the other hand, a physical emphasis on entropy reduction would include refrigerators. This leads Lovelock to emphasise physiological self-regulation as the defining characteristic of life-like systems – networks of interacting processes serve to regulate each other to preserve the functioning of the organism.

In discussing the concept of Gaia, Lovelock now distinguishes:

-Gaia hypothesis: the original version — the Earth’s organisms regulate the physical and chemical components of the earth system so as to maintain the planet as an optimal habitat for life.

-Gaia theory: the revision in response to critics — the combined physical, chemical and biological components of the earth system regulate the planet so as to maintain it as a habitat for life.

Various analyses have tried to distinguish between “weak” and “strong” Gaia, with weak Gaia differing little from conventional earth system science.

But isn’t Gaia for hippies?

The name Gaia has been widely used as a metaphor, as well co-opted for a large amount of pseudo-scientific baggage. This does not invalidate any underlying science any more than the majority of physics is invalidated by similar appropriation of terms such as “relativity”, “crystals”, “force fields” etc.

After stripping away such baggage, one has to confront the question: is what Lovelock is saying science and mysticism? While Lovelock has used the term “geophysiology” to avoid some of the mystical associations, he notes that all that has been achieved is that the term geophysiology now carries the same suspicion as the name Gaia.

The confrontation between Gaian theory and “conventional” science is largely focused on a few key words: “Gaia is like a living organism … whose goal is to maintain the planet in state fit for life”.

A powerful argument against the Gaia hypothesis is the assertion (such as that made by Richard Dawkins in The Extended Phenotype) that Gaia cannot arise from Darwinian evolution of life — the planet as a whole is not a unit of selection.

Dawkins can be answered by an anthropic argument (wherein observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the existence of the conscious life that observes it):

-The emergence of Gaian self-regulation through the course of evolution is allegedly extremely improbable.

-Nevertheless, the long-term survival of life on a planet without Gaian self-regulation may well be even more improbable.

-Therefore, intelligent observers are most likely to find themselves on a planet with Gaian self-regulation.

Personally, I find this sort of argument unsatisfying. However, similar arguments seem to be needed to “explain” the physical universe — it is a very precise combination of physical constants that allows the existence of atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium. Anyway, if Gaian self-regulation has arisen by chance, one would still want to know how it works.

For me, one of the most intriguing possibilities is some form of “innate Gaia” — rather than being highly improbable, some degree of Gaian self-regulation is inevitable.
Writing in Nature Tim Lenton has proposed that if:

-the physical system is stable, and

-the biological system has self-increasing growth, and

-there is a physical optimum for growth

then the steady state will be whichever side of the optimum leads to negative feedbacks, thus enhancing the stability of the physical system. The “optimal for life” in the original Gaia hypothesis is replaced by “mutually enhanced stability of the physical and biological systems”.

A theory with gaps is still a theory

While Thomas Henry Huxley famously talked of “the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact” such discrepancies can also mean that the “ugly facts” are being misinterpreted.

For example, the gap in Wegener’s account of continental drift was that the continents aren’t ploughing through the crust — they are being carried by the crust. The gap in Darwin’s argument 150 years ago was the implicit assumption of blending of characteristics, so that new traits would be diluted. Mendel’s experiments showed that this is not so. Working out the details has been the work of subsequent generations of population geneticists.

Returning to Dawkins’ argument as quoted above, the hidden assumption that may represent a weak point is the assumption of a single level of selection.

In Revenge of Gaia, Lovelock quotes William Hamilton: “Just as the observations of Copernicus needed a Newton to explain them, we need another Newton to explain how Darwinian evolution leads to a habitable planet.” This echoes Alfred Wegener: “The Newton of [continental] drift has not yet appeared. His absence need cause no anxiety.”

To summarise: gaps and discrepancies in a theory imply a case for serious further study, not necessarily a reason to panic and immediately abandon any consideration of the idea.

What does Gaia mean for humankind?

In his recent books, Lovelock argues that humanity is like an army with over-extended supply lines — there is no option but to retreat (allowing Gaia to recover). Depending on humanity’s choices the retreat could be comparable to the British from Dunkirk or Napoleon from Moscow. We can take control of population ourselves, or see it plummet as Gaia kills us off.

