Gaia Hypothesis: Fact or Fiction?

[PatrickHenry]

Anyone with a background in the life sciences has heard of this. Likely you have an opinion. The lay science folks or generalists might be aware of the debate, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

Gaia theory today is a spectrum of hypotheses, ranging from the undeniable to the radical. At one end is the undeniable statement that the organisms on the Earth have radically altered its composition. A stronger position is that the Earth's biosphere effectively acts as if it is a self-organizing system which works in such a way as to keep its systems in some kind of equilibrium that is conducive to life. The history of evolution, ecology and climate show that the exact characteristics of this equilibrium intermittently have undergone rapid changes, however, which are believed to have caused extinctions and felled civilisations (see climate change). Biologists and earth scientists usually view the factors that stabilize the characteristics of a period as an undirected emergent property of the system; as each individual species pursues its own self-interest, for example, their combined actions tend to have counterbalancing effects on environmental change. Opponents of this view sometimes point to examples of life's actions that have resulted in dramatic change rather than stable equilibrium, such as the conversion of the Earth's atmosphere from a reducing environment to an oxygen-rich one. However, proponents will point out that those atmospheric composition changes created an environment much more suitable to life. Some go a step further and hypothesize that all lifeforms are part of a single planetary being called Gaia. In this view, the atmosphere, the seas and the terrestrial crust would be results of interventions carried out by Gaia through the coevolving diversity of living organisms. While the Earth as a unit does not match the generally accepted biological criteria for life itself (Gaia does not reproduce, for instance), many scientists would be comfortable characterising the earth as a single "system". The most extreme form of Gaia theory is that the entire Earth is a single unified organism; in this view the Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions more conducive to life. Scientists contend that there is no evidence at all to support this last point of view, and it has come about because many people do not understand the concept of homeostasis. Many non-scientists instinctively see homeostasis as an activity that requires conscious control, although this is not so.

The theory of a self-aware earth doesn't have much evidence to support it, but I am on board with just about everything leading up to that theory. What are your views?

[mr.perfecto]

I had wondered if I was the only person who had heard of this idea. The idea isn't so wacky as it can sound, but ultimately the idea is useless. If Gaia exists as some sort of quasi-deity waiting to bake us all for our sins against it, we are pretty much doomed as Gaia hasn't see fit to tell us what to do or not to do. If the current situation is the result of mindless chemical processes, we are left in the position of seeing what happens today and trying to figure out which out a potentially infinite number of things caused it.

[Nono]

The most extreme form of Gaia theory is that the entire Earth is a single unified organism; in this view the Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions more conducive to life.

Shades of Stanislav Lem.

Quote by: mr.perfecto The idea isn't so wacky as it can sound, but ultimately the idea is useless.

On the contrary, whether it's 'true' or not it might be extremely beneficial to us to take for granted that it is. Gaia is the brainchild of James Lovelock, right? What he seems to be saying, time and again, is that we'd better damn well start behaving as if it were.

Course, extinctions have also apparently been caused by other factors such asteroid/comet impacts and possibly the sun acting up. But trying not to tempt fate re would seem to be a wise policy.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Nono On the contrary, whether it's 'true' or not it might be extremely beneficial to us to take for granted that it is. Gaia is the brainchild of James Lovelock, right? What he seems to be saying, time and again, is that we'd better damn well start behaving as if it were.

Nah, its still useless. Even if we accepted the premise that Gaia could get pissed with us, we'd then still be left with deciding whether or not it was pissed now or happy with us. If you believe in the evolutionary history that eviromental scientists tell us to believe, then you have to admit there were some positive climate shifts in the past. All that existed at those times were dumb animals--what could they have possibly done to attract the judgement of Gaia? And of course, how would we even know if a warmer climate was going to be good or bad? From some of the maps I've seen (admittedly years ago so opinions may have shifted) that speculated about the geography of Ice Age Earth, the ice melted and we have more usable land after the warming period than we had before it.


edit* I should have double checked that, it must have been wishful thinking.

[oranged]

I don't think everything that happens can be explained by science. This is an interesting thoery which I respect, and I guess I should believe because I can't come up with a better one. I've abandon rational aitheism. It just seems irrational.

[Jack]

Even if we accepted the premise that Gaia could get pissed with us, we'd then still be left with deciding whether or not it was pissed now or happy with us.

That could be the case if Gaia were indeed self-aware, but short of that, extinction could be thought of as the point when the overall system was unable to support the presense of certain creatures or their activities. If that is the case, then we could reach that point of unsustainablility at any moment.
Yes, indeed, Nono...Stanislaw Lem along with other sci-fi writers have used this concept to construct some great stories. It offers a wealth of possibilities.

