If Earth is a living organism, then we -- with our understanding of rocketry and biospherics -- would be its reproductive organs. Which means that the Gaia is just beginning to reach sexual maturity.
Organisms hitting puberty are notoriously moody, weird, and confused, alternating between bouts of idealism and self-destructiveness. Looking at the state of the world today, I'd say the Gaia hypothesis, at least in this respect, is holding up.
If a dog is a living organism, then fleas -- as they gain the ability to jump to other dogs -- would be it's reproductive organs. Which means that a dog with fleas jumping off is just beginning to reach sexual maturity.
Organisms hitting puberty are notoriously moody, weird, and confused, alternating between bouts of idealism and self-destructiveness. Looking at the state of dogs crawling with fleas, I'd say the flea-bitten-dog hypothesis, at least in this respect, is holding up.
In a bit of a downer, a large mass hurtling through space colliding with the Earth would probably be a far more effective means of dispersing life than SpaceX or Blue Origin or NASA or ISRO, etc. The lack of an anthropocentric teleology is one of the things that makes Gaia both intellectually interesting and hard for people to stomach.
This article is garbage in that it provides no scientific claims, nor is the scientific community taking this claim seriously. "Exhibiting homeostasis of some sort" is not a very high bar for evidence of life, otherwise every corporation is biologically alive (just please don't ask our Supreme Court).
Honestly this was strongly uploaded in part because the community here is weaker in biology -- a similarly garbage engineering article would never have seen the front page.
I dont think this community is weak in biology and even if it were its strong enough in scientific method to know Gaia hypothesis is not scientific.
However I do believe its an interesting and useful perspective or model to to guide scientists by as they often, to become really knowledgable at something, have to isolate their subject matter quite a lot. Having this bigger more holistic perspective could have some advantages. Maybe, who knows.
Its certainly not something which is not needed and its certainly not science, but perhaps a kind of ethical framework.
> "Exhibiting homeostasis of some sort" is not a very high bar for evidence of life, otherwise every corporation is biologically alive
But that doesn't disqualify homeostasis as evidence of life, as corporations don't emerge except when living creatures create them.
Anyway, as I understood it, homeostasis is by definition a quality of living beings. Many things have a tendency towards an equilibrium, and of course that doesn't have to have anything to do with life.
If there is no hypothesis, the idea cannot be proved or disproved. In that case the approach equates with faith and it cannot (scientifically) be taken seriously.
The article has a strong title, yet at least to me presents no arguments to support it's claim.
I just wanted to add a counter point that there exists lots of serious(ly-taken) science that cannot be based merely on hypotheses and on attempts of proving or disproving those.
Each practical research project starts by defining the context and bounds of research. It seems to me that he is proposing the adaptation of a more general strategy when defining the context. He does not make any claims other than that the limited context apparently present in some astrobiological, geological, etc., studies might cause you to miss crucial things. A very hard claim to prove or disprove a priori but this does not render the viewpoint useless.
You can sort of explain how life is in beautiful symbiosis with the planet it resides on, but mostly this sort of perspectives cause harm. It's not science and encourages magical thinking.
- "Gaia" makes it easy to think we are bound to Earth, and that nature protects Earth. There is no magical force that ties us to Earth, or a magical force that keeps it liveable, it's just a lucky coincidence and a complex set of systems. Maybe we stop global warming, and then a supervolcano erupts.
- "Balance of ecosystems" creates the illusion that even the tiniest change in nature will hurt it. We spend more time worrying about tigers going extinct than an asteroid wiping out all life.
- "Biodiversity" makes us think that more variety is always better. No universal law rules that a single super-crop couldn't keep us happy and fed in an environment without biodiversity. If we bring two of each species to a space station, it won't be because of economic reasons. Wild animals and plants do their best to destroy biodiversity constantly anyways.
- "Nature knows" causes us to think that naturally occurring solutions are better. For example the genetically engineered Golden Rice, which could save millions of lives yearly, is a victim of this belief.
Similar flaws in thinking even cause most of the medical profession to only see medicine as a way to treat disease instead of improving wellbeing. Ask doctors and they'll tell you: all medicine has side-effects! If you gave doctors a pill that eliminates the need for sleep without side effects, they would only give it to people who are dying from insomnia.
The truth is, despite its widespread moniker, Gaia is not
really a hypothesis. It’s a perspective
Yes it is. However, the article does not explain, at least to me, what it means to take that perspective 'seriously'. Everything that is described as something that can be seen from that perspective are also reported by people that would not describe themselves as looking from the Gaia perspective.
I don't see how they relate biological homeostasis to climate. If homeostatic systems are functioning, like in blood sugar or oxygen control, their values are kept in a very tight range near the setpoint. In contrast, temperature has varied greatly over the millennia, as have ocean acidity and other variables, thereby showing Earth is very much not like an organism.
