The Gaia hypothesis

[s_lone]

"the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the largest living creature on Earth."
-James Lovelock-

The Gaia hypothesis proposes that the Earth as a whole is an organism that auto-regulates itself.

For some, the hypothesis leads to the idea that our planet is alive.
For others, the hypothesis is a load of crap...

What do you think?

Read the wikipedia article to get a good summary of the debate...

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

 

[s_lone]

If reading a Wikipedia article turns you off, try watching this little video...

But I must warn you, the narrator is an inexplicably ugly animated 3D female... She is painful to watch...

 

[eh1eh]

The planet may not actually be a living being as we, humans, narrowly define it, but the comparison does hold up. If we create enough poison on this planet conditions will change that will remove us from the planet. Within 50,000 years, a short interlude in the life of a planet, there will be no trace of our presence here and the planet will be thriving. I can see the headline now, "Planet removes virus, complete recovery after 50,000 years"

 

[Unforgiven]

Coming soon to a thread near you, the myth of the Gaia hypothesis argument.

 

[karrie]

It's a neat hypothesis, and makes for a good read.

When you look at the incredible interconnectivity, it's hard not to think it's all to fit some grand design.

 

[Tonington]

It certainly acts like a living system, chaotic reactions, thresholds for illness and diseases, regulated mechanisms. I much rather the Gaia worldview which espouses sustainable living, as opposed to the dominant reductionist view which sees human actions in isolation, and does not think of the consequences.

 

[karrie]

But, at the same time, one could use the Gaia view to put forth the idea that what WE do doesn't matter, Gaia will find a way to balance it out. Or to even further extend that notion, that what we do is what Gaia has brought us to doing, in order to act upon some system we may be unaware of. For example, spawning an industrial age in order to cause global dimming, so that the increase in solar intensity is balanced.

 

[eh1eh]

But, at the same time, one could use the Gaia view to put forth the idea that what WE do doesn't matter, Gaia will find a way to balance it out. Or to even further extend that notion, that what we do is what Gaia has brought us to doing, in order to act upon some system we may be unaware of. For example, spawning an industrial age in order to cause global dimming, so that the increase in solar intensity is balanced.

And when Gaia is not in need of our presence?

 

[Tonington]

It's not so much that Gaia intends these consequences, more of a series of evolutionary leaps which has incrementally altered the living systems that make up Gaia. Like the appearance of corals 55 million years ago, which sucked large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. Like a living body, we can't expect the body will just take care of itself when we destroy the lungs or liver through abusive behaviour.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I find it an interesting idea, though I wouldn't dignify it by calling it a scientific theory as the Wiki article does, and there's no doubt at least parts of it are true. There are certainly complex feedback loops in such things as the carbon cycle and the hydrologic cycle that provide a degree of stability, but attributing intentions and goals to Gaia, as Lovelock and many others do, is way over the line. That seems to me to be a violation of the principles of Occam's Razor, an unnecessary multiplication of hypotheses that don't add anything significant to the explanations for things.

 

[Curiosity]

In their determined desire to obliterate the concept of a supreme being - a designer and creator of the known and unknown - the people are again looking for a substitute. Such is the way of mankind - always seeking - it is borne in us.

 

[karrie]

And when Gaia is not in need of our presence?

Something bigger, meaner, and smarter comes along.

 

[thomaska]

So the largest living organism isn't Rosie O'Donnel?

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

You know it sort sounds like a reworking of armaggeddon...or twist on said subject.....

I have to say i have entertained this theory many a time...i would go one step further and say the whole of existance is one huge organism with many of the higher parts thinking they are individual....

Look at what you need to be human...you need air, food , water, other humans, all the things that go into an eco system ....we all know that now...why not that one step into it's all part of us....even death is just part and parcel to the process ...we come back..our energy never dissapating...

It has merits this theory and one that cause one to reflect on harmony and rejects abuse.....