[MerlinsByte]

The most extreme form of Gaia theory is that the entire Earth is a single unified organism; in this view the Earth's biosphere is consciously manipulating the climate in order to make conditions more conducive to life.

Merlin writes...I do not reject the extreme Gaia theory out of hand, its a lottery ticket theory and a good one. Might be true might not. I might go one step more and say that it is more probable that the universe is a living system and has a conscious agenda.

mb

[MerlinsByte]

don't think everything that happens can be explained by science. This is an interesting thoery which I respect, and I guess I should believe because I can't come up with a better one. I've abandon rational aitheism. It just seems irrational.

__________________

I feel that Atheism is the height of denial and fallacy. Dont get me wrong I was a hard core atheist for sometime. Ive went from a Christian 2 an atheist 2 a Satanist to a Satan worshiping black circle boy to eastern mysticism and religion to paganism to open theist Christian in 30 or so years. So I am anything but closed minded. So I would say that anyone that believes in something has a leg up on those that believe in nothing. However that is not to say that there is no possibility that the hard core atheists have it right...they might be correct, but I would give 1,000,000,000,000,000 to one odds that they are incorrect.

mb

[Jack]

I feel that Atheism is the height of denial and fallacy

However that is not to say that there is no possibility that the hard core atheists have it right...they might be correct, but I would give 1,000,000,000,000,000 to one odds that they are incorrect.

So which is your correct belief?
If you refer to a denial of superstition and the supernatural, then you are correct. If you're trying to accuse us of denying facts, first you have to provide some.

[MerlinsByte]

So which is your correct belief? If you refer to a denial of superstition and the supernatural, then you are correct. If you're trying to accuse us of denying facts, first you have to provide some.

If I understand your question correctly I humbly submit the following…

Oh ! And one disclaimer! I don't accuse what I said is that in my paradigm of the universe, there are only probabilities . You said that you were once an atheist and aren’t not now? What is your beliefs if any please?


I am a open theist christian. I believe in god as an intelligent designer /creator. If you are unaware of Christian open theism just type it into your browser. I feel that the paranormal and the supernatural are just high workings of the normal that we do not understand yet.

But I also think that there are what we call gods (advanced races or time travelers) then another level of super advanced races, then one god (or GID which means God the Intelligent Designer) or the highest advanced enity(s).

So yes I assume the supernatural is real . I think that there is a life after death is a near certainty. I feel that the atheist faith is on the other end of the probability scale, in other words the odds that nothingness is correct as a paradigm of the universe is near zero.

Did I answer your question?

mb

[Milton Bradley]

I believe that the Earth cannot be considered an organism because it cannot reproduce.


While it is a compelling story, it fits into the utopian drean catagory for me. I just don't see the Gaia Hypothesis as a realistic philosophy.

[MerlinsByte]

I believe that the Earth cannot be considered an organism because it cannot reproduce.

Or if it can we dont know anything about it. That is why I included the entire universe may be a "living and or self aware entity."

[mr.perfecto]

That's a very scary thought...Humans being like sperm being. We get sent off to fertilize another world and, through terraforming, it becomes a child of Gaia.

[Samildanach]

Old old ideas. The question is really can you think of a single entity today that is composed of other intelligent entities. I am sure that I am not aware of any currently. This may change if the human race ever manages to become telepathic or we create AI. Especially AI as the personalities should be able to combine and separate as needed. However at the present time I dont consider the universe to be alive. I am not saying that it will always be this way as you could conceivably populate the entire universe and have everything in it sharing a universal consciousness. It will require at the absolute minimum several thousands years of technological evolution assuming things like instantaneous travel is possible. Mind you what moves faster than a thought....nothing.

[MerlinsByte]

However at the present time I dont consider the universe to be alive. I am not saying that it will always be this way as you could conceivably populate the entire universe and have everything in it sharing a universal consciousness. It will require at the absolute minimum several thousands years of technological evolution assuming things like instantaneous travel is possible. Mind you what moves faster than a thought....nothing.

There is faster than light "communication" on a quantum scale anyway. So this may be a form of communication in the universe and I believe everything , every atom, every particle, is casually connected by quantum entanglement or a close cousin of this spooky action at a distance as Einstein called it. So just maybe this could be the universe thinking? Nothing is impossible.

