New finding may hold key to Gaia hypothesis of Earth as living organism

May 15, 2012
New finding may hold key to Gaia hypothesis

(Phys.org) -- Is Earth really a sort of giant living organism as the Gaia hypothesis predicts? A new discovery made at the University of Maryland may provide a key to answering this question. This key of sulfur could allow scientists to unlock heretofore hidden interactions between ocean organisms, atmosphere, and land -- interactions that might provide evidence supporting this famous theory.

The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s -- holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.

One of the early predictions of this hypothesis was that there should be a sulfur compound made by organisms in the oceans that was stable enough against oxidation in water to allow its transfer to the air. Either the sulfur compound itself, or its atmospheric oxidation product, would have to return sulfur from the sea to the land surfaces. The most likely candidate for this role was deemed to be dimethyl sulfide.

Newly published work done at the University of Maryland by first author Harry Oduro, together with UMD James Farquhar and Kathryn Van Alstyne of Western Washington University, provides a tool for tracing and measuring the movement of sulfur through ocean organisms, the atmosphere and the land in ways that may help prove or disprove the controversial Gaia theory. Their study appears in this week's Online Early Edition of the (PNAS).

According to Oduro and his colleagues, this work presents the first direct measurements of the isotopic composition of dimethylsulfide and of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate. These measurements reveal differences in the of these two sulfur compounds that are produced by macroalga and phytoplankton. These measurements (1) are linked to the compounds' metabolism by these ocean organisms and (2) carry implications for tracking dimethylsulfide emissions from the ocean to the atmosphere.

Sulfur, the tenth most abundant element in the universe, is part of many inorganic and organic compounds. Sulfur cycles sulfur through the land, atmosphere and living things and plays critical roles in both climate and in the health of organisms and ecosystems.

"Dimethylsulfide emissions play a role in climate regulation through transformation to aerosols that are thought to influence the earth's radiation balance," says Oduro, who conducted the research while completing a Ph.D. in geology & earth system sciences at Maryland and now is a postdoctoral fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "We show that differences in isotopic composition of dimethylsulfide may vary in ways that will help us to refine estimates of its emission into the atmosphere and of its cycling in the oceans."

As with many other chemical elements, sulfur consists of different isotopes. All isotopes of an element are characterized by having the same number of electrons and protons but different numbers of neutrons. Therefore, isotopes of an element are characterized by identical chemical properties, but different mass and nuclear properties. As a result, it can be possible for scientists to use unique combinations of an element's radioactive isotopes as isotopic signatures through which compounds with that element can be traced.

"What Harry did in this research was to devise a way to isolate and measure the sulfur of these two ," says Farquhar, a professor in the University of Maryland's department of geology. "This was a very difficult measurement to do right, and his measurements revealed an unexpected variability in an isotopic signal that appears to be related to the way the sulfur is metabolized.

"Harry's work establishes that we should expect to see variability in the isotope signatures of these compounds in the oceans under different environmental conditions and for different organisms. I think this will ultimately be very important for using isotopes to trace the cycling of these compounds in the surface oceans as well as the flux of dimethylsulfide to the atmosphere. The ability to do this could help us answer important climate questions, and ultimately better predict climate changes. And it may even help us to better trace connections between dimethylsulfide emissions and sulfate aerosols, ultimately testing a coupling in the Gaia hypothesis," Farquhar says.

Explore further: NASA sees Tropical Cyclone Nilofar being affected by wind shear

More information: www.pnas.org/content/early/201… 691109.full.pdf+html

Related Stories

New way to measure sulfate particles

Oct 07, 2005

The University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology created an improved technique to measure sulfur isotopic ratios.

Origins of sulfur in rocks tells early oxygen story

Apr 16, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sedimentary rocks created more than 2.4 billion years ago sometimes have an unusual sulfur isotope composition thought to be caused by the action of ultra violet light on volcanically produced ...

Rich Ore Deposits Linked to Ancient Atmosphere

Nov 19, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Much of our planet's mineral wealth was deposited billions of years ago when Earth's chemical cycles were different from today's. Using geochemical clues from rocks nearly 3 billion years old, a group of ...

Climate change and the rise of atmospheric oxygen

Mar 23, 2006

Today's climate change pales in comparison with what happened as Earth gave birth to its oxygen-containing atmosphere billions of years ago. By analyzing clues contained in rocks, scientists at the Carnegie Institution's ...

The rise of oxygen caused Earth's earliest ice age

May 07, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Geologists may have uncovered the answer to an age-old question - an ice-age-old question, that is. It appears that Earth's earliest ice ages may have been due to the rise of oxygen in Earth's ...

Recommended for you

New study finds oceans arrived early to Earth

41 minutes ago

Earth is known as the Blue Planet because of its oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of the planet's surface and are home to the world's greatest diversity of life. While water is essential for life ...

Magma pancakes beneath Lake Toba

41 minutes ago

Where do the tremendous amounts of material that are ejected to from huge volcanic calderas during super-eruptions actually originate?

Fighting the global water scarcity issue

5 hours ago

According to the World Water Management Institute, over one-third of the human population is affected by water scarcity. If nothing is done to prevent it, an estimated 1.8 billion people will be living in ...

First Swedish hard-rock diamonds discovered

5 hours ago

An Uppsala-led research group has presented the first verified discovery of diamonds in Swedish bedrock. The diamonds are small, but provide important clues to the geological evolution of rocks.

User comments : 164

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Remigiusz
1.2 / 5 (19) May 15, 2012
We need to look carefully at Evolution of Universe from first point of Time-Space, to 3-dimensional Sphere with static energy,next transformation to multidimensional Universe with kinetic Energy, and to Universe with Live to register information, later with Live processing information, and today bearing upon next level of Evolution of Universe. I know that our brains use points of Time-Space and electromagnetic waves to communicate between cells. Universe is Quantum Computer with Quantum Hard-disk. Universe learns to process information for self-management and we are part of Its evolution. Want more!, email: Emethreality@yahoo.com
Terriva
1.5 / 5 (18) May 15, 2012
The complex interactions of many physical phenomena which are driving plate tectonic, climate and biosphere together still doesn't make the Earth a living object, capable of reproduction, heredity, tactility, motion and irritability. We can admit only presence of some self-regulating mechanisms, i.e. the adaptability - but the global warming illustrates, the limits in which the terrestrial environment can regulate itself are quite narrow and connected with mass extinctions. The terrestrial life is more brittle, than it may appear from local perspective.

In dense aether model the terrestrial life is sorta Boltzmann brain, i.e. the extraordinarily complex density fluctuation. The complexity of terrestrial condition is sorta extension of this complexity, because the isolated extreme fluctuations are rare at the Gaussian curve. We shouldn't expect the terrestrial life could evolve at some simpler planet without Moon, atmosphere, hydrosphere, inclination of axis, geovolcanism, etc.
Terriva
1 / 5 (13) May 15, 2012
The model of intelligent complex life is essentially geometric in the AWT model: just the asymmetry of travel across many density fluctuations at the SINGLE PLACE of the Universe makes it so large and complex of us. It's analogous to preparation of dense thick foam at the water surface: you should shake it repetitively at single place and not to allow the resulting foam escape. Only under such a situation a thick foamy mayonnaise corresponding the human brain could evolve spontaneously from quantum foam. When we are looking through huge extension of space into the distant past of Universe, we are actually looking through time arrows accumulated during our prolonged stay at the chaotic complex planet providing many kinds of repetitive motion across various density gradients for us.
dogbert
3.2 / 5 (27) May 15, 2012
The Gaia hypothesis is absurd. However, those seeking acceptance of such nonsense, as the authors of this article, are at least honest in their efforts to create a sentience out of natural processes. Many others who believe as these do are less honest.
Vendicar_Decarian
May 15, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Russkiycremepuff
2.9 / 5 (21) May 15, 2012
I believe it was the hippie generation of the 1970s in America who proposed such a silly idea to justify their moves to hippie communes in western states. I am not certain but I think that the church of Wicca also believes in Gaia as some kind of goddess. The earth does have ability to heal itself over time, but nothing to do with the mumbo jumbo.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
Hello Vendicar. It is nice to see you. Perhaps we will meet some day in Moskva?
darkfire
4.5 / 5 (13) May 15, 2012
There are parts of the theory that are not absurd if you remove the "sentient" part. You guys are taking it to literally. Personally it seems obvious. Life leads to ever greater and more complex life... and in the process the environment is changed towards one which favors more life. Does it do it consciously, no.. it's a natural byproduct of the process, of a massive interdependent system. Look at Earth, a living planet, compared to our barren neighbors. Earth used to be dull too.. but then life took hold. Earth became a lot more colorful and complex. And the process continues to this day. But, that being said, may be I walked away with a different understanding of the theory than others. [shrug]
C_elegans
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
RIP Margulis :-(
lovingthesounthernsun
4.5 / 5 (13) May 15, 2012
For anyone who has read the Gaia Theory (is now established) would know that there is no claim that the sum of the biosphere is a sentient being. It does however make a compelling case that the multitude of life forms of earth work together to make the earth a habitable place, and without this process life on this planet would be less diverse.

