Help The Gaia Principle

[russell]

Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Been doing some research for my next essay -I have never even heard of this? Have you, or is it a load of crap?

 

[ECA]

I've heard of it and thought about it.
It's not that uncommon.

I think its more akin to think of the planet like a cell - is the wall and structure of the cell alive or is it everything else going on inside on much smaller scale?

 

[Will]

I quite like the Gaia theorem. The simple version is that the whole planet is a series of interconnected feedback mechanisms, which work to preserve a level of status. If things are pushed too far, things will readjust to a new status-quo. I've got James Lovelocks book at home somwhere, but I'd probably be able to help you out with it, it was one of the few things I passed at Uni.

 

[rynnor]

Its an idea thats been kicking around for a long while - it has re-gained interest recently as its an arguement sometimes used against the Global warming scare since it argues the planet will sort out excess CO2 on its own.

Its main problem was that its originator didnt always phrase things very scientifically which upset a lot of other scientists who dismissed it out of hand.

However some of it has proven to be true - the world does have a number of mechanisms that help maintain an equilibrium - thats basically accepted.

However some take the theory a lot further and its been rather popular with 'wooly thinkers' who see a design or will behind the whole process.

If I were you writing an essay I'd stick to the provable side rather than the philosophical side (unless your studying philosophy in which case knock yourself out on it )

Personally, I dont completely dismiss it but I think it will take many further years of research to really know one way or the other.

 

[Will]

Its an idea thats been kicking around for a long while - it has re-gained interest recently as its an arguement sometimes used against the Global warming scare since it argues the planet will sort out excess CO2 on its own.

The original novel states that CO2 levels have changed in the past, and once we reach a certain tipping point, there will be an uncontrollable change.

If you are writing an essay, stick to general principles and Daisyworld (its a good example of the thinking behind the theorem).

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Amusingly a lot of people misinterpret that the Gaia theory means all will be well for humankind come what may, as if our place in the eco system was a well earned hallowed place or some right when really we are just one more species here.

Whoops.

 

[Scouse]

It sort of treats the earth as a complex single living entity iirc. Like it very much but when Azimov went down that road in his "Foundation" series of books he totally fucked them up

Other than that, it'd be nice if a few more people thought of the earth as an intensely interconnected biosphere - 'cause it is.

 

[pikeh]

Did an Illustration project on this in the final year, loved reading about it.

 

[russell]

Thanks guys. I am impressed with your knowledge.

 

[DaGaffer]

I've always found it a bit..."so what?" tbh. Even if correct (and later refinements of Lovelock's initial theories look plausible), it doesn't have much to do with us; and in fact emphasises the futility of our tinkering with a bit of C02 levels here, CFC levels there. Its hubris to assume we have any say in the balance of the environment, and whether we like it or not, it will switch to a different homoeostatic state in the future (as it has a number of times in the past), and probably one that's not suited to us. The one advantage we have over all the other species that have gone before us though is that we don't need to rely on evolution to adapt us to our environment any more.

(Usual caveat that I don't believe we should be burning fossil fuels, but for resource reasons not C02 reasons).

 

[ECA]

I've always found it a bit..."so what?" tbh. Even if correct (and later refinements of Lovelock's initial theories look plausible), it doesn't have much to do with us; and in fact emphasises the futility of our tinkering with a bit of C02 levels here, CFC levels there. Its hubris to assume we have any say in the balance of the environment, and whether we like it or not, it will switch to a different homoeostatic state in the future (as it has a number of times in the past), and probably one that's not suited to us. The one advantage we have over all the other species that have gone before us though is that we don't need to rely on evolution to adapt us to our environment any more.

(Usual caveat that I don't believe we should be burning fossil fuels, but for resource reasons not C02 reasons).

Sure it does, lets say we manage to raise the temperature a few degrees too many on average, we disrupt the gulf stream trigger another ice age and billions of us die out.

We don't know enough about how the mechanics of the earth interoperate to say what we do is good or bad.

 

[DaGaffer]

Sure it does, lets say we manage to raise the temperature a few degrees too many on average, we disrupt the gulf stream trigger another ice age and billions of us die out.

We don't know enough about how the mechanics of the earth interoperate to say what we do is good or bad.

But "Gaia" could (and probably will) do that anyway. Life in general may be important in maintaining the ecological balance, but we're not, and we obviously don't understand the implications of any actions we take (not enough data). After all its entirely possible we've been fending off an ice age for several hundred years by fossil fuel burning already.

 

[rynnor]

Sure it does, lets say we manage to raise the temperature a few degrees too many on average, we disrupt the gulf stream trigger another ice age and billions of us die out.

One thing that became clear from the Gaia hypothesis was that the climate is a very complex series of inter-related processes - we currently understand very little about it and humans have a tendency to look for single causes for things.

Thus all the nonsense about CO2 - its way too early for a science based view - all we have at the moment are people pushing pet theories.

 

[Wij]

Always seemed like crap to me. Treat the planet as one big entity ? Why ? Treat it as lots of things that are interconnected to various degrees please since THAT'S WHAT IT IS !!1

Pointless wordplay.

As to the stuff about moving to different equilibriums. That's just what complex systems do.

 

[SawTooTH]

Always seemed like crap to me. Treat the planet as one big entity ? Why ? Treat it as lots of things that are interconnected to various degrees please since THAT'S WHAT IT IS !!1

Pointless wordplay.

As to the stuff about moving to different equilibriums. That's just what complex systems do.

What he said.

Doesn't really matter , all this global warming malarky, just politicians keeping our eyes off their expense claims.

 

[WPKenny]

The game Sim Earth was all based on this theory. See if you can find a copy to get a living breathing simulation of the theory in action.

 

[nath]

Always seemed like crap to me. Treat the planet as one big entity ? Why ? Treat it as lots of things that are interconnected to various degrees please since THAT'S WHAT IT IS !!1

Pointless wordplay.

As to the stuff about moving to different equilibriums. That's just what complex systems do.

Kermit, Bale and myself agree.