I am interested in time travel and feel that the SCSC (super conduction super collider ) should have been completed and it’s a national disgrace that it was canceled. If ability to warp spacetime is required for “practical “ time travel , your thousand year time projection may be correct.

mb

[fedfem]

Quote by: MerlinsByte __________________ I feel that Atheism is the height of denial and fallacy. Dont get me wrong I was a hard core atheist for sometime. Ive went from a Christian 2 an atheist 2 a Satanist to a Satan worshiping black circle boy to eastern mysticism and religion to paganism to open theist Christian in 30 or so years. So I am anything but closed minded. So I would say that anyone that believes in something has a leg up on those that believe in nothing. However that is not to say that there is no possibility that the hard core atheists have it right...they might be correct, but I would give 1,000,000,000,000,000 to one odds that they are incorrect. mb

I highly doubt you were ever an Atheist or a Satanist by some of the terminology you use. I think you may have labeled yourself those things without ever studying them. You probably gravitate to whatever will get you the attention you seek. I agree you are not closedminded but a bit attention deficit perhaps?

[MerlinsByte]

oh! now I rank a 4.5 liner how special, me!

I is a bit addd;ed Ahhhh‘...adlledd...ummmm’’ addddd fergit it.. and you also doubt my honesty? think I that was a trifle malicious hmmmm....is it really that obvious? I mean the dda tguig thing?

I was a Satan worshiping fool , for more than 4 years. At first I didn't subscribe to LaVey , his bible or the church of satan but found myself drawn more towards that belief before determining that the entire religion was well satanic and a deception. It made no sense and wasn’t a good move for my how can I say... future.

I was a hard core atheist for nearly as long. I believed no god or religion. One could be a staunch whatever and never change but I also reject that as well. I change when the proof and evidence is there to change me.

Please be more specific when referring to terminology. I sometimes (mis)use terminology to elicit a certain response.

Science religion and self are a work in progress.

You doubt my honesty? Well this forum has a few such suspicious cretins, me for one how do I know you are a fed fem and not a fed man?

But I trust you I really do, and I still respect you.

mb

[fedfem]

Quote by: MerlinsByte oh! now I rank a 4.5 liner how special, me! I is a bit addd;ed Ahhhh‘...adlledd...ummmm’’ addddd fergit it.. and you also doubt my honesty? think I that was a trifle malicious hmmmm....is it really that obvious? I mean the dda tguig thing? I was a Satan worshiping fool , for more than 4 years. At first I didn't subscribe to LaVey , his bible or the church of satan but found myself drawn more towards that belief before determining that the entire religion was well satanic and a deception. It made no sense and wasn’t a good move for my how can I say... future. I was a hard core atheist for nearly as long. I believed no god or religion. One could be a staunch whatever and never change but I also reject that as well. I change when the proof and evidence is there to change me. Please be more specific when referring to terminology. I sometimes (mis)use terminology to elicit a certain response. Science religion and self are a work in progress. You doubt my honesty? Well this forum has a few such suspicious cretins, me for one how do I know you are a fed fem and not a fed man? But I trust you I really do, and I still respect you. mb

Well for one thing, the Church of Satan does not worship a diety. Just your lack of knowledge about Satanism shows your ignorance and lack of any membership other than self described. It was begun and registered as a parody of sorts to play with the tax code, etc.lol

Sure, there are a few teens that kill cats and call it satanism but that is from too many horror movies and tv.

I am not surprised you are a christian though since it sounds like you were looking for the ism of popularity of the day. Starboy can explain why better than I can.

[MerlinsByte]

Fedfem.....You may want to learn English first. I didn’t say that I was a four year member of the church of Satan . I said I was a satan worshiping fool. I was a Satanist. There are indeed sects that worship satan. This shows your lack of knowledge, and inability to muster abstract thought.

You make claims about me just because I hurt your feelings a bit. I am amused.

I was also a Wicca. I'm 50 years old so I've had a long time to make mistakes and may make a few more like answering your worthless responses.

So I was too a Satanist!!!! And you cant make me say I wasn’t !!!!

THERE!

I’m going to tell on you too!

: } >

mb

ps I am an Open theist Christian. BTW what religion do you practice if any? Dear child.....And if you think Christianity is popular, you are mistaken again (it’s a matter of course for you isn’t it?) Just look at the pro vs. con responses in this little ole forum for verification.

I still respect you , you are a live one aren't you?


mb

[PatrickHenry]

Dammit! You people ever hear of PMs?

This thread is for talkin' about Gaia, not satan worship!

The Gaia Hypothesis has a lot of variation, including the relatively well substantiated theory that the conditions at the surface are self-regulating. You know, the conditions that permit life to thrive...