Wow. I have read a bunch of really good articles on nautil.us that I discovered through HN. I have been thinking of getting the 2 year digital/print subscription to support the type of journalism I want to see. But um... this article is kinda making me reconsider.
Why stop there when by the same reasoning we can claim entire solar systems and galaxies are living? At what point does that exercise become pointless?
Exactly, the idea of mystical living Gaia does not have any scientific value.
The biosphere of Earth is indeed a huge and very complex system, but it's pointless to "animate" it, it lives according to its own laws that should be studied objectively, not according to some fuzzy analogies rooted in our bias and perceptions (an example of a similar bias: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anthropomorphism).
The same as we apply it to living beings: we are made of specialized cells each doing their job to keep the whole system working, some of them are made for reproduction. Maybe planetary reproduction starts when one of its products colonizes another one (like us, humans)?
I know that's a very far-fetching idea/concept but I like to think in this way.
[+] [-] nkoren|9 years ago|reply
Organisms hitting puberty are notoriously moody, weird, and confused, alternating between bouts of idealism and self-destructiveness. Looking at the state of the world today, I'd say the Gaia hypothesis, at least in this respect, is holding up.
[+] [-] qbrass|9 years ago|reply
Organisms hitting puberty are notoriously moody, weird, and confused, alternating between bouts of idealism and self-destructiveness. Looking at the state of dogs crawling with fleas, I'd say the flea-bitten-dog hypothesis, at least in this respect, is holding up.
[+] [-] brudgers|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dokein|9 years ago|reply
Honestly this was strongly uploaded in part because the community here is weaker in biology -- a similarly garbage engineering article would never have seen the front page.
[+] [-] ThomPete|9 years ago|reply
However I do believe its an interesting and useful perspective or model to to guide scientists by as they often, to become really knowledgable at something, have to isolate their subject matter quite a lot. Having this bigger more holistic perspective could have some advantages. Maybe, who knows.
Its certainly not something which is not needed and its certainly not science, but perhaps a kind of ethical framework.
[+] [-] ikurei|9 years ago|reply
But that doesn't disqualify homeostasis as evidence of life, as corporations don't emerge except when living creatures create them.
Anyway, as I understood it, homeostasis is by definition a quality of living beings. Many things have a tendency towards an equilibrium, and of course that doesn't have to have anything to do with life.
Am I misunderstanding the claim?
[+] [-] roesel|9 years ago|reply
The article has a strong title, yet at least to me presents no arguments to support it's claim.
[+] [-] vesinisa|9 years ago|reply
> The truth is, despite its widespread moniker, Gaia is not really a hypothesis. It’s a perspective [...].
[+] [-] knlje|9 years ago|reply
Each practical research project starts by defining the context and bounds of research. It seems to me that he is proposing the adaptation of a more general strategy when defining the context. He does not make any claims other than that the limited context apparently present in some astrobiological, geological, etc., studies might cause you to miss crucial things. A very hard claim to prove or disprove a priori but this does not render the viewpoint useless.
[+] [-] hedgew|9 years ago|reply
- "Gaia" makes it easy to think we are bound to Earth, and that nature protects Earth. There is no magical force that ties us to Earth, or a magical force that keeps it liveable, it's just a lucky coincidence and a complex set of systems. Maybe we stop global warming, and then a supervolcano erupts.
- "Balance of ecosystems" creates the illusion that even the tiniest change in nature will hurt it. We spend more time worrying about tigers going extinct than an asteroid wiping out all life.
- "Biodiversity" makes us think that more variety is always better. No universal law rules that a single super-crop couldn't keep us happy and fed in an environment without biodiversity. If we bring two of each species to a space station, it won't be because of economic reasons. Wild animals and plants do their best to destroy biodiversity constantly anyways.
- "Nature knows" causes us to think that naturally occurring solutions are better. For example the genetically engineered Golden Rice, which could save millions of lives yearly, is a victim of this belief.
Similar flaws in thinking even cause most of the medical profession to only see medicine as a way to treat disease instead of improving wellbeing. Ask doctors and they'll tell you: all medicine has side-effects! If you gave doctors a pill that eliminates the need for sleep without side effects, they would only give it to people who are dying from insomnia.
[+] [-] Confusion|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amatic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanattab|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jameslk|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Ch...
[+] [-] nightcracker|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golergka|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmytrish|9 years ago|reply
The biosphere of Earth is indeed a huge and very complex system, but it's pointless to "animate" it, it lives according to its own laws that should be studied objectively, not according to some fuzzy analogies rooted in our bias and perceptions (an example of a similar bias: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anthropomorphism).
[+] [-] sleepychu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] piva00|9 years ago|reply
I know that's a very far-fetching idea/concept but I like to think in this way.
[+] [-] forthefuture|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivarious|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlebrech|9 years ago|reply