I was wondering about the acceptance among people studying or central to biology for the theory of how all the systems on Earth function in accordance with each other; and are self-regulating processes For example; the deposition of limestone encouraging tectonic shift as well as the development of volcanoes can be thought as Earth using a biotic factor to usher along an abiotic process. Gaia theory is very interesting to me; and seems rather convincing; considering that a mathematical model of it (Daisyworld) is so easily presented and understood.
Gaia theory
- Thread starter red2233
- Start date
I do think systems tend to move towards equilibrium or semi-stable states, but there is no real stable state. The Earth is constantly out of balance. Gaia is a flawed theory.
Gaia theory isn't a scientific theory. It's really just a simile that says that because the Earth is complicated and has some self-regulating (to some extent) processes, it is "like" a living organism. The "evidence" usually presented for it is a list of examples of self-regulating processes that are already known about. So from a scientific perspective, to the extent Gaia theory is correct it is trivial and obvious, but not everything about the way Earth works is self-regulating, and the comparison with a living organism doesn't add anything of scientific value.
You might appreciate Gaia theory as some sort of "science based" simile (or philosophy if you're into "saving the planet" sort of stuff), but otherwise it more closely resembles something you'd discuss in an English literature class than a hard science class.
You might appreciate Gaia theory as some sort of "science based" simile (or philosophy if you're into "saving the planet" sort of stuff), but otherwise it more closely resembles something you'd discuss in an English literature class than a hard science class.
So Gaia is something is put down to English literature is it....foolish
Are we not seeing the affects of Gaia pushing back with storms all over the Planet, imbalances - floods, drought etc
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
There's nothing foolish about literature, so long as its metaphors are recognized as something midway between truth and fiction, rather than regarded as literal truth.
This is the normal functioning of the planet as temperatures reach their maximum at the end of an ice age. Adding more heat energy to a system will usually cause it to perform in a more animated way. And we are indeed approaching the end of an ice age--which is defined as the disappearance of permanent ice (glaciers and polar caps) on the earth's surface.
Perhaps anthropogenic forces will raise temperatures to a higher level than they have attained in previous warming-cooling cycles. And conditions which have never before existed will obviously result in the planet functioning in a way that has never happened before. But this is not "pushing back" as if there were an organic system behind it. It is merely the laws of the natural universe in action.
As I've noted many times before, Jung pointed out that humans have an instinct for belief in the supernatural programmed into our DNA. (He died before genetics became a science but this is how he would have presented his theory of archetypes today.) The old Bronze Age religions are (very) slowly fading away, leaving a vacuum of supernaturalist belief systems--or "spirituality" as the believers call them. So the Gaia hypothesis springs up to fill the void. Other people are simply resurrecting pre- or non-Abrahamist motifs such as Wicca or the (horribly misinterpreted) Maya calendar doomsday.
Abraham's teachings have so many specific components that are laughable under the lens of modern science. Many people are turning to established spiritual movements like Buddhism, the Dao and (very recently established) Baha'i, which are not quite so incompatible with modernity.