James Lovelock is a fairly straight Englishman who is well into his nineties.

Gaia was the Greek earth god.

New age/spiritual people like the Gaia idea because it looks at the planet as inter-connected entity and not as many disconnected random parts. Old school scientists don't like this as it goes against their theist god instincts (even if they are atheists).

The universe is a wonderful/fascinating complex place the Gaia theory helps us understand this, helps take us out of the dark ages.

NickFun
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
As we look for life on other worlds we will discover that other worlds are themselves living things.
allotrope6
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
Google is choked with this and Lovelock/climate. Can anyone explain why sulfur is so key to the Gaia hypothesis? (tia)
aroc91
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
My question- why? This is change for the sake of change. We can't just say that the Earth exists in a dynamic steady state between life and its abiotic factors?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
"Perhaps we will meet some day in Moskva?" - Russki

I'm at 10 Little Glade Street right now. Second floor, East Apt.

Come on over and have a beer.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (41) May 15, 2012
More idiotic propaganda for wacko tree-huggers to be indoctrinated into socialism.
allotrope6
5 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
Answering my own question (I think): Sulfate aerosol forcing; and sulfur, iodine & selenium transport sea->land; the sulfate forcing during such transport being a stabilizing feedback upon climate.
lovingthesounthernsun
4.2 / 5 (10) May 15, 2012
More idiotic propaganda for wacko tree-huggers to be indoctrinated into socialism.


You sound scared.

Are you scared that the universe is not simple and that peoples perceptions of it evolve through science and creative thought processes?
Raygunner
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
If intelligence can emerge in humans (such as it is) it sure as hell can emerge in a rock.
simplicio
3 / 5 (1) May 15, 2012
Old school scientists don't like this as it goes against their theist god instincts (even if they are atheists).

What is your meaning of this??
Nunyabiz
2.9 / 5 (15) May 15, 2012
Why is that, Tard Boy?

"The Gaia hypothesis is absurd." - DogTard

You are a shitty person from a shitty country..Vendicar.. Enjoy always being shit!
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
@Vendicar
The beer sounds very refreshing, but a glass of Stolichnaya is best. I will get in the embassy helicopter and fly over to bore you with my Adimensional space/time hypothesis which everyone hates and are ready to throw virtual knives at me, even Terriva of the AWT hates my entrails. Why do I feel so alone on that? Is it possible that Gaia can assist me? Where do I find her? How do I make her understand? I begin to sound like Tolstoy novel.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Well, that was bad timing.
Russkiycremepuff
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2012
More idiotic propaganda for wacko tree-huggers to be indoctrinated into socialism.
- Noumenon -

Socialism is the stuff that makes men blind to the fact that they are being beaten over their head, but are grateful for it. Socialism takes the young and convinces them that they can become scientists or doctors even if they can barely add and subtract but that it does not matter as long as their pride is not hurt. Socialism takes a nice old lady or old man and turns them into screeching vampires that feel entitled to the life's blood of their grandchildren. Socialism is the fat of the land given to the pirates and brigands who call it social justice.

And then there is COMMUNISM, where everyone who is mentally and physically able must work and no excuses are allowed. Compare the two and make your choice.

lovingthesounthernsun
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2012
Old school scientists don't like this as it goes against their theist god instincts .....

What is your meaning of this??


What I meant was that scientists from the west (predominantly Europe and the USA) came from a society where the predominant creation myth came from the old testament. One where the world is made in a week, 10,000 years ago, by one individual and the earth is the center of everything, apart from heaven which is elsewhere (?). In this version of reality man is placed between heaven and earth, separate, disconnected from the planet. Although a scientist may claim to have rejected the creator god he is still hostage to the mindset through conditioning from his/her childhood. So any system which asks for an interconnected thought processes will cause him philosophical difficulties.

Just an observation about the Gaia theory, if humans are also included (not separate) in the theory, then consciousness is definitely part of the interconnected mix.
simplicio
3.4 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
Although a scientist may claim to have rejected the creator god he is still hostage to the mindset through conditioning from his/her childhood. So any system which asks for an interconnected thought processes will cause him philosophical difficulties.

No, no. Scientists, doesn't matter which background, are not hostages to primitive creation myth or philosophy. They are men of science, seeker of truth. They have no need for such foolish things.
lovingthesounthernsun
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2012
No, no. Scientists, doesn't matter which background, are not hostages to primitive creation myth or philosophy. They are men of science, seeker of truth. They have no need for such foolish things.

Ideally they would be all these good things, unfortunately 90% of them are fallible like the rest of us, prone to vanity and pride etc. Most of us are to some extent hostage to environmental pressures which include social mores.

Look how hard it was for Darwin. One is always hearing of examples of senior scientists refusing to update their ideas, beyond the point of reason.
StarGazer2011
2.1 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
1) Theism has nothing to do with western scientists attitudes, its reductionism, the idea that any pheonomena is merely and exactly the sum of their parts. The Gaia hypothesis claims the Earth is more than the sum of its parts. In the 1970's this might have seemed quite interesting, but now we call the sel-regulating behavior of Earth 'emergent properties of a complex system'; its a branch of maths. (No voodoo required).

Next, the hypothesis itself is merely that the Earth exhibits connected properties, its just Dirk Gently's interconnectedness of things.

Sulphur is an interesting choice; perhaps the next meme is that Gaia saved us from CAGW through its sulphur cycle? SO2 is often credited with the failure of CAGW to show up and is generally used as the fudge of choice for curvefitting climate models to past data. So maybe this is the doomsday cults way out; Gaia saved us! Shuttup its SCIENCE!
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Its important to remember that 'climate models' only match the past because the post normalists creating then use aerosols to match/patch the model output to the data in a completely arbitrary and self serving way.
They create the model and then assume that any discrepancy between the models past and the actual data is due to aerosols and adjust the aerosols accordingly to give a perfect fit; to give the illusion that the model matches the past (it doesnt).
Then they use the future predicitions (which dont have aerosol adjustment) to provide a pseudo-scientific platform for a global terror campaign.

RobPaulG
2.3 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Another "News of the World" level article. This web site is getting embarrassing.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s -- holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.


Id prefer articles without the Gaia religion, please.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Calling Earth a 'giant living organism' when there is just a surface smear of a few kilometers thickness that supports life as compared to 13000km diameter is a bit ludicrous.

Earth is a ball of lava with a thin crust which has a biofilm on top.

From this alone you can see that if something starts happening within the planet (cooling down of the mantle, etc.) the 'Gaia' part stands the chance of a snowball in hell (or quite the reverse) of self regulating for a life sustaining environment.

holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system.

Sentient would imply the ability to plan ahead. I don't see this ability expressed in a 'Gaia' organism. 'Gaia' isn't even stiumlus-response.
Sigh
3.5 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
Why is that, Tard Boy?
"The Gaia hypothesis is absurd." - DogTard

My problem always has been that evolution needs populations to work on, and Gaia would be a single entity. That makes it rather difficult to explain where it would come from.

Also, adding "Tard" to the name of everyone you disagree with distracts from your arguments or questions. If you have a good point, the name calling doesn't help.
hagger
2 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Gaia was moving along just fine till we arrived..we do not live with the best interests of the earth in mind..we are not mature or intelligent enough as yet to realize we are earth bound..and once we have depleted all resources there is no other option to hop too..and don't give me the space travel crap..this is it boys and girls..look after it..and who ever is the last, turn off the light...
kevinrtrs
1.8 / 5 (19) May 16, 2012
Look at Earth, a living planet, compared to our barren neighbors. Earth used to be dull too.. but then life took hold

Somehow this makes earth seem very, very special. Why would life take hold here and not on the immediate neighbors Venus and Mars? Come to think of it, ALL the other planets are barren - as far as we know, so what is so special about earth?
Furthermore, how does life "take hold" just like that? We know from basic chemistry and biology that the biochemistry that make up even the basic cells simply do not drop out of the sky [or self-assemble in some backwater scum pond all by themselves], so just how did life get started on Earth - with no outside intelligent intervention? Even the most advanced human scientific endeavors have so far failed to answer this question. In fact there's a million dollar prize awaiting the person(s) who can truly bring a [scientifically] satisfactory answer to this question.
One thing is quite clear - the earth is created 2B inhabited.
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
Somehow this makes earth seem very, very special -KevinTard

It is - it's unique. Just like every other planet is unique.

Why would life take hold here and not on the immediate neighbors Venus and Mars? -Tard

Because the physical conditions aren't right. OTOH they may have microbial life that we haven't yet discovered.

Come to think of it, ALL the other planets are barren - as far as we know -KevinTard

Which isn't very far at all.

Furthermore, how does life "take hold" just like that? -KevinTard

Fake question. And you don't want to know, so stop wasting electrons KingOfTards.

We know from basic chemistry ... that make up even the basic cells simply do not drop out of the sky [or self-assemble in some backwater scum pond all by themselves], so just how did life get started on Earth - with no outside intelligent intervention?

How moronic can you get? Oh right, here it comes:
One thing is quite clear - the earth is created 2B inhabited -Tard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
"Is it possible that Gaia can assist me?" - Russkie

Probably not. She just likes doing her own thing. She is a free spirit.

