Gaia Hypothesis - what do you think of this philosophy?

baru wrote: I enjoy the theories presented by John Lovelock concerning life and science on planet Earth. I like the ideas of the "the sum of the parts of the whole". My understanding of this hypothesis is all about putting all the pieces of the puzzle together to make one truly all encompassing understanding of how life works on Earth.

What do you think about this controversial and refuted idea?

"The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. Topics of interest include how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms affect the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other environmental variables that affect the habitability of Earth."

I read something on this the other day though I cannot remember where. Basically it is backwards.

What came first? The planet or the life that regulates it?

The planet came first, the environmental conditions required to create life precede life's ability to self regulate the environmental conditions.

That being said, once life has emerged then it has self-regulating properties in relation to the environment. (I have now just remembered the article):

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/why-haven%E2%80%99t-we-encountered-aliens-yet-answer-could-be-climate-change

I think perhaps it is a helpful reminder though, to call the earth a 'living being', in that everything is connected. If we destroy a habitat, there is a chain from there, where animals that lived in that habitat now cannot find food, so numbers dwindle, which reduces the food source for others and so on. You can see this with certain bird numbers.

I agree with the earth not being one consciousness, but I don't necessarily see the harm in calling it a living being for the reason above; some people could do with the reminder.

Blue Star wrote: However, to conclude that the Earth itself is a living being .... kinda stretches it. For instance, we breathe the oxygen emitted by trees and they breathe our carbon, and animals and trees for a sort of superorganism ... but we don't share consciousness or oneness in the same way that the cells in our body make up who we are.

I like the concept for something like a platform for human spiritual evolution, but that then paradoxically tends to be a bit human-centric, as if we presume a hierarchy we might have a tendency to plop ourselves on top of it.

I don't think the concept works for a sustainable model of life, simply because history seems to point out apex species emerge and abuse that position (in Gaia terms?).

So if we look at each apex species perhaps you could imagine they each get better and better at survival. Then for humanity perhaps the question is do we want to be Gaia's flower blooming for some bee to visit, or the bee visiting other flowers.... cue alien visitation versus StarTrek segway LOL

I've had the concept that Gaia should expand throughout everything, Solar system, cluster, galaxy, group, universe.

Different levels of organisms on earth is similar to different types of cells in our bodies.

Earth is living not in the same way humans are living but how bacteria are.

I like this statement…

I do believe the Earth is trying to "reproduce". I feel that is why humans are drawn to the stars. We are the pollen of the Planet. We will go out - to where noone else has gone before

Very poetic.

There have been a lot of good things said in this discussion. And where some might see creationism at work, natural selection, the laws of probability, Gaia, God… I see the Force. We use to use terms like the living Force but these were not popular with all members and have gone away. But I do not see live as being merely defined by the means we limit it to now. On this planet, for what we have observed and what we know, the current definition works. But we also have to keep in mind that as we grow and learn so does our understanding and definition of things. Years ago we believed that life could not exist without the sun. I know that I have used that example before, but I use it again because it is so profound to how we divine our understandings.

Perhaps as we do reach out into space and spread life from our planet to others we will see new life and create new definitions for it? And come to an even better understanding of our own planet and its uniqueness. I would love to live long enough to see that day.

I tend to think everything is connected, and depending on how you look at it, science has started to prove it. For example, look at the magnetic fields of the Earth compared to the fields every living creature puts off. In simple terms, we are energy manifested into solid form, to serve a purpose.
Now as for the idea of balance, I tend to think there's a lot of merit to that idea. Unfortunately our forefathers seemed to believe that our job of caretaker and steward meant that the world was our playground to alter and destroy as we see fit. Imagine how different this world would be if we included ourselves into the ecosystem of the world instead of believing we are above it.

Imagine how different this world would be if we included ourselves into the ecosystem of the world instead of believing we are above it.

Here's a thought... Assuming the Gaia Hypothesis is correct in that the planet and all included systems combine to be a living organism, what happens if we also assume that "Gaia" is aware of itself?

Perhaps our purpose as humans in this organism is to be the "conscious" awareness of Gaia? We just may be the observation and recording devices for Gaia's memory, acting like neurons firing in our own brains.

Or perhaps Gaia is aware of all of the "parts" and consciously manipulates the pieces. Maybe Gaia purposely destroys certain species because they are a nuisance? Maybe humans are like white blood cells, existing to destroy other threats. Our own bodies are known to raise the core temperature (fever) in order to make us less hospitable to certain viruses and bacteria. What if Gaia is the same?

