Gaia

[BurnTheOliveTree]

So, earth as a living organism. Thoughts?

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

-Alex

[seraphim]

Holds more water than the theory that God created it in 7 days!

[ichneumon]

this is scientifically iffy BUT....

we can make it true.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

What about the idea that the biosphere naturally maintains it? That was Lovelock's original hypothesis, I believe. Homeostasis, etc.

-Alex

[ichneumon]

basically, it's difficult to prove. we have only one planet, and we can't realistically experiment with it. thus, gaia is stuck at the theory stage. there is some evidence of the self-reinforcing nature of life - we can just watch how volcanic islands are colonized. but then, why is the antarctic barren?

the bad thing about this is that it gets the new age loonies all excited, and generally makes ecologists look bad. but it is real science.

for my part, i believe that gaia is just now becoming, but it's not at all scientific.

consider teilhard de chardin:


In his posthumously published book, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard writes of the unfolding of the material cosmos, from the creation to the development of the noosphere in the present, to his vision of the Omega Point in the future. He was a leading proponent of orthogenesis, the idea that evolution occurs in a directional, goal driven way. To Teilhard, evolution unfolded from cell to organism to planet to solar system and whole-universe (see Gaia theory). Such theories are generally termed teleological views of evolution. While these theories postulate a goal to the process of evolution, they should not be confused with the teleological implications of a theory like intelligent design. Standard orthogenesis does not hold that evolutionary processes cannot of themselves account for complexity.


at some point, with the help of biotechnology, the earth will not only live, but think. it will be an integrated whole, a nursery for human life and in turn, humans will take the seeds of earth to the dead worlds of this system.

the cold, hard industrialist future is not the only vision. but, still, it's just sci-fi.

[ExpansiveThought]

The Gaia Hypothesis is indeed shakey scientifically as a whole, but many of the points used to support are indeed based on hard fact. FOr example the nitrogen and hydrogen cycles seem very complex and can be compared to the life processes of living organisms. REgardless of teh theories validity, the earth continues to exist in a delicate balance, and the changes in these cycles caused by human activies pose a threat to the ecology of earth as a whole