"Where do I find her?" - Ruskie

If you do not already know, then she will always elude you.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Co-Evolution.

"My problem always has been that evolution needs populations to work on, and Gaia would be a single entity." - Sigh

Your species of course has evolved to have bodies consisting of 90% bacteria by count. Even your own cells are comprised in part by bacteria.

Do you consider yourself one organism?

Did you evolve to be a happy home to all those bacteria or are you just losing out to them?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
Isn't mankind planning to deflect asteroids to prevent the earth from being impacted? Is that not an example of planning ahead?

"I don't see this ability expressed in a 'Gaia' organism. " - Antilias

I admit that this is a new feature of Gaia. The coming extermination of the Conservative menace will greatly improve Gaia's ability to think rationally.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
I prefer seeing articles without response from ignorant Conservatives.

"Id prefer articles without the Gaia religion" - ShotManTard
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (17) May 16, 2012
I believe it was the hippie generation of the 1970s in America who proposed such a silly idea to justify their moves to hippie communes in western states.


Nope. It was a NASA scientist named James Lovelock who proposed the Gaia Hypothesis as the result of marsian life research.
The Gaia Hypothesis is the basis of all modern climate science models.
kaasinees
2.4 / 5 (17) May 16, 2012
Gaia was moving along just fine till we arrived..

You know what the sad thing is? We hold the intelligence to stabilize the earth in a way that no other organisms can.
We could manage greenhouse gasses on a global level so that the earth will become stable (we are heading this way though). But we are sadly still doing so much destruction towards our planet.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2012
Calling Earth a 'giant living organism' when there is just a surface smear of a few kilometers thickness that supports life as compared to 13000km diameter is a bit ludicrous.

No its not.

Without life, earths core would probably have died out like on mars.
It is a complete system, much like our bodies are a complete system. Just like every bacteria in our body is a complete system.

Id prefer articles without the Gaia religion


Its not a religion. Gaia is just a name, it has nothing todo with metaphysical in fact it is the result of physical studies of planets(namely mars and earth).
ShotmanMaslo
2.8 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
I prefer seeing articles without response from ignorant Conservatives.

"Id prefer articles without the Gaia religion" - ShotManTard


Lol I am anything but a conservative. From your responses you seem to be as ideologically driven and close-minded as conservatives, only the ideology is opposite. I prefer to think independently of one dimensional political brackets.

Gaia is not science, its a religion. The Earth is not an organism, but a planet, and it cannot be sentient, there is no nervous system or equivalent. Maybe the comparison with living organisms can be a nice *analogy* when it comes to some things, but thats all.
Lets keep it real. Hippie mysticism has no place in science.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (25) May 16, 2012
More idiotic propaganda for wacko tree-huggers to be indoctrinated into socialism.
- Noumenon -

Socialism is the stuff that makes men blind to the fact that they are being beaten over their head, but are grateful for it. Socialism takes the young and convinces them that they can become scientists or doctors even if they can barely add and subtract but that it does not matter as long as their pride is not hurt. Socialism takes a nice old lady or old man and turns them into screeching vampires that feel entitled to the life's blood of their grandchildren. Socialism is the fat of the land given to the pirates and brigands who call it social justice.

And then there is COMMUNISM, where everyone who is mentally and physically able must work and no excuses are allowed. Compare the two and make your choice.



There is another choice, which has already been made in the west,... the results and comparison to the above are clear.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
James Lovelock is a very intelligent man and one of my "idols".
Without him we had no climate science and he contributed more to science than any of the people commenting on this article.

James Lovelock on Gaia Theory:
Daisyworld part1 - http://youtu.be/-gVERGAieng
Daisyworld part2 - http://youtu.be/I47vhzErOCE
Daisyworld part3 - http://youtu.be/1gIQShSrk1I
Daisyworld part4 - http://youtu.be/4_lszR3B8xI

Pattern_chaser
5 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
Terriva said "...doesn't make the Earth a LIVING OBJECT" (my capitals, for emphasis), when the OP referred clearly to the Earth being (according to the Gaia hypothesis) "essentially sentient".

Change your opponent's argument to something ridiculous, then attack it, and show it's ridiculous. It's called a "straw man" argument, and it isn't valid. Address what was actually said (written) please.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Without life, earths core would probably have died out like on mars.

Care to explain this? Why exactly would the absence of life prevent a ball with 13000km diameter of molten material to stay molten?

What exactly is the mechanism involved here? And please be specific (a formula would be preferrable).
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (17) May 16, 2012
What exactly is the mechanism involved here? And please be specific (a formula would be preferrable).

Well that is a complex story as we would have to include the role of every organism. Abiogenesis is a good place to start in the first place.

Care to explain this? Why exactly would the absence of life prevent a ball with 13000km diameter of molten material to stay molten?

Common sense? At which rate would the earth loose its temperature if there was no regulated atmosphere?

How would our stomach hold its temperature if we had no blood flow in our skin to prevent our bodies from cooling off?

Cmon you have a brain, use it.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
kaasinees - irrelevant analogy is irrelevant. And "common sense" is useless in science.
CardacianNeverid
4.6 / 5 (11) May 16, 2012
Common sense? At which rate would the earth loose its temperature if there was no regulated atmosphere? -kaasiknees

Um, at exactly the same rate?
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
kaasinees - irrelevant analogy is irrelevant. And "common sense" is useless in science.

Who are you compared to a famous NASA scientist especially in climate science?

Stop the strawman and give real arguments.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Common sense? At which rate would the earth loose its temperature if there was no regulated atmosphere?

Energy equilibrium would indicate that the rate would not differ markedly. The Earth's crust insulates exceptionally well against heat loss without any need of an atmosphere.

Well that is a complex story as we would have to include the role of every organism. Abiogenesis is a good place to start in the first place.

We've got time. I like hearing complex stories. Explain where the role of every organism comes into this. Or where abiogenesis comes into this. Please. Do.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
kaasinees - irrelevant analogy is irrelevant. And "common sense" is useless in science.

Who are you compared to a famous NASA scientist especially in climate science?

Stop the strawman and give real arguments.


Stop the appeal to authority.

Real arguments:
Life on Earth does not influence the rate of atmospheric loss in any way.
Life on Earth does not influence the molten Earth core in any way.
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (14) May 16, 2012
Energy equilibrium would indicate that the rate would not differ markedly. The Earth's crust insulates exceptionally well against heat loss without any need of an atmosphere.

What energy equilibrium? You mean like on mars and mercury?

We've got time. I like hearing complex stories. Explain where the role of every organism comes into this. Or where abiogenesis comes into this. Please. Do.

Have you seen the videos i posted? They explain pretty well.
I didnt know you were one of those scientist deniers.
I could explain it here but why bother with your biased opinions?
TS1
1.8 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012

There are parts of the theory that are not absurd if you remove the "sentient" part. You guys are taking it to literally

Well it is not the commenters that are claiming it is sentient but the authors of this article. To me sounds like those authors are attempting to promote faith on an unseen intelligence based on external evidence. In other words, they are attempting to promote a religion (just like the supporting commenters are doing here).
kaasinees
2 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
In other words, they are attempting to promote a religion (just like the supporting commenters are doing here).

Im highly against religion and Gaia Hypothesis has nothing to do with religion.
read the comments again, or read an actual book on gaia hypothesis.
(which by now is an accepted and observed and experimented theory)

If it was a religion we would never use the words such as hypothesis or theory.
kaasinees
2.2 / 5 (17) May 16, 2012
The Earth is not an organism, but a planet,

So if i wear a spacesuit that is fully capable of supporting me and i am orbiting the sun i am no longer an organism? Makes sense, retard.

and it cannot be sentient,

Nobody called earth sentient, rather a living entity or organism.

there is no nervous system or equivalent.

Most organisms on earth dont have a nervous system at all... even some sentient organisms dont have a nervous system, retard of retards.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
Energy equilibrium would indicate that the rate would not differ markedly. The Earth's crust insulates exceptionally well against heat loss without any need of an atmosphere.

Did you include the thought of train when earth evolved or just used todays climate as a basis?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
I could explain it here but why bother with your biased opinions?

In other words: You were throwing around hot air and buzzwords and have no clue.

You mean like on mars and mercury?

Mars and Mercury are significantly smaller than Earth. (one seventh and one seventeenth in volume respectively). Pressure in these (which contributes to stuff being liquified) is much less. The amount of radioactivity contained in them that can keep stuff warm and fluid is much less. It's not surprising that they have cooled off by now.
It's also not entirely clear whether Mars doesn't have a liquid layer, yet

}So if i wear a spacesuit that is fully capable of supporting me and i am orbiting the sun i am no longer an organism?

You are. The spacesuit isn't. That's the point.
Musashi
2.6 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
Seriously... Tweak the definition enough and anything can be "alive". In turn, it makes the term pointless, and then we need another word to describe "life" as commonly understood without "gaia theories" in the mix.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
In other words: You were throwing around hot air and buzzwords and have no clue.

No i DO have a clue, but it wont matter if i spew it here because your opinion is biased. And the character limit puts me off.
Mars and Mercury are significantly smaller than Earth.