 

[s_lone]

In their determined desire to obliterate the concept of a supreme being - a designer and creator of the known and unknown - the people are again looking for a substitute. Such is the way of mankind - always seeking - it is borne in us.

Scientific theory or not, I certainly don't see the idea of Gaia as a substitution for God... If there is such an entity as Gaia, (which has intentions or not), good chances are there are many more planets in the universe like her... She wouldn't be a supreme being...

just a being...

 

[s_lone]

But, at the same time, one could use the Gaia view to put forth the idea that what WE do doesn't matter, Gaia will find a way to balance it out. Or to even further extend that notion, that what we do is what Gaia has brought us to doing, in order to act upon some system we may be unaware of. For example, spawning an industrial age in order to cause global dimming, so that the increase in solar intensity is balanced.

I think the idea is that if we go too far, Gaia will simply get rid of us...

But like you said, perhaps what we do is part of some process... It's really wild speculation though...

If we push the theory as far as saying that Gaia is conscious, perhaps WE are Gaia's consciousness. If that is the case, Gaia is one ****ed up lady...

 

[Cosmo]

In their determined desire to obliterate the concept of a supreme being - a designer and creator of the known and unknown - the people are again looking for a substitute. Such is the way of mankind - always seeking - it is borne in us.

Curio, from what I've read of the Gaia theory, it's more about science than religion. There are those that would take the scientific theory and apply it to their religious arguments, but that is happening all the time. Misuse doesn't invalidate the idea, IMHO.

I believe there is Something beyond ourselves. I'm agnostic in that I can't believe it can be defined or even understood by our limited human minds. The Gaia theory fits in well with the concept of a supreme being. Who created Gaia, in all her complexity and simplicity? That doesn't spring whole cloth from nothing.

I agree S_Lone, that if we go too far, Gaia will do what is needed to save herself. If the Earth is a living organism, the priority would be survival. Kinda like us with our zillions of little body bugs that live on us, eating our eyelash gloop and whatnot, keeping parts of us clean, healthy and chemically balanced. If they get out of control, we douse ourselves with something to regulate their numbers. Why could humans not be a parasite on Gaia? One that helps Gaia reproduce by colonizing other planets, as stated in the theory?

I think the human ego is so enormous that it cannot conceive that we are little more than parasites in a much larger picture. We want to be more than that. I think there is a god (or God, or Gods) who oversee the design but it's conscience that keeps us from self annihilation.

I also think we underestimate the Earth's ability to heal herself. In our usual self-aggrandizing manner, we think we can destroy the Earth with carelessness. I disagree. I think the Earth will rebel, our numbers will be reduced and balance will be restored.

I believe that having social conscience is more to save our species than our planet. The planet does fine without us, but we wouldn't do well without the planet. To save ourselves we need to adhere to a certain set of biological "laws". And I think we're starting to see that.

Awesome topic, S_Lone!

 

[Curiosity]

Cosmo - I don't equate a Superior Being or Creator with any religion - Religions are manmade generally to overcome fear. A Superior Entity of Scientific / Mathematical Construct would be the only few words I could use to describe what my belief is.... and what mankind seeks in futility....being sidetracked by religious law and awe.

 

[Cosmo]

That about sums up my beliefs too, Curio. I must have misunderstood your post. I thought you meant that people come up with theories, such as the Gaia theory, to disabuse religion. My point is that I believe theories like Gaia and Evolution can co-exist with belief in a supreme power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Curiosity]

Cosmo

People need to believe in something - for their purpose throughout their lifetimes - we have to have purpose or I think we would not proceed in a positive manner - accepting what life delivers to most of us.

I do not believe however that religious devotion answers the ultimate question - but only seeks to comfort and give aid to questioning humanity - even if many religions have gone against the
concept of a greater entity than what we speak of when we say Allah, God, Jehovah, and all the other names given...

There is something far more complex evolving - we are but a tiny species tied to one small sphere in a collection of only the ones we have discovered - we have perhaps only tapped the beginning of knowledge -