Gaia Hypothesis, Wats ur say

[dhruv227]

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named—at the suggestion of his neighbor William Golding—the Gaia Hypothesis, after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now regard it as a scientific theory, not merely a hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

[frankfriend]

Asimov used the Gaia ideas in the later volumes of the Foundation Series. That is of course the greatest future novel series ever written.

The dilemma was that the Gaia concept put the collective above the individual and might prevent important futures from happening.

[zen-r]

I don't know much about the Gaia hypothesis, but from what you've said it sounds as if the theory is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy (for want of a better phrase).

All systems do, after all, reach an equilibrium eventually. And of course the Earth is a very large & complex system which has been around a veeerrry long time. So it has inevitably reached a form of equilibrium, in which ourselves & other organisms have evolved. Naturally, then, we are suited to the system in which we have evolved & live, just as the Earth's particular system would appear to be precisely the system necessary for us & other life here to survive.

Unless we find life on other planets, I'd have thought it very hard to prove the hypothesis & whether life is the way it is because of the pre-existing system, or whether life has had to effectively control the system in order to exist. And who's to say that there can't be completely different forms of life (non carbon-based, for example) which may require completely different systems?

The hypothesis also seems to come in varying strengths of assertion. For me, a midway point across the spectrum of opinion seems most likely, ie: that perhaps the Earth both determines how life on it has come to be, & to some extent is now being maintained at a constant by that life.


P.S. I was rather impressed by your beautifully precise & succinct explanation of the hypothesis, until I looked it up in Wikipedia & noticed a certain similarity ;)