By Ian Enting | 12 February 2012

Continued at link
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Culture,   16 more
  2. tags:
    Global Warming,  Gaia,  James Lovelock
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka,
    unimatrix0
  4.     
    |

91 comments // Gaia Theory: Is It Science Yet?

  • fiberbundle
    • 0
      fiberbundle  

    • Gaia gives a nice anthropomorphic "feel" to the study of interrelationships among life forms and their habitats on this planet. Its a nice introduction to concepts, for young people, as long as you teach them grown up science as they mature. Be sure not to leave the children in a Druid state of mind. That would be as inappropriate, for our century, as an adult believing in the tooth fairy or Easter bunny.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • fiberbundle
    • +1
      fiberbundle  
    • coolplanet:

      No strong feelings about Gaia. I just think its more a poetic concept (or extended analogy) than a scientific theory. But if you see it differently I certainly can respect your feelings. No I wouldn't classify geology, geometry as "poetic" expression; but thats what I currently think of the Gaia concept. But if proof and experimentation in the future accrue to affirm your position, then I'll change my opinion.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • fiberbundle:

      Science desparately needs some poets. I think the primary reason people aren't interested in or trusting of science is because it's all so cut and dry and frankly boring. People wrongly believe that there is no room for spirit in science. Einstein would strongly disagree.
      Gaia Theory has been stereotyped as pseudoscience since it was first proposed 40 years ago simply because Lovelock poetically called it Gaia Theory instead of Earth System Theory. Yet it has been remarkably good at explaining climate and predicting climate trends. That is why it became an accepted theory in 1999 among the majority of scientists.
      Please watch at least one of the lectures and interviews that Vierotchka posted below. You will see that Lovelock is not only a true scientist but also a pure genius.

    • 4 months ago
  • circlesquared
    • +1
      circlesquared  
    • fiberbundle:

      I still believe in Santa...there have been too many years now that Christmas would not have happened for my kids without the spirit of giving coming to the rescue. We need some change in perspective.

    • 4 months ago
  • fiberbundle
    • +1
      fiberbundle  
    • coolplanet:

      Many scientists are spiritual and religious people. Newton spent much of his time trying to prove various Christian doctrines. Oppenheimer, Einstein, many of these scientists also wrote poetry and all were in awe of the underlying order they uncovered. I still think, and again this is just my humble opinion, that the Gaia theory is more of an extended analogy than a scientific theory. Science, especially organic chemistry has always dealt with equilibrium points and reversible reactions, filtering membranes and the physical conditions (sometimes called phase space) that serve as as statistical universe for predictions. You know how in the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" Natlie Wood describes Chris Kringle as that nice man with a beard. I think Gaia is a beautiful concept but not science; at least not yet.

      P.S. I am also of the opinion that it comes very close to being a "god theory", you know something that looks for another layer of intelligent design, not of human origin; or origins that are not comparable through natural evolution. A god theory of anything is religion and is not subject to the scientific method. Hence my earlier reference to a Druid state of mind.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +1
      coolplanet  
    • fiberbundle:

      Lovelock is a staunch Darwinist and avowed agnostic. He writes that he somewhat regrets naming it the Gaia Hypothesis in 1970 because this has been the main obsticle in the scientific community taking it seriously.
      But in 1999 Gaia Hypothesis became Gaia Theory when science recognized it as an important theory that has helped climatologists enormously in modelling and understanding what the hell is going on. Gaia theory is peer-reviewed science.
      I think he should name this new field 'geotology.'

    • 4 months ago
  • fiberbundle
  • LivingPong
  • LivingPong
  • artemis6
    • +4
      artemis6  

    • It is known , it long has been , we are all one . The poets know , the mystics , the shaman . When science figures out how to explain this to itself , we can welcome them too ...

    • 4 months ago
  • warman1138
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +7
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2aIuv4ZlD8

      I am going to start this with a couple quotes and observations from sources I have been tapping for years.

