Talk:Gaia philosophy/Archive 1

quote
The more political followers sometimes call themselves Gaians and actively seek to restore the Earth's homeostasis - whenever they see it out of balance, e.g. to prevent manmade climate change, primate extinction, or rainforest loss. In effect, they seek to cooperate to 'become' the "system conciously manipulating to make conditions more conducive to life." Such activity 'defines' the homeostasis.
end of quote

Do Gaians seek to cooperate to 'become' the system or do they seek to be 'part' of the system ??? Is that coherent ?

---

slowly the tangle of messy politics and sciences starts to make sense... slowly... I am wondering if it's worth mentioning Goldsmith and his "Gaian hierarchy"... he's the best example of these "political Gaians committed to acting as a keystone species". A lot of people think he's a fascist...

---

I just don't buy that the confusion about the spectrum is because Gaia theory is "new" - it's quite ancient. The confusion is because the science of testing the homeostasis and the politics of becoming a part of the homeostatic balance are inseparable - science doesn't actually apply to it.

Imagine you are running a science experiment in the garden and as a political priority I am entering your garden and changing the results. I look like a villain.

Now imagine that the garden is the whole planet, and you are testing whether it is alive by killing it - and seeing if we die with it - if we don't, it's "life" wasn't essential to ours. Again, as a political priority I am altering the way you and your allies deal with the garden - and now I look like a hero.

The Precautionary Principle actually alters the concept of what science *is* - puts really important limits on experiment - that's the source of confusion.

---

(comments from 67.193.54.xxx which were originally on the article page)

March 31, 2002

The silent side of human is often ignored. Does that make it unreal ? No. Racial merories are often called conjecture, theory, yet they exist. Not viewable or percieve-able externally, with eyes, ears, noses etc, they are found within.

What makes us judge another, what makes one say some such as "I like him or her", I don't like him or her" ?

I don't know why. Yet we do it. It is when this viewing of anothers writing or other expressions is turned within, towards ones self, that one can find racial memories that go back to the dawns of life on Earth. And beyond.

These lives at the dawns of life on Earth did not have hands and feet and mouths to speak with, yet as we are they were also of The Mother and The Father, terms of respect that is due.

The Mother and The Father are not theories, they are facts. Gaia is not a theory, she is a fact. Are we but one form of life independent ? or are we interdependent with all life forms on Earth, part of a greater life unlike any of her parts ? Or are we both ? Call her Gaia, call her The Mother, call her Earth, she is a fact.

I hope it is seen that this addition is in offering of inner and greater definition and so not deemed inapropriate the encyclopedia.

Gaia is a fact.

it's fine to put such comment here, in "talk". But what you are talking about is some kind of "Gaian cosmology" <-- click both terms to see the separate definitions. For it to be a "fact" to the satisfaction of the Karl Popper clones here, you would have to destroy Gaia and see if you survived. Their MAD view of the universe is under debate in talk:particle physics. What can we agree on? Well, maybe the idea of a foundation ontology, but maybe not, as some of them seem willing to sabotage or delete articles that try to build bridges betwen world-views.

To be clear, I (Nate Silva) moved someone else's comments which were inappropriately in the article, to this talk page. I certainly don't endorse the comments! (It appears the poster has tried to re-insert his/her comments and someone else has removed them again. If it happens again it should probably go to wikipedia:vandalism in progress.)

---

Hum...maybe we could find a better example than that wind

Ant

---

>A simple example is large trees having the effect of reducing wind energy, alowing organisms to live underneath the canopy; there's an inverse relation between the amount of light an organism receives as against the degree to which it must absorb wind energy for the system. (I forget the paper where I read this forest example - I don't think it was Lovelock who said it though. Needs checking)

Well, I didnot find who said that. And I am puzzled by the point about the inverse relation between amount of light and capacity to absorb the wind energy. I find that not very clear.

To illustrate the <<plants are selected for the microclimate effects which they can have locally to themselves>> point, I think the relationship between trees and pteridophytes is very obvious. Large trees have for example the effect of limiting direct sun light and on trapping humidity. This create a very favorable microclimate for organisms such as ferns. First because they rather thrive in shadowy light. Second because their reproductive cycle is highly dependant on water (sexual reproduction is achieved through the liberation of swimming gametophytes).

To rather illustrate the <<these patterns also exist on some wider scales, with symbiotic relationships existing for larger scale climate modification>> point, I think the lichens symbiosis and ecological impact is a great example. Lichens have a dual nature. They are a symbiosis between fungus and algae. Algea is the photosynthetic organism, and provides metabolites to the fungus. The latter offers shelter to the algae (protection against the wind and direct sunlight) and provides water, CO2, minerals and some organic molecules. Lichens are exceptional pioneers, able to grow on sand, rock, lava...They are in particular a key species in the artic ecosystem, where they form a deep layer regulating soil temperature and humidity, hosting and providing food to many species. By incrustration in the substrate and through acid liberation, they desintegrate rocks and contribute over time to pedogenesis, thus opening the way to a dynamic colonization by moss, ferns and later superior plants.

