The Gaia Hypothesis, Fact or Fantasy?

[rachamim]

In the mid-1960s British researcher James Lovelock began to formulate a hypothesis that drew on a lot of the nascent New Age eco-philosphies beginning to take shape. In a nutshell, he posited that the entire Earth, including its atmosphere, exists as a singular, homeostatic unit.

"Homeostasis" basically means a "self contained living organism." Highly controversial, this hypothesis sees the earth as a singular entity, where all parts are interdependant upon one another for the well being of the whole.

For example, HIV/AIDs is believed to have originated in a lesser primate known as the "Green Monkey." This monkey is a native of the deepest African rain forests and until humans began encroaching upon their habitat the disease was unknown to mankind. Once humans began clear cutting this environment they came in close proximity to this monkey. Still, the disease did not make the inter-species leap until the "Bush Meat" phenomenon got out of hand.

Clear cutting the rain forest effects carbon dioxide levels, which in turn can have potentially catastrophic results on the entire earth environment. Bush Meat extinguishes entire forms of life which again have a potentially severe result on the earth overall.

Ebola, a disease I live in proximity to on Mindanao, is yet another example very close to the previous.

Gaian Advocates would posit that these diseases are akin to allergic responses in more contained "organisms," and that these are "warning signs" that we are irrevocably damaging the singular organism we call "earth."

There are some valid criticisms of this hypothesis cum theory (advocates maintain that it has graduated to a theorem, yet another bone of contention). However, for the sake of brevity I just want to outline the theory/hypothesis as it is presented by its proponents and get people's take on it.

Is the earth possibly a living organism ("living" being a relative term, per homeostasis)?

Is it also possible that Gaia presents a form of proof that there is in fact a Divine Scheme (no matter your subjective take on the origin and nature of that scheme)?

 

[L2R]

as much as i like the idea and somewhat agree with its sentiments, i don't think it has any relevance to a divine element. It seems to me to be a more natural evolving process. When an organism is initially exposed to another, it may not have the tools to cope with the interaction. Additionally, i think we'll kill ourselves far sooner than gaia manages the job, not that confidence inspiring in a divine when we can so easily shit all over it.

But man has the ability to live in equilibrium with nature. The australian aborigines did by only hunting what they needed to eat and built sparingly. Most of their time was spent on art and recreation and so when the euros came they were seen as useless because they had nothing to trade. They managed to completely inhabit an arid land for a bloody long time. Most of this land is now considered inhospitable. I suppose it's all to do with what one wants from it.

Posted from my phone.

 

[yougene]

In the mid-1960s British researcher James Lovelock began to formulate a hypothesis that drew on a lot of the nascent New Age eco-philosphies beginning to take shape. In a nutshell, he posited that the entire Earth, including its atmosphere, exists as a singular, homeostatic unit.

James Lovelock didn't draw on New Age eco-philosophies. Eco-philosophies drew inspiration from the Gaia Hypothesis.

"Homeostasis" basically means a "self contained living organism." Highly controversial, this hypothesis sees the earth as a singular entity, where all parts are interdependant upon one another for the well being of the whole.

Gaia is specific to homeostasis of the atmosphere and the processes used to maintain that equilibrium. Homeostasis doesn't necessarily mean living organism but it is one of the requirements for something to be a living organism.

Gaian Advocates would posit that these diseases are akin to allergic responses in more contained "organisms," and that these are "warning signs" that we are irrevocably damaging the singular organism we call "earth."

I think that's an over-extension of what Gaia is. Gaia refers to processes of the atmosphere. This is an equilibrium specific to the metabolic processes of organisms( oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc... ). With that said it's not hard to see that organisms are potentially involved in all sorts of homeostatic processes.

Is it also possible that Gaia presents a form of proof that there is in fact a Divine Scheme (no matter your subjective take on the origin and nature of that scheme)?