      A Sand County Almanac; and Sketches Here and There --Aldo Leopold
      "Like winds and sunsets, wildthings were taken for granted before "progress" began to do away with them. Now we face wether a still higher "standard of living" is worth it's cost in things natural, wild, and free." Bear in mind this book was written in the 1940's

      Dr. Lynn Margulis -- "What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammer, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a strange slow wave."

      A Sand County Almanac; and Sketches Here and There --Aldo Leopold “It is a century now since Darwin gave us the first glimpse of the origin of species. We know now what was unknown to all the preceding generations: that men are only fellow-voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution. This new knowledge should have given us, by this time, a sense of kinship with fellow-creatures; a wish to live and let live; a sense of wonder over the magnitude and duration of the biotic enterprise.”

      Leonardo Da Vinci -- "Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous"

      My father -- "What the hell is wrong with these people calling global ecology "spiritual". Cause A leads to reaction B. reaction B is cause C that leads to reaction D. Thats science! You kill the bees and flowers start failing to bloom and spread, thats not spirituality, thats common friggin sense!" Always been impressed by the Wise Carpenter that my father seems to embody at times.

      My own observation, Gaia is the ecosphere, the ecospere is Gaia, spiritual or not science supports every aspect of these claims when looked at from another perspective.

      Now I am not yet a specialist on this topic but it has fascinated me for a long time. I grew up in the woods, pretty much literally. The backwoods of Northern Maine are a spectacular place, and taught me many lessons throughout my youth. Primarily and easily the biggest lesson I learned was where humans really ranked in the grand scheme of things on this amazing planet. We are not chosen, we are not special, we are not the masters of the world, and can barely be considered masters of OUR world. The first time you see a large predator like a puma (couger for those from places not in the North East) caring for her young in a more loving and comcpassionate nature then human mothers that you have known somethings start to become clear. Our intelligence is our greatest gift, but it also the single greatest flaw we carry with us. Our intelligence has allowed us to consciously choose to ignore our instincts, the part of our cummulitive experience that has gotten us to where we are. Instead of going and gathering or growing food for our hungry, we argue and bicker about what the best "plan" is when if you asked a "lower" animal the plan is simple, go get food and feed those who need feeding.

      We have allowed our intelligence to take us away from our natural home within the natural world, and have built edifices to our spectacular achievement of running from our Mother. After spending millenia flourishing on small farms as well as hunting and gathering, somewhere we decided that we knew better then our Mother. We now pour millions of gallons of herbicides (a chemical to kill plants) on our lands, without the vagueest of notions what happens to these chemicals later. We dam our rivers and drain our swamps, build levies and do "reclaimation" programs in spite of the several million years it took to give us these gifts.

      Another valuable lesson learned in the wilderness is that everything is working together, not for a common purpose, not for a common goal, not for any kind of communal tactic, but because you work with what you are given. Any naturally occuring species that can't come to harmony in their own environment will have one of a short list of consequence, elimination through lack of resources, elimination through self harm, elimination through predation from other species, elimination through aggression from competing species, or elimination through hostility against a competing species. Elimination and extinction is the calling card of dis-harmony. If we humans cannot maintain a balance with our natural surroundings we will fail, we will die, we will be eliminated. This is not the actions of Gaia against us, it is the symptom of our own choices.

      This is not an oppinion acheived through any kind of mysticism, it's clearly visible through observable facts. This mysticism arguement is preposterous unless your subscribing to the notion that there is some intelligent or spiritual element controling our environment, but I think that is taking the Gaia theory beyond were should have ever gone. Cause and effect, thats all this is about. You pollute an area to the point that native species cannot thrive, new species more suited to that environment will move in and take up the jobs of their predecessors. But what happens when we pollute an area beyond the ability to support even the most hardy of plant life... nothing grows... nothing lives... nothing survives... there is a long history of "salting the earth" a practice of intentional pollution that leaves vast tracks of lands incapable of sustaining plant life and it takes many many years if ever for waters to wash away these pollutants but in that time not even insects will place their homes in these places.