Just to clarify things, I think I stand in the middle of that spectrum of hypotheses. However, I support the fact that life characteristics are changing over time, through changes in a whole species (favored by a climatologic/pedologic/atmospheric situation) rather than through one individual in a species. Upon long-span times, waves of extinction, emergence of new groups, success of some of them and potential extinction again. That point of view supports the conservation of life, but not so much the conservation of a specific life/organism. It agrees with the conservation of conditions for life support, but maybe not the conservation of the same conditions. I do not know how to express it very well, but I guess that is probably more about evolution than what I see as potential stagnation.

I wonder what really defines the biosphere to be off-balance... I see off-balance as a point where the planet is badly heading toward conditions improper to life, thus leading to her death. But I think many people support the idea that off-balance is when heading toward conditions where actual life/species (part of it) are losing support (ie, extinction of some species).

did you read the Gaia Theory proper? damn this naming non-convention - the Theory holds (unlike the small-t theory which is the field itself) that the balances are homeorhetic, like technical ceilings and floors in the stock market. That doesn't necessrily mean "death" for Earth but it might wipe out the dominant species on the top of the food chain and many others. It would certainly drastically cut back on the ability to support human life since all our culture and infrastructure is designed for climate conditions more or less as they are. Extinction is a normal part of Gaia just like cell death, but accelerating it by concious effort (or failures of restraint by dominant species who will go nameless here) certainly can lead to 'conditions improper to life' in that broad sense above. To actually wipe out Gaia the biosphere you'd have to replace the cyanophytes at the bottom of the food chain, out competing them for light and thus food. It's happened. The cyanophytes *got* there by replacing older bacteria that didn't pump out oxygen at all... about a billion years ago when Earth had a methane atmosphere. THe single-celled shit-critters that ruled Earth then sure got flushed in a hurry... and so might we...

Though I agree the more biodiversity, the better for a good balance.

the original Gaia Hypothesis held that the Earth's biosphere may be in homeostasis - but that is impossible to prove, as if it is, then disrupting that balance is critical to our survival, and disrupting it will kill us all. It doesn't have falsifiability since the experiment is outside any feasible method, and certainly outside any reasonable method. The fantasy thought experiment where we try to disrupt the homeostasis, e.g. by massive global thermonuclear assault, and succeed, and somehow survive in significant numbers, is pretty much the only way to test the Gaia Hypothesis. Meanwhile, the Hypothesis fuels fantasies that the Earth will always clean up after us like a loving parent - so it is also morally hazardous. Same with meme hypothesis - which has spawned many more testable "meme theories" and should replace Dawkin's vague concept ASAP to avoid the moral hazard and enable testing. It's not just BIO diversity which is good for what we think of as well-being - it's also PSYCHO diversity...

The position of one on the "spectrum" is somehow highly related to his role as an observer or as an actor. Highly, but not completely. Many people are only (non-consciously maybe) on the undeniable side, but are putting a lot of energy in trying to level the balance.

Ant

---

I think I did (though these h, H, t and T ...), but probably I didnot. Neither did I succeed to put in words where I thought differently. Doesn't matter anyway.

>That doesn't necessrily mean "death" for Earth but it might wipe out the dominant species on the top of the food chain and many others. It would certainly drastically cut back on the ability to support human life since all our culture and infrastructure is designed for climate conditions more or less as they are.

However, I understood that both L. and M. said that there were some essential elements that the planet couldnot afford to lose (cyanophytes for example) while other elements were quite secondary (big animals for example). If so, our disappearance wouldnot mean much and our role in the structure is pretty limited. We could be just some temporary animals. And having people believe in that theory (or T, whatever) wouldnot help a lot to make humans act to "push" in the right direction (or at least make them stop pushing in the wrong...). It would just make them realize how little and insignificant they are, just a tiny part of a giant scheme. Do you see what I mean here ? They might get more conscious of the importance of interconnection between all the different elements, of the cooperation that can exist between some uni or pluri organisms... that could give them the idea of entering the global arrangement. But if they are driven to believe in that scheme, and are driven to believe they are mites, how would they feel the importance of their acts ?

>the original Gaia Hypothesis held that the Earth's biosphere may be in homeostasis - but that is impossible to prove

How much does it matter if that might help in the end to restaure a certain peace on the earth ? I mean, I kind of believe in God, as milions of people. Only, there could be as many Gods as they are believers, since we have no proof of its existence. Just as Gaia. Of course we have a nice bunch of people fighting with others on that very subject. I guess they mostly are calling Him for help while doing so, as the kids are sometimes being a pain just as a call for attention. I guess they are waiting for their God to prove his existence by doing so. Still, there are many other believers that live in peace, maybe is there more peace on earth because they believe. And meanwhile, there are also people trying to prove that God is a fact. For those who believe in Gaia and want to use her to "save the earth", the only thing to fear is these people that could dream of proving Gaia existence by trying to wipe it out. The others...why wouldnot they accept it as they are accepting God without any proof ? They are more numerous.

Little Ant