Mercury yes, Mars not that much indeed.
Pressure in these(which contributes to stuff being liquified) is much less.

Evidence?
The amount of radioactivity contained in them that can keep stuff warm and fluid is much less.

More evidence please.
It's not surprising that they have cooled off by now.

They cooled off because they have no stable atmosphere that has a stable temperature. Most of the time mercury is way colder than earth due to this reason.
It's also not entirely clear whether Mars doesn't have a liquid layer, yet

It did in the earlier days, without a doubt.

You are the one throwing buzz words around.
ShotmanMaslo
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
If you are composed of inorganic elements, you are not an organism. The Earth does not meet criteria for life. Its a largely inorganic planet, with small biofilm of life on the surface.

"Nobody called earth sentient"

Incorrect. From the article:
"The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s -- holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably connected to form a self-regulating, essentially sentient, system."

"Most organisms on earth dont have a nervous system at all..."

And they are not sentient because of that.

"even some sentient organisms dont have a nervous system"

Care to list an example of such organism?
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
If you are composed of inorganic elements, you are not an organism.

So because i have a few heavy elements in my body im no longer an organism?
Also they are largely categorized as such because of abundance and chemistry. Life would not exist without inorganic matter, so what is inorganic vs organic really mean?

Incorrect. From the article:

That is a mistake by the writer, nowhere does the hypothesis state that earth is sentient.
Read a book or look at the videos i posted earlier.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
Pressure in these(which contributes to stuff being liquified) is much less.


Evidence?

Pressure is a function of gravity. Are you arguing now that the gravity on Mars isn't significantly less than that on Earth? Wow....just ...wow...

The amount of radioactivity contained in them that can keep stuff warm and fluid is much less.


More evidence please.

As I said: the volume is significantly less. Unless you are arguing that Mars (being further out from the sun) somehow gathered up seven times MORE heavy atoms (which are the radioactive ones) then it sems easy to understand that the energy generated inside is vastly less on Mars than on Earth.
ShotmanMaslo
2.1 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
If you are composed of inorganic elements, you are not an organism.

So because i have a few heavy elements in my body im no longer an organism?


No. But just because a system has a few organic elements and living organisms in it, it does not mean the *whole* system, including the dead elements, is alive.

Life on Earth is alive. The Earth itself is not.

Besides, stronger Gaia hypotheses indeed state that the self-regulation in the Earth system has an *aim*, a goal - to preserve the conditions for life.
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (17) May 16, 2012
No. But just because a system has a few organic elements and living organisms in it, it does not mean the *whole* system, including the dead elements, is alive.

So iron on its own is alive? Does that mean its inorganic? Nope.

Life on Earth is alive. The Earth itself is not.

So you reject abiogenesis? god must have put life on here.
Life simply would not exist without these "inorganic matter".
So what is it?

Besides, stronger Gaia hypotheses indeed state

You can find religion everywhere (scientology *shrugs*)
that the self-regulation in the Earth system has an *aim*, a goal - to preserve the conditions for life.

Self regulation has nothing to do with sentience.

Are you arguing now that

No i am arguing you to provide evidence for your claims, just as you asked me to provide evidence for my claims, which i posted several videos which explain the mechanisms.relation of life and earth.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
So because i have a few heavy elements in my body im no longer an organism?

From highest to lowest point on Earth is about 20km. Let's say the ENTIRE 20km was a solid mass of life (which it isn't. Not by a long shot).

Then we can make a comparion: Let's shrink that down to the size of a person (2 meters size). That would mean that this entity representing all of life is standing on a (mostly molten) rock with a diameter of 1.3 kilometers(!)

And you're calling ALL of that (which is already VASTLY overrepresentating how much life there is) a lifeform? That's ridiculous.

Might as well call the entire universe a lifeform and thereby make the definition of 'lifeform' utterly meaningless (a term that has no alternative carries no information whatsoever)
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
As I said: the volume is significantly less. Unless you are arguing that Mars (being further out from the sun) somehow gathered up seven times MORE heavy atoms (which are the radioactive ones) then it sems easy to understand that the energy generated inside is vastly less on Mars than on Earth.

Venus is smaller but hotter.
Saturn is bigger but colder.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
We have no observed evidence about elemental composition of the cores or pressure of ANY planet.
Musashi
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
Arguing without agreeing to definitions first is very productive...
kaasinees
2 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
Then we can make a comparion: Let's shrink that down to the size of a person (2 meters size). That would mean that this entity representing all of life is standing on a (mostly molten) rock with a diameter of 1.3 kilometers(!)

Talk about bad analogy. We are done here
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
"So iron on its own is alive? Does that mean its inorganic? "

I dont see your point.

"So you reject abiogenesis? god must have put life on here.
Life simply would not exist without these "inorganic matter".
So what is it?"

Yes, we would not exist without many things that are not alive themselves. Such as the Earth. Alive does not mean "some living thing depends on it".

"Self regulation has nothing to do with sentience."

Indeed. Or with life. Many dead processes exhibit negative feedback loops. If the Earth does it, does not mean its alive.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
Venus is smaller but hotter.
Saturn is bigger but colder.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
We have no observed evidence about elemental composition of the cores or pressure of ANY planet.

Gravitational tension of matter is nearly the same for mercury and venus, both are smaller than earth. How come venus is hot and mercury so cold? While mercury is so much closer to the sun?

The fact of the matter is you just dont understand the complexity of the interrelationship between geophysical and organic evolution.
But dont feel bad, life on earth itself complex to.

I dont see your point.

Iron is categorized as organic matter. Does that mean a steel bar is alive?

organic vs inorganic has nothing to do with organism, it has to do with organisms on earth. Outside the earth context organic vs inorganic has no meaning.
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
"Iron is categorized as organic matter."

That is news to me. Carbon based compounds are organic.

"organic vs inorganic has nothing to do with organism, it has to do with organisms on earth. Outside the earth context organic vs inorganic has no meaning."

On a space station, organic compounds cease to be organic?
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
On a space station, organic compounds cease to be organic?

Are devices made out of steel alloys organisms?

The conversation got way off topic,
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (18) May 16, 2012
Care to list an example of such organism?

http://www.plosbi....1001036
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
Venus is smaller but hotter.

Smaller? By a whooping 500km. That's less than 5% smaller. It does have a molten interior

Venus has a very active greenhouse effect. SURFACE temperatures are much hotter.

And to remindyou: Your argument was that life prevents the cooling of a planet. So are you now saying that there is life on Venus? Make up your mind.

Gravitational tension of matter is nearly the same for mercury and venus, both are smaller than earth.

By volume Venus is 85% of Earth, Mercury is 6%. Compression is proportional to gravity. The gravity of Venus is about 91% that of Earth. That of Mercury is only 38%.

alk about bad analogy. We are done here

So let's hear your definition.

Point is, by size, volume, mass, and any other factor you care to name life is a tiny, tiny, TINY part of this planet. At what ratio of living matter to dead matter (by any factor you want to choose) would YOU define that something isn't an entire organism anymore?
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (18) May 16, 2012
Smaller? By a whooping 500km. That's less than 5% smaller. It does have a molten interior

Venus has a very active greenhouse effect. SURFACE temperatures are much hotter.

Venus core is also 2k degrees celcius hotter than earths core, yet you claimed:
As I said: the volume is significantly less. Unless you are arguing that Mars (being further out from the sun) somehow gathered up seven times MORE heavy atoms (which are the radioactive ones) then it sems easy to understand that the energy generated inside is vastly less on Mars than on Earth.


Feeling retarded yet or do i need to put it all in a row again for your feeble mind?
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
Care to list an example of such organism?

http://www.plosbi....1001036


I dont see any sentience there. There is no mind, just automatic genetic responses.
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
Care to list an example of such organism?

http://www.plosbi....1001036


I dont see any sentience there. There is no mind, just automatic genetic responses.

Are you claiming we have souls now?
Are we not made out of genetics and genetic responses?

The article proofs that bacteria are self-aware ad kill themselves for the survival of their species(you should do us a favor and do the same).
Musashi
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2012
I dont see any sentience there. There is no mind, just automatic genetic responses.


As per Merriam Webster: "responsive to or conscious of sense impressions"
ShotmanMaslo
3.2 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
Care to list an example of such organism?

http://www.plosbi....1001036


I dont see any sentience there. There is no mind, just automatic genetic responses.

Are you claiming we have souls now?
Are we not made out of genetics and genetic responses?

The article proofs that bacteria are self-aware ad kill themselves for the survival of their species(you should do us a favor and do the same).


No, the mind is not a genetic response (or a supernatural phenomenon). Its completely different. Its a very complex neural network that is mostly generated during the life. By your definition, everything is sentient.

You are again twisting established definitions too broad, and thus making them useless.

Not all reactions to outside stimuli mean sentience (or mind).
Not all negative feedback loops can be called life.

Bacteria are not sentient, and Earth is not alive.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (14) May 16, 2012
No, the mind is not a genetic response (or a supernatural phenomenon). Its completely different. Its a very complex neural network that is mostly generated during the life.

Did god generate your neural network?