Nature is awe inspiring and arguably has intelligence embedded into it which is even more awe inspiring. Most systems theories are teleological in nature.
Not exactly proof though.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I never really understood the hostility James Lovelock has been treated to for this theory. Granted I never read him, and only know the Gaia Theory from secondary sources. But what's so threatening or controversial, about postulating that the entire planet's biosphere is one functional whole, one meta-organism? To me, this is a conclusion most banal. It's quite obvious that no contemporary population of organisms could maintain their existence on this planet without their interactions with other populations, which do things vital to their survival that they themselves can't do. The Gaia Theory is a major score for holism -- the philosophy that one cannot understand any entity without understanding that this entity is inseparable from its context at every step.

I really see the Gaia Theory, at least as I understand it, as neutral with regards to teleology or meaning in life. I'd say it's compatible with both metaphysical naturalism AND supernaturalism. Either way, it refutes the idea that any of us is fundamentally an island, or an aberrant mistake.

rachamim, I recently read Perle Epstein's book Kabbalah, and the highly nuanced holistic metaphysics of Kabbalist teachings strike me as very much in tune with Lovelock's ideas.

Holism logically leads directly to universal compassion. When you see that each living thing is simply doing its part in the Great Work, and can't do any differently, then it becomes hard to see any person as truly bad or undeserving of compassion and understanding.

 

[MarkRenton]

I don't see the controversy either, of course the earth is one unit of interconnected living....we are all part of the systems that makes life function.

 

[B9]

Like everything it depends upon your perspective - I'd pretty much go along with the idea - although one cannot make exact correlations between Gaia & some of her biological components - isn't the entire universe one thing from where everything springs ?
I think it beyond our capability to currently describe it scientifically accurately as a life form as we seem unable to catergorise it under the subheadings we've devised for pretty much everything that makes Earth up - an alchemist is called for.

 

[rachamim]

Yougene: You are totally wrong. The atmosphere is only one small omponent of the hypothesis/theory. For example, ocean salinity?

As for the definition of "homeostasis," indeed it does mean what I claimed. EDIT: Actually I was not explicit enough in that according to Gaia, all living organisms ARE homeostatic but not all homeostatic entities are living creatures. In this case I would say Yougene was correct to point it out.

As for the "chicken or egg" point you made abour "New Age eco awareness" and Gaia, all I have to do is produe a single blurb from en early 70s ecologist to disqualify your perception. I am going out on a limb but maybe you equate the early 80s pseudo-religious movements then labeled as "New Age" with my point? If so, again totally wrong.


I will conceed that perhaps "proof" should have been labeled, "a point of proof" since nothing will conclusively prove such a claim, at least at this point in time.

(Edited for spelling as well as to revisit Yougene's bone of contention over the definition of "homeostasis".)

 

[rachamim]

MyDoor: Dead on, dead on, dead on. I admit I am very impressed that you correlate the underpinnings of Judaic theology with the major premise in the hypothesis/theory.

I have never read Epstein's book, and typically do not put much stock in secular approaches to Kabbalah (not to be confused with pseudo-Kabbalah, the US based cult popular with some celebrities).

Jewish mysticism teaches that something very close to Gaia, though a lot more in depth and intense. I will try to take a look at the book's slaient points within the next day or two. You again nailed it with Gaia as win:win at least in the non-scientific community because of its fostering of compassion and empathy.

I am driven crazy by deforestation on Mindanao (indeed just about all populated Philippine islands)

B9: It is a decent outlook (you have). I agree (again) with MyDoor that the anomosity directed towards Lovelock defies understanding but then it is always the same with anyone who threatens the staid and stodgy foundations of accepted science.

Gould and others took issue with what was obviously a dumbing down by Lovelock in his 1st book. He dared to describe the planet as a "lifeform" (paraphrasing as I always do). Of course Gould was correct in the LITERAL sense but why the overreaction for a clear conceptualisation?

The whole affair is so interesting on many levels.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I have never read Epstein's book, and typically do not put much stock in secular approaches to Kabbalah (not to be confused with pseudo-Kabbalah, the US based cult popular with some celebrities).