      We are falling into the trap of looking at the planet as an organism that somehow consciously makes these changes, when it much easier to observe and quantify that our "ecosystem" includes not just the plants and animals we know, but also the water, air, winds, currents, tides, stones, mountains and lowlands are all part of the system and are interconnected. Stated this way even mainstream scientist would concur.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +5
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      Now the next step is to analyze how all these things are interconnected. This global organism reacts to change, but this global ecosystem redirects change to minimize its overall impact. The organism may theoretically respond to the loss of a current population by enticing another species to come fill the gap, whereas the global ecosystem builds an abundance of what the lost population used for survival and this attracks another species to take their place. Same effect, same outcome, same changes to the environment, just a different view. An oil spill somewhere on our planet will cause havoc in that area, the Gaia organism would somehow "decide" to find a way to clean it up, where as our global environment already contains microscopic lifeforms that consume oil that will eventually establish colonies within the affected area.

      We are looking at this in a sense akin to the "nature vs. nurture" debates when instead we should be putting our "intelligence" aside for a moment to realize that nature IS nurture and the inverse as well. Da Vinci once said that "Our knowledge is simply a matter of perspective" and his words clearly (to me at least) apply here as well.

      I am not here to debate the existance of an actual Gaia "entity", thats as pointless as arguing religion with no evidence for either side. I am here to hopefully bring another point of view, a change of perspective. We cannot hope to understand anything in this complex world without looking at from every angle available.

      Our world is an amazing and complex place, so complex we can't comprehend even a small fraction of what happens here. But what we can do is attempt to make choices that consider our impact on the world that supports us and gave us life. Sadly some will ignore this simple thought until their skin is burnt and stung when they try to take a dip in the waters of our planet.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +5
      coolplanet  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      "We have allowed our intelligence to take us away from our natural home within the natural world, and have built edifices to our spectacular achievement of running from our Mother."

      What a wonderful, powerful post t_w_k. (Kansas sounds like an American Indian word.)
      You have summed up the situation very well!
      We all need to step outside and breathe real air and experience real climate.
      Presently we are air-conditioning ourselves into a state of false comfort.
      Thank you!

    • 4 months ago
  • rerushg
  • coolplanet
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +5
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • coolplanet:

      Kansas is named after the Kan-saw indians, the same source for Arkansas (Land of the Kan-saw). Always wondered about the enunciation of this states name Kan-sas as opposed to the enunciation for Arkan-saw.. I have yet to figure this one out.

      Thanks for your kind words, I hope that my passion for our natural world will infect others, and that my desire to learn from all angles inspires at least of few of the infected to look for the answers that still elude us.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
  • circlesquared
    • +3
      circlesquared  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      what a power of cognitive thought you share...the only thing I would add is humans are the only beings here that can decide right or wrong rather than just fill the gap...we can chose to improve on a thought or improve on our surroundings rather than take...it is up to us to see and understand we can decide to destroy or create. I so appreciate your consideration and the words you have chosen to express your consideration with, thank you. Perspectives are what it is all about and I hope we can all do a better job in the future of sharing each other's views without judgement and hate.

    • 4 months ago
  • circlesquared
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +4
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • circlesquared:

      Thank you! Your words are fairly accurate and absolutely heartfelt. I entirely agree that we are the only ones with a true power to decide to create or to destroy on a large scale, however I disagree that we are the only species capable of discerning right from wrong... but perhaps thats a discussion to share on another thread.

    • 4 months ago
  • circlesquared
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      This is definately the right thread.
      I would only add that modern humans seem to be the only species that has a problem discerning right from wrong.
      All other animals don't seem to have a problem living by the laws of Nature.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +5
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • Image
    • coolplanet:

      ROFL perhaps it is the right thread. I think your pretty well right about your point too, but there is the matter of conditioning... let me see if I can find a picture to represent this. Humans can be conditioned to respond in particular fashion just like animals. I think this is the real cause behind less then human behavior from our species.