And no not everything is sentient by my definition.
ShotmanMaslo
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
No, the mind is not a genetic response (or a supernatural phenomenon). Its completely different. Its a very complex neural network that is mostly generated during the life.

Did god generate your neural network?

And no not everything is sentient by my definition.


Nope, I dont believe in god. Look up development of the brain for how the neural networks that generate human minds arise.

If bacteria responding to an outside stimuli by a genetically preprogrammed switch is sentient, then what is not? Is computer software also sentient?
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (15) May 16, 2012
Nope, I dont believe in god.

Why? If it was not genetics or god than what was it? What do you believe in if it is not genetics or god?

If bacteria responding to an outside stimuli by a genetically preprogrammed switch is sentient, then what is not?

Are humans not preprogrammed by genetics? You prove them to be as you can not even figure out basic things.

Is computer software also sentient?

Computers dont adept, reproduce, and have an urge for survival, so no. But if they can make a robot that can do these things(just like bacteria) and evolve into what ever is necessary for survival than yes they are sentient.

Your genetics certainly made you stupid.

Bacteria undoubtedly self-regulate themselves proven by the article i provided. Calling them sentient or not well lets just leave it to semantics as it adds nothing to the debate. It was a mistake by author of this article.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
Venus core is also 2k degrees celcius hotter than earths core, yet you claimed:

Where do you get that? All liks I checdked give about the same interior temperature for Earth and Venus.

And again: why isn't Venus cold - as per your definition without life it should be cold.

And again: how much dead matter is enough for you to consider an ensemble "not alive". 90%? 99%? 99.999%?

Stop weasling.
Isaacsname
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
You guys never tell me when you're having a party..

*runs away crying*
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (16) May 16, 2012
Where do you get that? All liks I checdked give about the same interior temperature for Earth and Venus.

Hmm true, 500K difference not 2k degrees.
But my point still stands that amount of mass has nothing to do with core temperatures as you claimed so.

And again: why isn't Venus cold - as per your definition without life it should be cold.

Nope i said without life earth would be colder, more cooled off, because of a lack of a regulated atmosphere by organic life.

And again: how much dead matter is enough for you to consider an ensemble "not alive". 90%? 99%? 99.999%?

It has nothing to do with the amount of "dead" or "alive" matter.
It has to do with the interrelated geophysical and organic evolution.

Stop weasling.

Stop being an idiot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
"The Gaia hypothesis -- first articulated by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s..."

Other meaningful hypotheses from the 70s; tabula rasa, Carlos castenada, est, quaaludes.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
And which has shown itself to be pure failure.

America is a perfect example.

"There is another choice, which has already been made in the west" - NoumenTard
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (14) May 16, 2012
Other meaningful hypotheses from the 70s; tabula rasa, Carlos castenada, est, quaaludes.


gaia hypothesis by NASA in 2012
http://youtu.be/sCxIqgZA7ag
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (13) May 16, 2012
Where did all the (strawman)arguments go?
I am waiting for you all, cmon.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
"the initial Gaia hypothesis was ridiculed by a number of scientists, such as Ford Doolittle, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould...

"the Gaia hypothesis was derided as some kind of neo-Pagan New Age religion. Many scientists in particular also criticised the approach taken in his popular book "Gaia, a New look at Life on Earth" for being teleological; a belief that all things have a predetermined purpose...

"Richard Feynman...also accepted a lack of general cause and effect explanation as an inevitable phase in a theory's development, and believed that some self-regulating phenomena may not be explainable at all mathematically."

-Sounds like voodoodoo to me. Reminds me of all that religionist crap in Avatar, which ruined an only half-decent movie I think.

Scientists will tend to propose all sorts of silly things as they get older and their telomeres get short.
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (22) May 16, 2012
What better religion for the far left tree-huggers, ...than a pantheistic pseudo-scientific cult, complete with the Devil (capitalism) and a savior (socialism).

The far left liberal hypocrites, will not recognize a fetus as a person, but will recognize the earth as a living organism.

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
Nope i said without life earth would be colder, more cooled off, because of a lack of a regulated atmosphere by organic life.

And the answer was: Venus is not more cooled off, despite lack of life. So your 'point' is not logical.
lovingthesounthernsun
3.2 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
More idiotic propaganda for wacko tree-huggers to be indoctrinated into socialism.


back to this one again...

If tree = nature and hugger = lover then tree hugger must = nature lover and therefore someone who uses the term tree huggers as a form of disparagey or abuse must feel alienated or scared of nature.

Science at it's core is the attempt to understand the universe/natural systems through observation. In order for a scientists to excel, to be passionate about his work, he* would have to have a deep awe of the natural world. Leonardo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Lovelock (?) all had/have this. Any scientist who does not is doomed to mediocrity.

They also have to be creative thinkers Imagination is more important than knowledge (Einstein), you have think outside of the box in order advance knowledge.

Conservatism does not encourage creative thinking.

*she :)
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (24) May 16, 2012
The term "tree-hugger" is used to mean "environmental nut job",.. one that exaggerates such concern needlessly. It does NOT imply anti-science or anti-nature, nor does it generalize to everyone who has concern for the environment (as I do).

Conservatism does not encourage creative thinking.


Such a resounding and sweeping statement by someone who just took one to task for disparaging an ideology.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Nope i said without life earth would be colder, more cooled off, because of a lack of a regulated atmosphere by organic life.

And the answer was: Venus is not more cooled off, despite lack of life. So your 'point' is not logical.
The venusian-wide planetary entity obviously likes it hot.
someone who uses the term tree huggers as a form of disparagey or abuse must feel alienated or scared of nature.
I dont think that trees care whether you hug them or not. Tree huggers might disagree. They might vehemently disagree and insist that their purpose in life is to make trees feel wanted, needed, and loved. Like bunnies. And baby seals. And talking fawns with human names.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Ha! Some cretin created a new account just to post that single message.

"You are a shitty person from a shitty country..Vendicar." - NunyTard

Get a life Tard Boy.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2012
-And mice who play the accordion and wear shorts.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) May 16, 2012
NumenTard is growing increasingly frantic as more and more people realize that his dying Conservative liedeology has destroyed his own nation.

The future belongs to those who learn to live in harmony with nature.

"What better religion for the far left tree-huggers" - NumenTard

Free market Capitalism is incompatible with that goal.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
Science at it's core is the attempt to understand the environmentalism through both direct observation and theory.

Those opposed are opposed to science and are invariably from the Conservative Religion.

lovingthesounthernsun
2.3 / 5 (3) May 16, 2012
Conservatism does not encourage creative thinking.


Such a resounding and sweeping statement by someone who just took one to task for disparaging an ideology.

It probably is a bit sweeping (there are always exceptions...), but conservatism does mean:
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

Actually rather bizarrely Lovelock was Mrs Thatcher's (she evidently thought the Gaia Theory was a great work) chief scientific adviser, although he is of a left leaning disposition.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (26) May 16, 2012
Science at it's core is the attempt to understand the environmentalism through both direct observation and theory.

Those opposed are opposed to science and are invariably from the Conservative Religion.



You're a straw-man factory, you should open a shop.

What is rejected is the over hyped hysteria and the far left's anti-capitalist political agenda.

No one is saying that studying the climate or environment is illegitimate.

It probably is a bit sweeping (there are always exceptions...), but conservatism does mean:
the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.


You conflate the common use of the term with the political idealogical meaning. Conservatism is about limited government, pro private market over government institutions, and fiscal responsibility. Conservatism is all about the private sector, and an evolving free market where freedom, profit motive and competition breeds innovation and progress.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
You cling to your Capitalist Religion like a child suckling on the teat of it's mother.

The reality of the situation is that your idea of Capitalism is unsustainable, irrational, and fundamentally anti-science, and you are so wedded to it that you will say or do anything to maintain the illusion of it's viability.

"What is rejected is the over hyped hysteria and the far left's anti-capitalist political agenda." - NumenTard

"Conservatism is all about the private sector, and an evolving free market where freedom, profit motive and competition breeds innovation and progress." - Numentard

Which is a prescription for mass death, and continued mass destruction on a global scale.

Pure Evil.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) May 16, 2012
The reality of the situation is that your idea of Capitalism is unsustainable, irrational, and fundamentally anti-science, .... - Liberal Bed Wetter


That the existing free market system of capitalism is "unsustainable", is your left leaning bias speculation,... and is not the result of science or established fact. It is not clear how future (scientific) innovations will continue to evolve within the free market. Therefore, it not valid to project future economies based on existent technology.

That it is "irrational" is itself the epitome of irrationality, since it has worked so well, and is completely in accord with natural laws.

Of course even a child can tell you that science and capitalism has worked hand in hand to bring us to our current level of life styles,....
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (27) May 16, 2012
,... so clearly capitalism is not anti-science.

The "solutions" from the far left are about control of human behavior, counter to the nature of man and unscientific,... while the existent economic system will make use of technology, science, and innovation.

You fail to face basic facts; Capitalism IS the dominate system today, and there is no global governing institution that can force any country to adopt anti-capitalist policies, nor to even purposely slow its economy.

In fact, even my country, Canada, bailed on the Kyoto treaty out of concern for its economy.