It's a good book, probably right up your alley.

Perle Epstein is actually a direct descendent of Rabbi Israel ben Eliezer, the founder of Hasidic Judaism. I'm not sure if she herself was a woman of faith, or how observant she was. I do know that she's very knowledgeable about the history and theology of Judaism, though, but as a woman, almost certainly was not herself initiated into any school of Jewish mysticism.

I'll probably never be initiated into a true Kabbalalist tradition, even if I end up converting to Judaism, simply because it's such a small and inaccessible movement. But I'm sure I'll continue to get into mysticism via more readily accessible routes, and am definitely interested in reading authoritative Kabbalah sources in order to see the parallels.

I am driven crazy by deforestation on Mindanao (indeed just about all populated Philippine islands)

Deforestation makes me absolutely furious. I grew up in a very forested area, and only feel completely at home when there are trees around. I really feel what can only be described as a sacred presence when I'm standing in a quiet forest.

Most of all, deforestation is just needless. It takes SO LITTLE effort to plant a tree, and if most people planted one new tree each year, the world would have enough wood for us to leave all unspoiled forest unspoiled. I think the Philippine government needs to grow a spine and tell Chinese and Japanese logging companies to take their suitcases of money and GTFO, like the Brazilian government has started to do to the US. The Chinese might just denude Papua New Guinea too, unless they're stopped.

 

[B9]

People don't see immediate value in planting trees - again one can only blame capitalism/excess consumption/lack of ethics nay lack of common sense.

 

[yougene]

You are totally wrong. The atmosphere is only one small omponent of the hypothesis/theory. For example, ocean salinity?

Ocean salinity is clearly in the domain of atmospheric science...

Gaia is a theory dealing with relationships between basic chemical properties of the earth and life. That's it.

As for the definition of "homeostasis," indeed it does mean what I claimed.

A pH buffered solution shows homeostasis, is the solution alive?

As for the "chicken or egg" point you made abour "New Age eco awareness" and Gaia, all I have to do is produe a single blurb from en early 70s ecologist to disqualify your perception. I am going out on a limb but maybe you equate the early 80s pseudo-religious movements then labeled as "New Age" with my point? If so, again totally wrong.

Gaia is a proper instance of systems theory. New age "web of life" thinking is an unscientific adaptation of systems theory. So no, Gaia doesn't follow from new age thinking, but it has since been adopted by new age thought in a watered down way.

I will conceed that perhaps "proof" should have been labeled, "a point of proof" since nothing will conclusively prove such a claim, at least at this point in time.

The thing is you can't make a person see holism by rationally explaining it to them. Their mind sees it or it doesn't.

Like everything it depends upon your perspective - I'd pretty much go along with the idea - although one cannot make exact correlations between Gaia & some of her biological components - isn't the entire universe one thing from where everything springs ?

That's my point as well. The solar system shows homeostasis. Do we call that Gaia now too?

People end up using the word Gaia for any natural system they see holism in.
That's not correct use.

 

[satricion]

The Gaia framework has nothing to do with religion, divinity, or transcendental thinking of any kind.

 

[Pegasus]

I say that certainly, the earth itself can be life in a manner in which we do not yet comprehend. You zoom in, and you see organisms working together to make a higher level organism function, and it would only make sense if this same type relationship exists between humans, the earth, and the universe... though in a way we aren't understanding yet. To dismiss that idea is flawed, because this idea is certainly feasible.

 

[Raw Evil]

I so badly want to post on this topic but am far too tired to think atm.... watch this space

 

[rachamim]

Yougene: I)"Ocean salinity is in the realm of Atmospheric SCIENCE.": WRONG. It is absolutely an aspect of Oceanography which is itself a RELATED discipline (to Atmospheric Science) . It is NOT part and parcel of Atmospheric Science.

I hesitate to say the following because of latter points (of yours) that I will address in this post but...Gaia seeks to address the WHOLE, not a component of the whole.