    • 4 months ago
  • LivingPong
  • Andover
  • Vierotchka
    • +4
      Vierotchka  
    • Image

    • http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287519-1
      James Lovelock talked about his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning (Basic Books; April 13, 2009). The award-winning scientist and originator of the Gaia Theory presented his latest prediction: that it is too late to reverse global warming; so it is time to concentrate on how to save humanity. He argued that scientists looking only at the actions of humanity in their assessments have overlooked the interconnected responses of the Earth. After his lecture, illustrated with slides, he responded to questions from members of the audience. "A Living Earth" was a part of the Seattle Science Lectures presented with Pacific Science Center and University Book Store at Town Hall Seattle at 7:30 p.m. PT on June 15, 2009. Mr. Lovelock has been a fellow of the Royal Society since 1974.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Vierotchka
  • coolplanet
  • Vierotchka
    • +4
      Vierotchka  

    • James Lovelock - The Vanishing Face of Gaia

      James Lovelock, the groundbreaking originator of Gaia theory, in conversation with science editor Tim Radford warns that we are about to reach a tipping point, beyond which our planet will not recover sufficiently to sustain human life comfortably.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +2
      coolplanet  
    • Vierotchka:

      Jim (may I call him Jim?) has taught me more about life than anyone.
      What a beautiful, wise man.
      I always knew 'intuitively' that wool can save your life in below zero weather--from personal experience. I never knew that wool 'carbonizes' heat.
      I also like his theory that urination is a Gaian means of fertilizing plants.
      We should listen to Lovelock's wisdom.
      He is humble enough to admit that he could be wrong. It is rare to find such honesty.

    • 4 months ago
  • ilikeike
    • +2
      ilikeike  

    • The World is Too Much With Us.

      The world is too much with us; late and soon,
      Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
      Little we see in Nature that is ours;
      We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
      This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
      The winds that will be howling at all hours,
      And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
      For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
      It moves us not. --Great God! I'd rather be
      A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
      So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
      Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
      Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
      Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn.

      -William Wordsworth 1802

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Anonmaly
    • 0
      Anonmaly  

    • Whatever.... Bunch of Pagan earth worshipers, which is cool... I guess, and I'm not about "conquering" the earth myself.... Even better if dude is an "atheist" (damn you wikipedia, why won't you tell me?) applying his lack of belief to the "earth is alive" train of thought...

      I.... I worship Bang, as in the "big-bang" I'm waiting for it to bang again and carry me home....

      I found the article rather limited.... We seem to think of life as only existing in the conditions we most clearly can identify that it's living in. So the idea that the earth is staying at some optimal level to maintain life, is to think that life only exists within the parameters we see.....

      There is a VERY high likelihood that life lives on any number of planets, and that those forms of life live in conditions we find extreme or toxic... Not only that, at least from an evolutionary standpoint, if it were possible to send things so out of whack here as to end life as we know it, and "Gaia" wasn't able to fix it, who knows what could potentially "evolve" in our place?.....

      (another theory with massive holes in it, hey but maybe we can keep teaching it at our schools, almost like it's fact as a supplement to evolution....)

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • Anonmaly:

      Lovelock states in his books that he is agnostic but can only hope there is a higher intelligence than man. The Gaia Hypothesis became The Gaia Theory in 1999 when it was finally peer-reviewed and proven to be a sound theory by its accurate predictions in climate science.
      There is nothing Pagan about Lovelock or Gaia Theory although it was early embraced by Pagans and Hippies (one reason it took so long to be peer-reviewed). He is a true scientist who has contributed many important inventions like the electron capture detector for gas chromatography--'an instrument whose exquite sensitivity has subsequently been central to several important environmental breakthroughs'. With it he proved DDT was rampant in the atmosphere and that CFCs were causing the destruction of Earth's ozone shield.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +2
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • Anonmaly:

      Look into Dr. Lynn Margulis's standpoint on "defining life"... she makes incredibly powerful arguement about our limited point of view and ability to communicate within the structure of the languages we have.

    • 4 months ago
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
  • coolplanet
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +2
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • coolplanet:

      Me involved in some political discussion where oh where would have gotten an idea like that? --wink-- I will be back within the hour to read the thread and post my thoughts, but I will say the Gaia theory has been around far longer then this author.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • Incredulous:

      Oh I am so sorry to learn that Lynn Margulis has passed away.
      She contributed very much to Gaia Theory with her work in rock weathering.
      She showed that lichen on rocks play a big role in sequestering carbon and keeping acid out of the oceans. Through her great work it was proven that rocks (stromatalites) are what produced an oxygen atmosphere on Earth billions of years ago.
      Rest in peace Lynn.