Also, the hysterical speculation of cataclysmic AGW has not been meet with like hysterical action to curb global economies, nor to control human behavior. Thus, it appears that mankind rejects this hysteria.
aroc91
not rated yet May 16, 2012
And again: why isn't Venus cold - as per your definition without life it should be cold.

Nope i said without life earth would be colder, more cooled off, because of a lack of a regulated atmosphere by organic life.


The atmosphere of Venus is not regulated by life. Why hasn't it gone the way of Mars or Mercury and been sloughed off by the solar wind?
lovingthesounthernsun
4 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Noumenon and Vendicar_Decarian

You are both starting to rant. It sounds like anger.

We should all try to remain curious / open minded.

Noumenon have you read the Gaia Theory book?

Margaret Thatcher read and didn't turn pink.

I think most of us are well versed in the idea of market economics.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
Capitalism has produced a situation in which all aspects of the biosphere are in rapid decline.

Overshoot.

"Of course even a child can tell you that science and capitalism has worked hand in hand to bring us to our current level of life styles,...." -NumenTard

"You fail to face basic facts; Capitalism IS the dominate system today" - NumenTard

Not by a long shot. Mixed Socialist economies are the dominate system today.

Poor NumenTard, can't even keep his story straight.

Now that he has lost the argument, those "nasty" countries that he called socialist are now suddenly Capitalist.

A week more of this and he will be insisting that Communism is Capitalism.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
How dare anyone put limits on human behaviour? It's criminalz I tellz ya? All those limits on theft, murder, rape, fraud, assault, it's all anti-freedom I tellz ya.

In order to be free we can have no limits on human bahaviour. Freedom demands child prostitutes on every street corner, and murder, rape and anarchy be the rule of the day.

"The "solutions" from the far left are about control of human behavior" - NumenTard

Praise the Libertarian vision of Utopia.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) May 16, 2012
And how shall we exact punishment upon those who insist that nothing be done as their own nations cropland turns to desert?

Is hanging good enough? Or should there be years of public torture before the execution?

"Also, the hysterical speculation of cataclysmic AGW has not been meet with like hysterical action to curb global economies, nor to control human behavior" - NumenTard

A little public torture is good for the soul. Don't you agree Comrad?
kaasinees
1.9 / 5 (17) May 17, 2012
And the answer was: Venus is not more cooled off, despite lack of life. So your 'point' is not logical.


Venus is cooling off at a rapid rate unlike seen on earth.(Also venus is 500K colder than earth, cores)
http://www.univer...nterior/
Feeling retarded yet or do i need to explain?

Or you denying the interrelationship between geophysical and organic evolution? Are you denying established science?

The atmosphere of Venus is not regulated by life. Why hasn't it gone the way of Mars or Mercury and been sloughed off by the solar wind?

Good question, but the atmosphere of venus is being stripped of by solar wind like crazy, it is replenished by active volcanism.
When the crust cools off enough dispite the active volcanism, likely due to depleting the amount of greenhouse gasses. It might build greater pressure and hopefully a stronger magnetic field.
kaasinees
2 / 5 (16) May 17, 2012
was ridiculed by a number of scientists, such as Richard Dawkins

He believed that the hypothesis was against his. In response James Lovelock developed Daisyworld which used evolution and explained evolution at the same time. They compliment not compete.
that all things have a predetermined purpose

Source? Also do we not create such things?
"Richard Feynman...self-regulating phenomena may not be explainable at all mathematically."

It was proven mathematically by the daisy world. And it is now accepted science and has evolved into complex climate models.
-Sounds like voodoodoo to me.

You sound like an African tribes man who for the first time sees a mirror. You condemn what you do not understand.
Scientists will tend to propose all sorts of silly things as they get older and their telomeres get short.

He was young, not old. I rather believe that you are an old stupid fart, not James Lovelock, he is intelligent and understands complex systems.
Pattern_chaser
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2012
Funny how the original subject was/is the Gaia hypothesis, and the comments are (nearly) all American political propaganda...?
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (16) May 17, 2012
Initially i thought venus was hotter than earth comparing the inner cores. I never thought about the fact that the high surface temperature would have such a dramatic cooling effect on the inner core due to mobilizing crust and persistent volcanic activity. It just proves my point even further that if life ever had the opportunity to evolve on venus and stabilize the atmosphere venus could have been an habitable planet with higher pressure and stronger magnetic field.. And who knows in the past it might have. Earth had a similar period compared to venus that wiped out life on our earth(P-Tr extinction event). And it just goes to show how dangerous run away global warming is. (venus is unlucky to be closer to the sun and too have so much less water(which makes me wonder how much lighter elements venus had in the past) and having slightly less mass)

Glad i learned something from this convo. And perhaps venus offers more oppertunity than mars.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (26) May 17, 2012
And how shall we exact punishment upon those who insist that nothing be done as their own nations cropland turns to desert?

Is hanging good enough? Or should there be years of public torture before the execution?

"Also, the hysterical speculation of cataclysmic AGW has not been meet with like hysterical action to curb global economies, nor to control human behavior" - NumenTard

A little public torture is good for the soul. Don't you agree Comrad?


I'm not sure what force you're fantasying about, but it clearly does not exist.

The cataclysmic AGW hysteria has been rejected, as well as the attempted socialist hi-jacking of global economies. Anyone can look out the window and see these are facts since the free market continues on unabated.

p.s. of course I never said "do nothing".
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
The reality of the situation is that your idea of Capitalism is unsustainable, irrational, and fundamentally anti-science, and you are so wedded to it that you will say or do anything to maintain the illusion of it's viability.
Capitalism is unsustainable as it is wasteful but it is the only system capable of driving the technological innovation and progress we see, and which is so vital to a civilization at our stage of development.

Dont worry, it will be Ended when it no longer serves a Purpose, in the Way it was Instituted to begin with... By Intent, at the Proper Time, and with all the necessary Forethought, Planning, and Preparation.

Nothing in this world that can be Anticipated will ever be allowed to happen by itself. Nothing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
You sound like an African tribes man who for the first time sees a mirror. You condemn what you do not understand.
But I understand what I see in the mirror. And tribesmen understand their reflection in a pond.

This is what smells bad:
"This [Gaia] ecological hypothesis has also inspired analogies and various interpretations in social sciences, politics, and religion under a vague philosophy and movement"
I rather believe that you are an old stupid fart
-Is true! I see this in the mirror. Doesn't mean I am wrong tho-
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (14) May 17, 2012
This is what smells bad:
"This [Gaia] ecological hypothesis has also inspired analogies and various interpretations in social sciences, politics, and religion under a vague philosophy and movement"

Science is bad because of Scientology?

I said before religion can be found anywhere. Gaia Theory is established science not a religion.

But I understand what I see in the mirror. And tribesmen understand their reflection in a pond.


A reflection in a pond doesnt give the detail as a mirror does, a pond is not mobile that can be moved. Most ponds are dirty and dont reflect other than a shadow.
aroc91
not rated yet May 17, 2012
Funny how the original subject was/is the Gaia hypothesis, and the comments are (nearly) all American political propaganda...?


That's Vendicar for you. A quick google search turns up somewhere around a decade of his blathering and anecdotes of him being arrested for threatening president Bush. Why doesn't that surprise me?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2012
It is a pity that Americans refused to listen and learn.

If they had done so, they wouldn't be bankrupt and wouldn't largely be blithering idiots.

"That's Vendicar for you." - aroc91
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Rejecting reality has become the hallmark of Republican ideology.

"The cataclysmic AGW hysteria has been rejected" - NumenTard
Russkiycremepuff
1.5 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
Vendicar is an activist. But unless I am mistaken, Vendicar seems to believe that Socialism is the answer to the plight of the working man in America and will bring people out of poverty and will feed the hungry. This is only partially true and is the reason for social/welfare programs. But Vendicar also seems to think that in order to bring equality and fairness to the masses, you must also destroy the money making machine. That machine is Capitalism. Vendicar needs to realise that to destroy the machine and replace it only with socialism is replacing the machine with nothing. It is because the capital is useful, and the bosses who run the capitalistic corporations are the useful idiots who are partially responsible for the success of the social/welfare programs. Without capital, it is very difficult to put men to work who want to work. And without those jobs, there cannot be money to fight poverty and feed the hungry. It just is not possible to have social programs without capital.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
Vendicar is an activist. But unless I am mistaken, Vendicar seems to believe that Socialism is the answer to the plight of the working man in America and will bring people out of poverty and will feed the hungry. This is only partially true and is the reason for social/welfare programs. But Vendicar also seems to think that in order to bring equality and fairness to the masses, you must also destroy the money making machine. That machine is Capitalism. Vendicar needs to realise that to destroy the machine and replace it only with socialism is replacing the machine with nothing. It is because the capital is useful, and the bosses who run the capitalistic corporations are the useful idiots who are partially responsible for the success of the social/welfare programs. Without capital, it is very difficult to put men to work who want to work. And without those jobs, there cannot be money to fight poverty and feed the hungry. It just is not possible to have social programs without capital.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
In a perfect world where everything needed grows on trees and there is nothing but happiness and joy, then capital may be thrown out like trash. But we do not live in such a world and life is a struggle. It is the working to obtain capital for our own use that makes us who we are. Without the struggle, we are nothing. It keeps us alive and full of hope for a better chance. But, as in America, there are those who work, or want to work, and there are those who have no wish to work at all. You must ask yourself where is it written that man must provide for others of his tribe. And that answer requires the capital. It is an odd fact, but it works. In Soviet Union, we had a little bit of capital, although not legitimate by law, but it kept many people from starving.
Russkiycremepuff
1.4 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
Vendicar seems to be fond of socialism that keeps men and women down and dependent on those who earn the capital. This is insanity. In Soviet Union, everyone who was able had to work. All those who did not wish to work were thought of as mentally ill and oftentimes were committed to insane asylum until they were cured of such thoughts. America is very different and rewards for not working. That socialism is counter productive to human existence. The porch sitters are rewarded are rewarded every month and have the babies left and right. It is illogical, this socialism. In Communism, we did not allow that.
Deathclock
2.4 / 5 (14) May 18, 2012
You guys are a bunch of clowns.

