Gaia

GuanYin

One more post.......

There is a idea of the planet earth as a living ecology in itself.

Put forward by James Lovelock, it suggests that the earth is and has always been a self regulated living sysetm that allows life to survive and flourish.

It cites interlinking ecologies, environments and other earth based systems as regulating and responding to one another much as a single organisms body maintains temperature and chemical balance.

The idea that the earth is alive has been dismissed by most modrn scientists especially neo-darwinists and such eminent names as Richard Dawkins, but there is some evidence to support the "living earth" theory.

Temperature, atmospheric gases and sea salinity may all be regulated by linked but unrelated systems, and kept at a status quo optimised for earths life population.

Disease and especially viruses are seen by some as a biological population control method, never 100% effective, but enough to stop problems in overcrowding and food-population ratios.

Lovelock even put forward a mathematical model of how the gaian system worked.

There are huge philosophical implications arising from this, not least the role of humans in a "grander scheme" Gaian philosophy requires responsiveness from teh environmental systems but not intention, awareness, foresight or cognition.

There is also a huge implication on the "why arethings the way they are" sort of questions. What is the role of the mollusc? etc

So does anyone know more about it? Are there any Gaians out there?

PiE

I'm far from an expert and I'd hardly call myself a Gaian. However the notion does interest and intrigue me. From what I've read and heard on the subject, I really can't grasp why people think this idea is so implausible. In fact it makes sense (well, it does to me anyway).

It makes sense for the Earth to look out for the interests of it's inhabitants as they, in effect, keep it from becoming just another dead planet. The way I see it, the flowers, trees and creatures (not least bacteria) on the planet could be considered the Earth's sensors. They tell the Earth when thing's aren't quite right and it adjusts by allowing more of a certain reaction to occur (much like the white daisies growing in Daisyworld when it gets too warm).

Where people get thrown off is when they think the theory indicates that the Earth is consciously making decisions about when to heat up, cool down, make more salt etc etc, when that's not implied at all. It's more of a pre-defined reaction, much like a flower opening up it's petals to the sun.

If we can agree that a flower is living without necessarily being conscious, why can't we believe the same about the Earth?

[/ramblings]

TrickyRicky

yeah iv come across this one before, it does explain a lot and makes a good deal of sense, but its hard to accept that everything is connected. I am non religious, but i accept the fact that although man evolved from apes, our higher intelligence and connscience makes us different from all around us. If we are to believe that famine and disease are necessary population contolling mechanisms, we should not engage in research to eliminate them, surely this would disrup the gaiaean balance?

PiE

Well Gaian balance or not, preventing death is going to lead to overpopulation and mega-problems in the future, one way or another.

I'd actually like to hear more of the arguments against the theory rather than read more supporting facts. If anyone has any decent links, please post.

simu

So then the earth would have a purpose - to allow life to survive and flourish?

Would Gaians expect the same sort of mechanism to be found on other life supporting plantes, were we to discover any? Would they consider all the other planets in the solar system to have been deprived of their potential to become harbours for life? Would all planets in the universe have this feature, and would it be that it was only realised by a select few?

The whole thing sounds odd to me because it suggests a purpose to life on earth and some sort of intelligence behind the whole thing. Where would that come from unless you were going to invoke a creator?

Or would the Gaia theory only come into play once life had started? That wouldn't make much sense either as the earth had to have the conditions to make the emergence of life possible before life emerged.

There are self-regulating systems on earth but dosen't it make more sense that they developed slowly over millions and millions of years, being stunted or sped up due to random events. Once life began, it became possible for organisms to change the environment to make it possible for other organisms to evolve but that wouldn't mean there's some purpose behind it. For example, if plants take nitrogen from the soil for their own use, it then become more easily available to other organisms (or future potential organisms) who wouldn't be able to extract nitrogen by themselves. However, the fact that the behaviour of plants helps other organisms wouldn't have been the reason plants started to extract nitrogen - it would just be down to some mutation that caused a particular type of organism to thrive as it gave it an advantage over other organisms it was competing with for resources.

Again, with viruses, isn't it more the case that it would be disadvantageous if a virus were to destroy all the organisms it had the potential to live in as it would then cause itself to go extinct? But this regulation of virus lifespan would come from the virus itself rather than any "outside" force?

It's an odd idea - as if Gaians were looking backwards from today to explain why things are the way they are (in which case all of the earth's history seems really obvious) instead of looking forward from the formation of the earth onwards and imagining all the other possible states the earth could have ended up in at this time.

[DF]Lenny

The whole thing sounds odd to me because it suggests a purpose to life on earth and some sort of intelligence behind the whole thing. Where would that come from unless you were going to invoke a creator?


No it doesn't involve any great invoking it just calls for some rational thinking.You are that all important creator and destroyer.In order to live you do not require a capacity for intelligent thought just the basic requirements to exist which of course cause thousand so f decisions to be beyond your control.The theory stands up because if so many things are beyond our thought/control then we can assume that we are not truly sentient beings,as structure as defined by ourselves is a abberation
of our misguided thinkin.
The thoughts of many beings are misguided..so thought the ameoba

TrickyRicky

no we are sentient beings, but we are limited by our physical size, natural environment, and deep rooted national/local culture to fully control and ultimately understand that which we cannot control. we are incomplete, and therefore one must assume that we are just an evolutionary anomaly doomed to live and then die , or the finished, yet incomplete, product of a creative force. (i say force rather than being, as describing it as a being, eg God, Allah, Brahmna, etc involves personifying that which is beyond our understanding) our "completeness" depends on ourselves and our actions.......a Gaien force holds life and the earth in balance, but as sentient beings, we must recognize that this force doesn't bind us to the physical world forever

GuanYin

Originally posted by simu
So then the earth would have a purpose - to allow life to survive and flourish?

Would Gaians expect the same sort of mechanism to be found on other life supporting plantes, were we to discover any? Would they consider all the other planets in the solar system to have been deprived of their potential to become harbours for life? Would all planets in the universe have this feature, and would it be that it was only realised by a select few?

The whole thing sounds odd to me because it suggests a purpose to life on earth and some sort of intelligence behind the whole thing. Where would that come from unless you were going to invoke a creator?

Hrmm, I'm not 100% on my Gaia but afaik the system doesn't require any creative force or higher intelligence, although life is sorta implied from the initial assumption (that the earth acts as a living entity). Basically the most important point is that there is no higher intelligence or reasoning behind Gaia for itto work. It would merely imply that all ecologies and systems on the blanet are some how connected ina feedback/response manner that keeps the status quo.

Originally posted by simu
Or would the Gaia theory only come into play once life had started? That wouldn't make much sense either as the earth had to have the conditions to make the emergence of life possible before life emerged.

This is something i'm not clear on, I'm unsure whether it is implied that the earth always had these systems or whether life caused them to function. I would imagine it is the former.

Originally posted by simu
Again, with viruses, isn't it more the case that it would be disadvantageous if a virus were to destroy all the organisms it had the potential to live in as it would then cause itself to go extinct? But this regulation of virus lifespan would come from the virus itself rather than any "outside" force?

It works both ways, some hosts are less susceptible and generally when left unchecked in a population a small number of "immune" hosts will survive and flourish.

simu

Basically the most important point is that there is no higher intelligence or reasoning behind Gaia for itto work. It would merely imply that all ecologies and systems on the blanet are some how connected ina feedback/response manner that keeps the status quo.

But it's not as if biologists were denying the existence of systems that work based on feedback and response before the Gaia theory came along.

Or is the new step that came along with the Gaia theory the idea that these systems are operating on a global rather than a more localised level?

rde

To my mind, the Gaia hypothesis is an excellent metaphor for many processes on Earth; however, a metaphor is all it is.

Let's look, for an example, at the idea that it stops overpopulation. This is manifestly untrue; crabs are invading the Baltic sea, and wiping out (or out-competing) local species. This story is played out all over the world; species are introduced (by man or otherwise), and they wipe out all the locals.

It could be argued, I suppose, that Gaia works to a statistical constant; that as a whole the planet trundles merrily along, with feedback loops keeping the ecosystem as a whole going, but allowing individual species to rise and fall. This attitude, however, seems based on the fact that four billion years later, we're here.

The best argument against Gaia, to my mind, is the fact that there's a big ol' universe out there based solely on the laws of physics. Look at the planet itself; it's in an orbit around the sun. In other words, the gravitational pull of the sun counters exactly the planet's speed, so that it's in a stable orbit rather than zooming into the sun, or outwards towards the Oort cloud. Of course, if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to debate the issue. Equally, the reason life exists on the planet is that over the last few billion years, the ecosystem has evolved in such a way that it's stable. On Mars it didn't, so there's no-one on that planet to ask why not.

If it sounds like I'm just rehashing the Anthropic principle, I suppose it's because I am.

beans

I'm unsure whether it is implied that the earth always had these systems or whether life caused them to function.

To my mind, your assumption seems correct - that the earth always had those systems, that they were innate. If one were to say that 'Life caused them to function' then you'd have to be separating 'Life' from 'Earth', which is a fallacy to my mind.

All life, people, trees, whatever - they're here on the Earth, ok? Now, where did they come from? They came out of the Earth, unless you want to subscribe to the idea that all life arrived on the back of a comet, or that we're an alien ant farm or whatever. I like to think of earth like a big apple tree - apple trees grow apples just as the earth has grown people. The Earth 'peoples'... that's what it does, just as a fruit tree grows fruit or whathaveyou.

Just my 2c

MeatProduct

I've read a few books on this sort of area recently. It is very interesting and has many merits. As is probably clear by now I am not religious but I am rather spiritual and my view on life shares many similarities with the Gaian view. I am convinced that all life is connected, from humans right down to plants. A good book I recently read on this matter is:

"DNA and the Origins of Knowledge" by Jeremy Narby
ISBN: 0 87477 964 2

A very easy and interesting read. It goes into the beliefs of shamans around the world and supports the Gaian theory.

If anyone is interested I can recommend a few more books on this subject.

Nick