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +3
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • Incredulous:

      Yes, Lynn Margulis was a great woman, extremely intelligent, witty, and attentive. You could not talk with her without it feeling like she could look into your words and thoughts. You couldn't make a statement without her having an answer before your sentence was finished, but she was always polite enough to let you finish! A great woman, a personal hero, and never waning beacon of hope, compassion and pursuit of truth!

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
  • The_Wanderer_Kansas
    • +2
      The_Wanderer_Kansas  
    • Incredulous:

      I think the term you may been looking for was "holistic approach" just thinking. Candace Pert is a smart woman, never met her tho or done research work on cocaine to spend much time reading her. I did read a paper of hers something about reactions of the human stomach and it's lining to some certain group of substances I can recall at this time, but yeah she's smart!

    • 4 months ago
  • Incredulous
    • 0
      Incredulous  
    • The_Wanderer_Kansas:

      holistic works, and maybe it was because I was reading Margulis at the time, but the theoretical similarities in approaching an understanding of both the earth and the human body were astounding....Pert's message has evolved considerably since then, but at the time, her peptide/receptor work was just beginning to lay the groundwork for where she is now.

      Of particular interest is the fact that Pert treats people in groups, again, the Gaia foundation of symbiosis seems to be of particular relevance. just a thought.....

    • 4 months ago
  • thedirtman
    • +4
      thedirtman  

    • What impressed me about the Gaia Hypothesis is that Lovelock shows that the abundance of life actively drives the planet to a new chemical equilibrium. For life to collectively alter the environment so drastically to a better stasis requires a force that is not random at all, but organized and methodical.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +5
      coolplanet  
    • thedirtman:

      They say Gaia isn't alive because she can't reproduce.
      But Earth's Moon was born from the floor of the Pacific according to scientific theory.
      Human's believe we have a monopoly on intelligence and consciousness the same way we believed Earth was the center of Universe.
      Well I have a cat that's smarter than most people!

    • 4 months ago
  • thedirtman
    • +2
      thedirtman  
    • coolplanet:

      There is much to be said about interpreting intelligence. Some go for fun, some go for popularity, some go for profit. Ultimately, intelligence amounts for little unless there is sufficient intelligence for self-sustainment. By this definition Gaia is more alive than any corporation.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • JanforGore
    • +5
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • The goddess of Earth
      Life and light she brings
      Her inner spirit
      The source of rejuvenation...

      For a world blinded by false choices
      Deaf to her cries for help
      Forgetful of her past lessons...

      May we once again swim in her water
      Breathe in her life
      Inspired in the remembrance...

      That we are one.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  
    • coolplanet:

      I appreciate that. She is part of us all. We've forgotten that, which is why both mankind and she now suffer. I truly believe that when man is out of balance so is she. Being parasites instead of collaborators with her is killing it all. This is where us finding our inner light is so important.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • JanforGore:

      We have disconnected ourselves from Nature with our air-conditioned buildings and ubiquitous vehicles. We don't know what real cold and real heat is anymore. During January's heat wave people would complain how cold it was because anything below 50 degrees f seems cold to pampered people.

    • 4 months ago
  • kennymotown
    • +5
      kennymotown  

    • Great post, it's interesting to notice the last century's + industrial age bleeding the planets blood (Oil) and it's effect on the whole biosphere!

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +5
      coolplanet  
    • kennymotown:

      Thank you Kenny.
      Interesting is an understatement. The word I prefer is terrifying!
      Oil is Gaia's lubrication system for the tectonic plates. MAN are we in for some serious earthquakes!

    • 4 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • coolplanet
  • circlesquared
    • +4
      circlesquared  

    • great post cool, we need to see the Earth as a whole and understand how much things are interwoven. A change in approach is necessary as we currently segment and address singular issues expecting band aids to fulfill the deep healing we have created a need for. Earth will continue on, but without a change in how we live we may not be able to survive her adjustments to being poisoned.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • circlesquared:

      Thanks cs!
      It was Lovelock's "The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis & The Fate of Humanity" (2006) that helped me finally understand the physics of global warming and turned me into a warrior for our Mother Earth.