Not everyone deserves everything. Some people DESERVE to live better than others, due to the effort they have put into attaining that status. Capitalism rewards people for hard work and punishes people for sloth and ignorance, exactly as it should be. Only recently has this country turned to socialist policies of welfare and THAT is what is ruining the US. Socialism is a disease whereby everyone thinks they are entitled to everything without putting in the effort and working for it. Do you know what happens when people are supported by their government? They end up not taking responsibility for themselves. They end up with a false sense of entitlement. They end up producing NOTHING and the industrial and intellectual output of the country declines... that is what is happening in America, and it is not the fault of capitalism, it is because we have turned our backs on capitalism and embraced socialist nonsense and have become a welfare state.

Russkiycremepuff
1.4 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
I have said this before but I cannot stress it enough. You people of the West are soft and weak and you encourage to be soft and weak with your socialism. It is perplexing why such happens in great country.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (14) May 18, 2012
Human beings thrive on motivation. The motivation to do well in school is to get a good job so you can live a good life. The motivation to do well in your job is to maintain that job or get promotions and raises to improve your quality of life. Without those incentives no one would work hard. Socialism REMOVES all incentives to work hard, it removes all incentives to take responsibility for yourself and your life. Socialism encourages sloth and ignorance, it removes power from the people and puts it in the hands of the masters, the people become DEPENDENT on their government to survive. Socialism turns people into mere cogs in the machine, into sheep to be herded. Capitalism empowers individuals and encourages them to take responsibility for themselves, to work hard to achieve their own goals, or to fail by their own lack of effort.

Capitalism the natural order of things, no one issues food stamps to lions in the wild, the lion must work hard to hunt or starve. That is capitalism.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
Ah yes, tomorrow the 18 of May the clowns will enter the Chicago area where NATO meeting will be, and they will throw pies. The clowns are socialists. I do not care for socialists. Communism is best.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (14) May 18, 2012
I have said this before but I cannot stress it enough. You people of the West are soft and weak and you encourage to be soft and weak with your socialism. It is perplexing why such happens in great country.


I agree with you, this country has become soft and weak. The number of people who are utterly dependent on the government for their survival has grown to ridiculous levels. Social welfare is a cancer on society, it removes all incentive to work hard and to be responsible. Without hard working individuals the countries economic output begins to fall. The giant corporations are built on the backs of the laborers, and when it because equally lucrative to collect unemployment, disability, and food stamps as it does to work in a factory the foundation of our economy (hard working people) begins to crumble. This false notion that people should not be allowed to fail is ruining us. I would rather people die in the ditch due to their own poor decisions...
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
Vendicar cannot be comrade with Communists. He talks like socialist and that is bad. When Vendicar gets off fence and comes to the light, we will call him comrade but not until then.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (14) May 18, 2012
In most cases the poor are not innocent. In most cases the poor are poor for good reason. Either they fucked around in school and acted like assholes (I knew plenty of them in my school), they fucked around at work and got fired, or they got mixed up in drugs or alcohol or some other vice that destroyed them. These people fail based on their own poor decisions, and why shouldn't they? Why should the government take money out of my paycheck, that I work hard for and have all my life, to give to these screw up's who ruined their own lives with their own poor decisions? Let them fail, either they will be motivated to bounce back or they will die in the ditch, either way is better than GIVING THEM MY MONEY. It's not because I am greedy, it's because rewarding them for their own failure removes all incentive for them to change their habits and get their own life back in order. We have so many people who live on welfare and have no intention of every doing anything else, it's disgusting.
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (13) May 18, 2012
Capitalism, in it's purest form, makes no provision for rescuing people from their own stupidity at the expense of everyone else. In fact, capitalism would strongly oppose that course of action.

Vendicar, Capitalism is not ruining America, because we can hardly be called capitalist anymore. Socialism is ruining America, by encouraging laziness and ignorance and discouraging personal responsibility by removing all incentives to positive behavior and all consequences of negative behavior.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
It is because you Americans are soft and weak ones of the world that China will one day be your masters. Your big compassion will be your undoing. China has no compassion and they will take over your country. Nikita Khrushev once said Russia will bury you, but you will bury yourselves.
It is sad, really, how low America has become.
Russkiycremepuff
1.5 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
@Deathclock
You do not understand. Vendicar wishes for destruction of America. That is what you must address.
You will never convince anyone with such language. Clean up your words and you might even convince ME.
Goodnight
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
Origin
2.4 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
Gaian theory, which holds that Earth's physical and biological processes are inextricably(?) bound to form a self-regulating system, is more relevant than ever in light of increasing concerns about global climate change.
IMO it's just an observational bias. The other people will point to the butterfly effect, which considers instead, even simple perturbation can move the seemingly well balanced natural system from its metastable equilibrium. IMO we can find the examples for both extreme perspectives inside of the biosphere without problem. For example, when the Earth is heated, the oceanic water is evaporated more and the atmosphere keeps more clouds, which are reflecting this heat. But in some other examples the same heating can lead into avalanche effect: the heating releases the methane and carbon dioxide from marine water, which are supposed to work like green-house gases and they accelerate the heating even more.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (17) May 18, 2012
You resort to a load of nonsense and you do not even understand the system. Like many other people here have posted do not understand the system, you need to understand biology and geophysics.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (2) May 18, 2012
"The butterfly effect"
I understand the theory in terms of its implications, ie final state depending on initial conditions, small initial variation, final massive impact, etc. I'm just having a little trouble with mentally translating this kind of imagery into the real world, over an 'infinite' length of time, or space. My confusion is this: when anything moves within an open or closed system (whether that ubiquitous butterfly, or an electron), there is a loss of energy for that item. I guess, using the (yes, H20 ripple analogy here, nothing to do with AWT!)example of ripples spreading in a pond and losing energy as they go, to illustrate. How is something like this NOT happening in a butterfly type system, esp if you change only one initial condition? Ie, why is the energy from that change not petering out, the further away it gets from its point of origin? Is anyone willing to clarify the issue? Thanks, DH66
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (11) May 18, 2012
You are correct DarkHorse. However, the butterfly effect applies to more complex interactions. It is entirely possible that stubbing my toe or not stubbing my toe today could be the difference between me being a millionaire in a decade or being dirt poor in a decade. If you can't imagine how I could walk you through a plausible scenario.
Origin
1.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2012
Briefly speakin', the possibility that the Earth is driven with some self regulating system is as probable, as the possibility, that the Earth is driven with some metastable feedback, which will drive us out of its present equilibria until new equilibrium will be reached. Both types of feedback may apply together at different contexts and I don't see any way, how to make the universally testable hypothesis from it. IMO the character of this feedback changes from case to case and no apparent bias toward self-regulating or even live system is observable at the general level. Our Earth is simply complex system, period. If we violate its equilibrium, the Earth will not protect us against consequences.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (16) May 18, 2012
Earth is driven with some metastable feedback, which will drive us out of its present equilibria until new equilibrium will be reached.

If we dont stop being wasteful and poison ourselves with mercury, PCBs, kill biodiversity etc etc. We will drive ourselves out until we are at a more stable population level or technical level. This drives evolution.

With the elements available on earth life was able to develop but it was once just "dead" matter. When it evolved it changed the climate on earth. Which in turn allowed for more diverse life to evolve which again changed climate geophysical face of the earth. It is a never ending process until the elemental composition is changed in such matter life can no longer evolve from it and be sustained.
Not only did the mix of "dead" matter result into developing life it keeps changing the mix for other life to develop, we are part of it.
Gaia Theory is complimentary to evolution.

Take a serious look again at the daisyworld.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11919
- kaasinees -

The book, "Gaia in Turmoil" is just one of many that has been in circulation for years. The title "GAIA" itself from the Greek is pretentious, but it gives the movement a modicum of panache where a different title like "Earth Mother"
just would not give such clout as would be required for such movement of environmentalism. The word "environment" encompasses many areas of globalism, and while it is true that all things under the Sun are connected somehow, technically, the global environmentalists would be working toward a better understanding of the world in which we must live. And it is applaudable to hear of such concerns for our earth mother which I highly recommend and with great regard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
as the possibility, that the Earth is driven with some metastable feedback, which will drive us out of its present equilibria until new equilibrium will be reached.
-Except that maybe we were created because gaia got tired of ice ages and created a more efficient CO2 producer to offset the next one.

Did you ever think of THAT??
Take a serious look again at the daisyworld.
You mean this?
http://en.wikiped...sphere_2
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
- cont'd -
But then, the problem arises when political and monetary gain enter this picture. The politics in itself is not too bad if all it does is to pass laws that prevent the pollution and destruction of our earth mother. Those laws are common sense laws and should be passed to save the planet from human thoughtlessness and careless attitudes. I believe that the majority on earth are not so cynical and will take great pains to improve the air and water, etc. But the laws would be for those who do not understand what they are doing. They know what they do, but are not aware of the repercussions of their actions. The laws are for these people because they need to be guided and cannot stand on their own cognition. The laws are only for them.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2012
_ cont'd -
However, when monetary gain is thrown into the Gaia works, other than to ensure for clean-up purposes of Mother Earth, then it becomes less of a good motive of concern, and more of a motive for removing the wealth from one's pocket to give to another; and there again, is the socialist plan for monetary disembowelment of the human race in order to provide for corrupted individuals or groups.
Socialists are very good at this. They decry the Capitalism and wish to destroy that system, but then they plan and scheme to USE that Capitalism for their own personal gain. It is two-faced just as the socialist system in America for the giving of the money to porch sitters, while attempting to tear down those who have the money in the name of social justice and the equality myth. Communism does not work in such ways.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2012
The equality is myth because of the porch sitters. Another thing that I have known for some time and that Capitalists and the socialists do not understand or have no awareness of it, is that the "porch sitters" regard the "socialists", as USEFUL IDIOTS. I have to laugh now at the thought. The socialists regard Capitalists as useful idiots while working toward their destruction. But the REAL USEFUL IDIOTS are the socialists and their socialistic values. It is the porch sitters who receive their welfare checks that have the last laugh while the socialists are so busily doing all they can to help the porch sitters remain on welfare and not have to work.
You see THAT is the big difference between Communism and the useful idiots of Socialism. Capital is used by both because without Capital, we have nothing. I could not afford my creme puffs without capital.
Gaia does not require Capital. Our Earth Mother will always be there and we are always connected to her.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (15) May 18, 2012
-Except that maybe we were created because gaia got tired of ice ages and created a more efficient CO2 producer to offset the next one.

No we have evolved from the earth because we of climate change, speciation, natural selection, stress etc.

If we keep poisoning ourselves and the earth sooner or later we will be largely culled in population. In this regard we are self-regulated. The life that came from "dead" matter is changing "dead" matter in this regard it is self-regulated. Our earth is self-regulated. Do you understand yet?

You mean this?
http://en.wikiped...sphere_2

What does that have to do with anything?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) May 18, 2012
It has to do with a well-functioning sense of humor. And I think that ice age mitigation might well be within the scope of a planetwide entity. I assume this entity would suffer during ice ages in the same manner we would with the flu. Only for eons.

A technology-using iteration might be a natural development for extreme environmental modification, if life is ubiquitous and far older than that on this planet alone.

It may even be how this entity spawns.
kaasinees
2.5 / 5 (16) May 18, 2012
It has to do with a well-functioning sense of humor. And I think that ice age mitigation might well be within the scope of a planetwide entity. I assume this entity would suffer during ice ages in the same manner we would with the flu. Only for eons.

The funny thing is we have the technology to prevent ice ages or warming ages, so are we the earths white cells or are we a destructive cancer?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
It has to do with a well-functioning sense of humor. And I think that ice age mitigation might well be within the scope of a planetwide entity. I assume this entity would suffer during ice ages in the same manner we would with the flu. Only for eons.

The funny thing is we have the technology to prevent ice ages or warming ages, so are we the earths white cells or are we a destructive cancer?
We are perhaps the only hope life has of leaving this planet and infecting others.
wwqq
2.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2012
If life is understood as a super-organism, then it is anti-gaian(medea hypothesis).

The methane poisoning ~3.5 billion years ago, the great oxygen catastrophe ~2.7 billion years ago, snowball earth(twice), 5 suspected oceanic anoxic events(hydrogen-sulfide mass poisoning) including the great dying(~57% of all families extinct!!! Not individual species, families of species)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
If life is understood as a super-organism, then it is anti-gaian(medea hypothesis).

The methane poisoning ~3.5 billion years ago, the great oxygen catastrophe ~2.7 billion years ago, snowball earth(twice), 5 suspected oceanic anoxic events(hydrogen-sulfide mass poisoning) including the great dying(~57% of all families extinct!!! Not individual species, families of species)
Maybe it is not infallible. Maybe it is learning and adapting as it goes. Maybe it too is subject to evolution.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (15) May 19, 2012
If life is understood as a super-organism, then it is anti-gaian(medea hypothesis).

The methane poisoning ~3.5 billion years ago, the great oxygen catastrophe ~2.7 billion years ago, snowball earth(twice), 5 suspected oceanic anoxic events(hydrogen-sulfide mass poisoning) including the great dying(~57% of all families extinct!!! Not individual species, families of species)

http://www.ncbi.n...18958515
Sean_W
2.6 / 5 (7) May 20, 2012
If the Gaia hypothesis were just about the Earth being a complex system which has developed self-regulating cycles and feedback it would be perfectly fine and correct. However, the fraction of Gaia supporters who stop there is not a majority. Mostly, when you hear someone mention the G hypothesis in a positive light, what follows is an interpretation of exactly what this "Gaia" wants and is feeling. Much as in Islam, we are told to believe that all Muslims are secular, non-anti-Semitic, feminist and don't support terror but if extremist views are challenged we are said to be offending all Muslims because that is just how they are. Keep the goalposts moving.
slayerwulfe
3.8 / 5 (4) May 20, 2012
gaia is nothing more than structure, everything that is alive on this planet is made from the material of this planet. the material of this planet is 'many' billions of yrs. old being reused over and over. the material you call you was a million things before it was you and will be millions of things when you are gone. the mental defective thinks their 'body' is them, how sad because your body is the planet.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2012
Here is addition to that. If Gaia were a true entity and not just the structure that is bounded by this one planet, then the creation of succeeding species to evolve in higher and higher fashion until the ultimate is achieved, i.e., humans with brain capacity for purpose of Gaia to have eyes and ears, all the senses for the "knowing". Thusly, the human species is expendable and is only for the 'use' of the Gaia entity only as long as the minds and brains have ability to perceive and then the body takes action which Gaia may wish for to be done. This might mean that we have not the free will that we believe in, but are really being manipulated by entity, even if weak.
Of course, this is in realm of supernatural and is disturbing. It could also mean that the more we are polluting the earth, the weaker the entity becomes and cannot replenish and cleanse itself very well.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (13) May 21, 2012
What exactly is the mechanism involved here? And please be specific (a formula would be preferrable).


A found a few articles i looked for another article here.

http://books.goog...;f=false

http://books.goog...;f=false

Without DMS our atmosphere would be unstable, either very cold or very hot, or very unstable like on mercury. Our inner core would be cooler than it is now and we wouldnt have our magnetosphere.
This is just one of the many mechanism that life keeps our atmosphere keeps stable. And that the biological and geophysical evolution are linked together.
Russkiycremepuff
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2012
I absolutely agree with slayerwulfe and I was only joking in previous post. There is no Gaia, no entity. We come from recycled material, taking up whatever molecules are that our physiology required from dirt. Not just ordinary dirt, but rich in elements that provide us with necessary vitamins and minerals and the very important H2O. Dirt even with insect bodies contain nitrogen that goes into our food. I am content with such system. There is no need for belief in a Gaia as entity or force, and then say later that the God does not exist.. If one is rejected, then all other forms must also be rejected equally.
I now await my usual rating of one from kaasinees, who is obvious socialist useful idiot who claimed to be from Netherlands. He will get only ones from me also.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) May 22, 2012
Without DMS our atmosphere would be unstable,

Thats's from the CLAW hypothesis.

...and funnily: The author of that hypothesis (J.E. Lovelocke) is the same one that invented the Gaia hypothesis.

Coincidence? You be the judge.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (13) May 22, 2012
Without DMS our atmosphere would be unstable,

Thats's from the CLAW hypothesis.

...and funnily: The author of that hypothesis (J.E. Lovelocke) is the same one that invented the Gaia hypothesis.

Coincidence? You be the judge.

DMS research was in response of gaia hypothesis, lovelock was there when the first DMS research took place. Also CLAW hypothesis and Gaia hypothesis go hand in hand? I dont get your point, besides being stupid.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) May 22, 2012
Even more bizzarrely in 2006 Lovelocke proposed an Anti-Claw hypothesis. So now we have both the pro and con being supported by the same nut.

And you think that is somehow impressive as supportive evidence? You must be out of your mind.
kaasinees
1.3 / 5 (12) May 22, 2012
Even more bizzarrely in 2006 Lovelocke proposed an Anti-Claw hypothesis. So now we have both the pro and con being supported by the same nut.

And you think that is somehow impressive as supportive evidence? You must be out of your mind.

What are you talking about?
Make a point?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.