Or maybe Gaia is not too thrilled with the human parasite living on her skin. Could natural disasters, climate changes, etc actually be a deliberate mechanism meant to maintain balance? Gaia could be shaking off the fleas.

Continue down this path of thinking, and it could be argued that meteors colliding with the planet are also part of the Gaia Hypothesis in that it is her gravity attracting them toward the surface to allow the impact and subsequent effects to perform some greater purpose in the overall system. Tired of dinosaurs? Chuck a giant flaming rock at them.

It's fun to think about, but I'll just go with "it is what it is." I'm clearly no expert. For me it's all the Force.

I found some more information about it.
The Gaia hypothesis (pronounced GAY-a), named for the Greek Earth goddess Gaea, is a recent and controversial theory that views Earth as an integrated, living organism rather than as a mere physical object in space. The Gaia hypothesis suggests that all organisms and their environments (making up the biosphere) work together to maintain physical and chemical conditions on Earth that promote and sustain life. According to the hypothesis, organisms interact with the environment as a homeostatic (balancing) mechanism for regulating such conditions as the concentrations of atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide. This system helps to maintain conditions within a range that is satisfactory for life. Although scientists agree that organisms and the environment have an influence on each other, there is little support within the scientific community for the notion that Earth is an integrated system capable of regulating conditions to sustain itself. The Gaia hypothesis is a useful concept, however, because it emphasizes the relationship between organisms and the environment and the effect that human activities have on them.

One of the most spectacular structures ever built, Biosphere 2 is located in the Sonoran Desert at the foot of the Santa Catalina Mountains not far from Tucson, Arizona. It is the world's largest greenhouse, made of tubular steel and glass, covering an area of three football fields—137,416 square feet (12,766 square meters)—and rising to a height of 85 feet (26 meters) above the desert floor. Within the structure, there is a human habitat and a farm for the Biospherians or inhabitants to work to provide their own food. There are five other wild habitats or biomes representing a savannah, a rain forest, a marsh, a desert, and an ocean. Biosphere 2 is completely sealed so no air or moisture can flow in or out. Nearby are two balloon-like structures that operate like a pair of lungs for Biosphere 2 by maintaining air pressure inside. Only sunlight and electricity are provided from outside.

On September 26, 1991, four women and four men from three different countries entered the Biosphere 2 and the doors were sealed for the two-year-long initial program of survival and experimentation. During this time, the Biospherians attempted to run the farm and grow their own food in the company of some pigs, goats, and many chickens. They shared the other biomes with over 3,800 species of animals and plants that were native to those habitats. The resident scientists observed the interactions of plants and animals, their reactions to change, and their unique methods of living. The Biospherians also had the assignment of experimenting with new methods of cleaning air and water.

On September 26, 1993, the Biospherians emerged from Biosphere 2. It had been the longest period on record that humans had lived in an "isolated confined environment." Unfortunately, the experiment did not live up to expectations. The Biospherians experienced many difficulties, including an unusually cloudy year in the Arizona desert that stunted food crops, rapid growth and expansion of some ant species, and unusual behavior of bees fooled by the glass walls of the structure. In 1996, Columbia University took over operation of the facility, opening a visitors' center later that year. Biosphere 2 has been maintained for study but without human inhabitants. Its future remains uncertain.

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Bi-Ca/Biosphere.html#ixzz3E7NKuKtH

I think it's worth noting that the original hypothesis was simple and described a biome interacting with the abiotic to change the conditions on "planet Gaia". He posited two colours of flowers covering planet gaia, and as the temperature dropped, the black coloured flowers outcompeted the white flowers, causing heat retention in a positive feedback-loop raising Gaia's temperature. As the temperature rose, the white flowers out competed the black, increasing planet gaia's albedo and decreasing the temperature, this continued in a cycle.

This system requires no consciousness, much like an ant colony or bee hive operates without apparent consciousness. The requirement for "purpose" and consciousness appears to be a human imposition.

In this fashion, a Gaia Hypothesis is possible, describing the agent of action as "the Force".

While my evolutionary biology is not where it ought to be, I think I'm not too radical in suggesting that we are macro-colonies of cooperating life forms. We have more non-human cells on us than human... To the point of our mitochondria possibly being evolutionary symbiotes with our cells.

As such, I don't think one can argue against Gaia because your hypothesis requires a competitive evolutionary model. I don't think competition is the sole driving force of evolution (no pun intended).