    • 4 months ago
  • tverdell
  • circlesquared
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • tverdell:

      Being antinuke all my life it was difficult but I initially agreed with him. He makes a very strong case. However, Lovelock based his argument on solar, wind, wave and geothermal not being ready to implement on a global scale fast enough. He might have been correct in 2006 but we now have the capability to switch to renewables very rapidly. Although six years later it might be too late to do anything to stop a climate meltdown.

    • 4 months ago
  • circlesquared
    • +3
      circlesquared  
    • coolplanet:

      Interesting that Tesla developed free energy for all in the 1890's to be bought and weaponized by JP Morgan. It would have changed a great deal of this if we had that resource in use over the last 130 years.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • circlesquared:

      I'm a huge Tesla fan and am very familiar with his experiments in free electricity.
      He was able to harness billions of volts from lightning in Colorado Springs, bounce it around the planet using the ionospere like FM radio, and capture 98% of it with his Tesla Tower (blowing out the power grid for hundreds of miles).
      However I suspect that such power transmission is dangerous and could be far worse than CO2.
      I much prefer his experiments with Earth Resonance wherein he was able to tap the planet's natural electric field to power lights.

    • 4 months ago
  • circlesquared
  • circlesquared
  • coolplanet
  • circlesquared
  • circlesquared
  • unimatrix0
    • +3
      unimatrix0  
    • Image

    • I believe it to be an emotionally and intellectually healthy response to embrace the Gaia hypothesis.

      From a more objective perspective, it reminds me of the duck-rabbit paradox: Seen one way it is a duck (earth seen as living organism); seen another way it is a rabbit (earth seen as not being a living organism).

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
  • Kelly_Balthrop
    • +5
      Kelly_Balthrop  

    • I agree with the premise that the Earth is full of delicate and intricately interdependent and interlocking system, much as a living organism does. The lack of a known nervous system though would put it in a category closer to plant life than animal life. I don't think that the response is conscious like we saw in the movie Avatar.

      What we see are those interlocked systems responding to being thrown out of balance, like you car engine does when it's missing a few spark plugs. That doesn't alter the fact that this is the only plant/planet that we currently have access to, so if we screw up this one, were screwed. Pull enough spark plugs and the engine dies.

    • 4 months ago
  • remanns
    • +4
      remanns  
    • Kelly_Balthrop:

      I basically agree with that,.....but as to the "consciousness" bit,....I think I am in more of an 'agnostic' rather than a 'gaia atheist' camp ; I just don't think we are at the point where we can even begin to test that yet.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • Kelly_Balthrop:

      I like your plant/planet analogy.
      And I can tell you from personal experience that plants respond to love.
      Trees can communicate hundreds of miles away. For instance, when an insect infestation occurs in Virginia the trees start to produce a chemical to fight the insects. It has been observed that trees in New York which show no sign of insect infestation begin to produce the same chemical to ward off a potential infestation. This is clearly a form of communication.

    • 4 months ago
  • Kelly_Balthrop
  • Kelly_Balthrop
    • +5
      Kelly_Balthrop  
    • coolplanet:

      True it's communication. As a scientist though, I just don't want to fall into the trap of making incorrect correlations. When you place a pot of water on the fire, you could say the fire is communicating information in the form of heat to the water to make it boil. That however, does not impart any conscious decision on the part of the fire, it's simply physics in action.

      The same train of though can therefore be applied to more complex systems. Everything is a physical reaction to something. Literally, you could carry the argument all the way to say we are not truly conscious (in the metaphysical sense), we are simply atoms and molecules reacting in a predictable fashion to stimulus. Of course, it's not nearly as romantic.

      I don't mean for this to devolve into a discussion of are we conscious or not, I'm just trying to make the point that we often ascribe intelligence or conscious action to things that are just behaving naturally according to the laws of physics.