I believe, and this is just a wager, that your mistake lies in either only a partial exposure to the theory or even to its postulator who specialised in Atmospheric Science and made his name in that exact discipline during his work for NASA.

II)"Gaia, simply put, is a theory/hypothesis dealing with the relationship between chemical processes and all life on Earth.": OK, sounds good. Then why are you insisting that it merely relates to the Atmosphere? Do ALL chemical processes emanate from the atmosphere?

III) "A 'pH Buffered Solution' is homeostatic. Ergo, is then alive (if Rachamim's definition of 'homeostasis' is correct)?": First, saying "pH Buffered Solution" is like nails on the chalkboard to my ears.It is the epitome of redundancy since the very definition of a "Buffered Solution" is a solution where the "pH" is "buffered." That said...A Buffered Solution IS homeostatic.

If a Buffered Solution IS homeostatic, is it then by definition, "alive"? Well, Lovelock I believe would say YES it is. If you truly have familiarity with the hypothesis/theory you are going to know that most repeated criticism was the one I mentioned, by Gould, who took GREAT issue with Lovelock's assertion that the Earth itself is an actual "living organism."

You are approaching "life" by a very conventional and staid definition." Does "life" equal "sentience"? To clarify, by "sentience" I am referring to both the scientific AND the metaphysical definitions of the word.

Are you familiar with the work of Evolutionary Bilogist Richard Dawkins? By the way another interesting person I would love to do a thread on, but getting back to the subject, his controversial postulation about "selfish genetics" would offer some insights that MIGHT make a thinking person reconsider their here to fore preconception(s) about "life."

Indeed, in his latter "The Extended Phenotype" he actually delves into how a gene inter-relates to the greater environment. "Interaction" with one's environment serves as a nutshell definition for "life" to a great many people.


I suppose I will say that it comes down to the definition of life. Is a single celled ORGANISM alive? It is not sentient of course... If we take stock in cuttting edge hypotheses and theorems that seek ro redefine these conventional notions your Buffered Solution COULD be considered alive.

IV)"While 'New Age' philosphies and theorems ALSO relate to 'system theory,' they are 'unscientific' so one cannot say that Lovelock drew inspiration from them.": Wow, are you sure you really want to go with that? First, who are you to describe something as definiatively scientific or unscientific? Surely you know the stock definition for "science"? Secondly, who are you to say something could not have influenced, even heavily, Lovelock's work simply because it falls outside the accepted parameters of science (IF indeed it does according to your estimation)?

I think a much more prudent approach would be to examine extant thinking at the time of the hypothesis' conceptualisation. IF we do that we clearly see that yes, ideas that are now collectively labeled as "New Age" DID exist in the mid to late 1960s. If we then further explore Lovelocks dated works we see their presence, intentional or not. It seems to be a given conclusion really.

The only real argument there is IF one did NOT see a representation of ideas known to have existed before the formulation of the hypothesis. Since NOTHING/NO IDEA exists in a vacuum, that is an idefensible position.

V)"One cannot make another person understand or accept 'holism' via a rational explanation. The other person either 'gets it,' or does not.": Another indefensible assertion. How can you posible make a definative statement about what others can and cannot understand?

Are so called "normal" humans NOT able to assimilate new information and/or ideas? It may be true that you yourself find it too abstract but personally speaking, as someone raised in a traditionally Jewish background, holism makes absolutely perfect and rational sense. Indeed dismissing it would be, to me, entirely IRRATIONAL.

VI)"Since the solar system is homeostatic is it to 'Gaia?": I believe Lovelock would offer that it is. I certainly do. Jewish Mysticism holds that to be absolutely true.

VII) "People use the term 'Gaia' to explain any example of holism within a natural system. THAT is wrong.": Depends on the example, as I noted with relation to the solar system.

I will say though, that Gaia has its limits (at the moment). Once we reach the outer bounds of this solar system we are dealing by and large in the realm of theoretical science. It is impossible at the moment to discuss authoritatively just how this solar system relates to the universe in any concrete fashion. IF there is a way to determine such interplay then I would up the ante and offer it is all "parts of the whole."

 

[Jamshyd]

Yougene: I)"Ocean salinity is in the realm of Atmospheric SCIENCE.": WRONG. It is absolutely an aspect of Oceanography which is itself a RELATED discipline (to Atmospheric Science) . It is NOT part and parcel of Atmospheric Science.

That is simply incorrect.

Sit at any Intro-Geography lecture, and you'll see that not only are they both one and the same, but in fact inseparable!

Some basic reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline

The fact that ocean salinity is, as you put it, part and parcel of atmospheric operations is not a subject of question, it is a fact in the same matter that speed=distance/time is a fact.

Atmospheric scientists need to be 100% up to date on what their fellow hydrologists are up to, and vice-versa. The devision of these two disciplines is arbitrary at best.

Am I going too much into one point? Ok, here is a picture from a Junior High textbook - probably the same one they taught you in Israel when you were a kid:

Do you imagine that atmospheric scientists chop this diagram diagonally and only concern themselves with the upper-right corner?

Sorry rach, didn't mean to pick on you. I am just doing my job as a mod after a prolonged absence, and part of that job is pointing out misinformation.

 

[rachamim]

MyDoor: OK, I took about a good hour looking into what I could find of the book but of course did not have an actual copy to examine.

Looking into the work and the author I would have to say the book is worthless (I know, HUGE estimation without actually having read the work but I wil explain).

As you know, Kabbalah is not something that is widely or even freely disseminated. Indeed, females are never allowed to study it so that Ms. Epstein (her surname is now Besserman) would never have been iniated on any level and at best would only be offering up 2nd hand knowledge. Yet, knowing the relictance of traditionally raised Jewish males from even conversing with an unrelated woman I would highlydoubt that she had access to anything more than general knowledge texts, etc.

For the last 70s years Hebrew University in Israel has approached Kabbalah as an academic discipline. Yet Ms. Epstein does not even have THAT advantage. She has published works on the mystic strains of several faiths and simply seems to have a general interest in mystisicm per se.

The book you speak of relies on vignettes of different personalities, only 3 of whom were actually Kabbalists, as well as a guide to PRACTICING extremely basic forms of Kabbalah. I would say that this is utterly useless and even a bit dangerous.Think of it like this: You have never driven an automobile BUT you HAVE seen others do it from a distance. Now you purport to write a driving manual. How successful will YOUR readers be?

Briefly discussing 3 forms of traditional Jewish Meditation without the many years of study that preceed their practice is dangerous in 2 ways: From the practical perspective, you will now have preconcived notions as opposed to an "empty slate" should you every actually pursue true study of the discipline, and from the metaphysical standpoint, Kabbalists believe that the discipline can make a man go insane or commit truly reprehensible acts. This why there is the strict limiting of access. Only males, over the age of 40*, with more than 1 male child who has reached adulthood (age 13) may approach the study of Kabbalah. An underlying pre-requisite is thorough knowledge of all Jewish Scripture (Tanach i.e.Torah, Prophets and Writings, Mishnah and G'marah i.e. Both Talmuds, Jerusalem and Babylonian along with exegis). Many teachers require full memourisation of these works so as to limit access even further to those with absolutely solid backgrounds in Jewish Thinking.

Converts would not be barred at all. It is however very difficult for a convert because you would have to fully learn Hebrew and Aramaic, before even beginning the simplest of study.

One of the vignettes she includes concerns Rav Akiba (Rabbi Akiva in her book). Akiba was a 40 year old illiterate shepard in the time of Bar Kochba, 2nd Century CE/AD Judea. He always wanted to study but had to support his family from a young age. Finally his wife tookwork so that he could begin studying and in fact he became one of the greatest Jewish sages of all time. So, never be discouraged as to not having a "head start" though again, a 2nd Century CE/AD Judean would have been fully conversant in Aramaic and have passing fluence (at least) in Henrew, and as an iliterate would merely have to learn to read and write his natural language.

I have to add, in reference to Ms. Epstein's scholarship, Akiba was not even a Kabbalist! The same goes for my personal rebbe, "Rabbi Nachman of Breslov." Indeed, Rav Nachman died at age 30 so he would not have gotten near to initiation into Kaballah. Great teacher though and wonderful mystic in his own right.

Coincidentally, R. Nachman was BESH'T's (acronym for Ba'al Shem Tov aka R. Yisrael Ben Eliezer) great-grandson. Ms. Epstein on the hand is not known as a descendant despite what seems to be a reach for authenticity.

If I may recommend? The man who defined the academic study of Kabbalh was Gershon Scholem, whose name is now attached to the Professorship for this discipline at Hebrew University.His works have all been translated into English, and while it will not teach you how to achieve higher states of consciousness (no shortcuts there I am afraid), it will give you an absolutely accurate grounding and broad understanding of what is involved.

"Deforestation.": Yes, you are right about multi-nationals but it is not like mining which is also a horrendous problem on the island. The logging is almost entirely local, and small scale.

Sad to say I am culpable myself. One of our sidelines was brokering shiploads of lumber, usually into Japan but also to Taiwan, China and S. Korea. 9 times out of 10 to Japan though.I guess faciliation is as bad as actual logging.

When my soon to be ex-father in law wanted to branch out into logging I put my foot down and divested our brokerage (after argued that we already had a hand in the trade). I remember in the late 80s, as the ferry would approach the northeast coast you would see unending jungle but today its rare to see any forest until u climb up into the mountains about 8 clicks inland.

We are centered in Agusan del Sur Province which is in the Diwata Mountains, though our compound is in a narrow valley. The province is the least populated on Mindanao, which is itself largely filled with unmapped areas so all in all quite remote. Yet, 24 hours a day, you will see trucks hauling logs and it really plays on my mind a lot, that and the related violence. Aside from the current 9 insurrections we also have unimaginable corruption and organised crime related to the trade.

When mudslides happen, like the on in Leytein 2005 that killed 1100 kids in a school buried under 60 meters, it is alsmot always related to deforestation. However, as with Bush Meat, you are also talking about the poorest of the poor trying to survive so there are no easy answers.

 

[rachamim]

Jam: It is a RELATED-discipline. It is NOT INTRA-related. NOT SUB-discipline, NOT intra-related.

Just looked at your diagram and I have to point out to you Jam, that by your reasoning a stafish is part and parcel of Atmiospheric Science. You are one of the few people I KNOW to be able to think outside the box, think on what you are saying.

[Edited for spelling]

 

[rachamim]

Jam Pt II

"Thermohaline Circulation.": I am gald you brought this up because this is a perfect example of how Gaia INTEGRATES all facets within a haliostatic system.

Yes, Thermohaline* IS within Atmospheric Sciences but that relates to how one system is INTER-dependant upon the other. It is a prime example of inter-dependance Jam.

*Thermohaline Circulation explores how, among OTHER things, ocean salinity effects criculation...But does not explore how salinity is itself affected. In other words it explores 1 facet of the inter-dependance between 2 separate systems and by relation DISCPLINES.

I have to also add for clarification since I imagine some may make note of it that there ARE changes in ocean salinity dependant upon Atmospheric conditions. However, salinity is a constant over time and these differences are quite temporary so that the Atmosphere leaves no indelible effect (upon salinity). The ocean itself, as a whole, does effect the Atmosphere however in much more marked ways.

(Edited to add last 2 paragraphs)

 

[rachamim]

B9: "People do not see the immediate value in planting trees.": Some, not all. I cannot even say "most" see no value though it is an intuitive view. In Israel tree planting is an absolute obsession to counter long term deforestation. In Mindanao I farm trees so that I certainly perceive a subjective economic benefit and so from different standpoints it looks very different.

Bollweevil: EXACTLY. It is not even an original thought. It is an idea that has been expressed (in less than scientific thought) all through history by widely varing cultures. That does not translate into "worth" but it does point to an idea worth exploring.