      Feedback loops can often look like intelligence. Take the following example:

      Temperatures rise causing the Icelandic glaciers to melt releasing a sudden burst of fresh water into the ocean. This lighter water does not sink, it wants to stay at the surface. The Atlantic conveyor current is disrupted which halts the flow of warm tropical water to the north. Lacking this warm water, it creates a mini ice age that freezes Iceland again.

      Gaia did not lay plans and consciously make those events happen in order to rectify a problem. It was simply a feedback loop of physical phenomena. A similar thing actually happened about 8,000 years ago when the North American ice sheet melted enough that a huge sea of fresh water (now the great lakes) was released. This caused a return to an ice age for about 1,000 years.

      In the case of you tree example, there may be some chemical that the plants have evolved to emit when attacked. That chemical is carried in the wind and when detected, plants have evolved to survive by producing more of it. That is a form of communication quite common in all plants, animals, even bacteria.

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +4
      coolplanet  
    • Kelly_Balthrop:

      I agree with all your points.
      I just think we humans have a self-centered view of intelligence. The idea that dolphins could be smarter than us is intolerable.
      I do not subscribe to Intelligent Design. Yet I do see intelligence at work in animals, plants and insects. Humans communicate chemically. Is it mere instinct or something more?
      I don't think the jury is out on what constitutes intelligence yet.

    • 4 months ago
  • remanns
  • Kelly_Balthrop
  • circlesquared
  • coolplanet
    • +7
      coolplanet  

    • In his Preface to the U.S. Edition, Lovelock writes in The Revenge of Gaia:

      "One of the hardest tasks we face in life is to be the bearer of seriously bad news. No one knows this more than the army officer tasked to tell a family that their son or daughter has died in action. This has been the hardest of books to write for the same reason. I have for the past forty years looked on the Earth through Gaia theory as if, metaphorically, it were alive at least in the sense that it regulates climate and composition of the Earth's surface so as always to be fit for whatever forms of life inhabit it. It is not pushing the metaphor too far to consider anything alive either healthy or diseased. Thinking this way has made me a member of the new profession of planetary physicians, and as a planetary doctor I have now to bring the worst of news. The climate centers around the world, which are the equivalent to pathology labs in hospitals, have reported the Earth's physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as intimate members of the Earth's family, that civilization is in grave danger."

    • 4 months ago
  • remanns
  • coolplanet
    • +5
      coolplanet  
    • coolplanet:

      John & Mary Gribbin write in their biography of James Lovelock:

      "Lovelock invented the electron capture detector for gas chromatography--an instrument whose exquite sensitivity has subsequently been central to several important environmental breakthroughs. For example, during the 1960s the documentation of widespread dissmination of harmful and persistent pesticides like DDT, and later on the technique was extended to the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Lovelock himself famously used the technique to chart the ubiquitous presence of chlorofluorocarbons--CFCs--in the atmosphere, triggering the discoveries (by Rowland and Molina) of the harmful influences of CFCs on atmospheric ozone--work for which they received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1997. He also developed instruments for exploring other planets than our own, including those aboard the two Viking craft that went to Mars in 1975."

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • remanns:

      Gaia will be here for billions of years with lifeforms that adapt to an Eocene climate. Yet there was vastly little life on Earth during the Eocene Era some 55 million years ago. It is thought to have occurred by an enormous release of methane from the oceans.
      What gets me is that nothing could have been done to stop the Eocene event or the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaur. But humans have it in our power to stop this runaway greenhouse effect.

    • 4 months ago
  • PressCore
    • +5
      PressCore  
    • coolplanet:

      " Life must be lived going forward, but can only be seen looking
      backward " Soren Kirkegaard, existential philosopher. Doesn't
      seem to bode well for our host, the Earth or the human species
      whose monkeyshines have upset the natural balance of the Earth
      as an assumably living organism, does it ?

    • 4 months ago
  • coolplanet
    • +3
      coolplanet  
    • PressCore:

      I still grasp on to my dwindling faith that man will get his collective ass together and clean up his massive mess. Perhaps that will require the rapture of all conservatives off the planet. ;}

    • 4 months ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos