Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

[Fact-Man]

AFAIK, Lovelock never said that the Earth was an organism, but that there was value in viewing it as one. I agree. I am ready to stand corrected on this point, of course. I haven't read much of Lovelock, but that is my understanding of what he said, and if that's what he said, then we can have little argument.

I think the problem is that the new-age wibble merchants picked up the idea and ran too far with it. Lovelock was gutted about this. His intent was only to get us to think about our reliance on the fine balance of the ecosystem.

His other points with regard to whether or not it's too late are, of course, his own conjecture. It has to be said, though, that we don't know enough about the balance of the ecosystem to be able to say that the damage we have caused is reversible or even undoable. We simply don't know at which point we pass the point of no return. His conjecture is that we have already passed it. He may well be right. Given the rate of climate change at the moment, and especially with such factors as the release of methane from the permafrost almost certainly accelerating the warming trend, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this point has indeed been passed. I think that the probability is not insignificant.

I don't agree with him that nuclear fission is the solution to our energy problems in the long term but, much as I hate the idea of nuclear fission, it is still the best solution in the short to middle term. Fusion is the real way forward, but we aren't very close to getting that working yet, and the resources for this kind of research are not nearly enough to get any kind of real solution in the short to middle term. We're probably 20 years away from getting it to work safely and reliably, and that's assuming a) that we can get it to work and b) that the resources are devoted to the issue.

So, maverick? Certainly. Crackpot? Not remotely.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis:

The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory 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 the Gaia Hypothesis after the Greek primordial goddess of the Earth, at the suggestion of William Golding, Nobel prizewinner in literature and friend and neighbour of Lovelock. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism.

Key sentence, "The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism," frequently, not always nor exclusively.

Sounds as if you probably have a point.

There's tremendous value in the concept as Lovelock expressed it, "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," great value indeed.

Why?

Because it allows us to see the reality of the biosphere and inspires us to take good care of it, which in turn can only benefit our presense on the planet. Good knowledge of the myriad workings of the biosphere is what allows us to take good care of it, to keep it in that state of "preferred homeostasis," and not push it out of balance as we are going with GHG emissions.

Lovelock appeqars to be saying that we have dealt the biosphere a fatal blow ...(death by a million cuts) but it's just going to take a millennium or two for that to fully play out and we find ourselves with a dead planet.

[Mr P]

I've just finished reading Lovelocks Gaia and in the preface to the new edition he states that, according to his hypothesis, "the earth is alive in the same way the gene is selfish". The general tone of the piece (written in 2001 for the reprint) reads as though he's trying to wrestle his ideas back from the damage done by the new-age community.

[Brain Man]

The reason new scientist are steering us away from darwinism, is for very good reasons. Systems theories are superior in many ways to understand life, process and complexity in general. Its nothing to do with atheism issues, that I am aware of but what kind of ways we need to think to make progress from here.

A. What is Darwinism, but a vague set of systems theories that you can define in terms of genetic components. You can easily define Darwinism in terms of systems theories, systems theories that make the transition neatly to small and large scale complexity outside our genetic beings, i.e. Quantum physics and Astronomy, but its almost impossible to do the reverse. Darwinism does not help us understand reality very well. Survival of the fittest..for example is vague, systems theory can provide many mechanisms and models for competition that link directly to physics. i.e. Phase transitions, and equilibrium. Selection is better defined in systems terms by feedback loops fighting entropy.

B. Systems theories are more useful than Darwinism. Genes are just a self organized database and don't provide much assistance in understanding complexity. i.e. We need to apply newer theories than darwinism to genomics to get anywhere. For sure it has been useful to discover how we developed from a low level molecular information language, and a nice story how Darwin predicted that, but in broad terms its really just a form of information theory, that tells a story of those days, but is not so great a tool for the new scientists of today.

On that note Darwinism has a limited shelf life.

A. When transferred to memetics i.e. The culture which is now the driving force of change, systems theory does a better job. When population, economic, geophysics and biosystems simulations are required for todays pressing problems. Richard dawkins is not asked to cite a passage from origin of species, they employ people very often extremely skilled with systems theory, to predict and model biochemical agent driven systems or extract data from a sea of bioinformatics noise.

B. Just because we are made of genes now does not mean we will be in the future. Its not likely that genetic organisms will be able to withstand the acceleration for any kind of useful space travel. Complex systems interactions and modelling are far better tools to re-engineer ourselves. We can then model nature, a lot of which is not explained by darwinism, but branches of physics and computation i.e. Kinesics, and Ai.

C. It dangerous to get too hung up any paradigm, including a big one like darwinsim. Darwinism is a bad place to entrench oneself to gain a full understanding of all levels of reality and importantly complexity, of which we are no doubt, complex. Dawkins already showed his closemindedness in his denial of lovelock, lovelock then provided daisyworld a very useful retort, showing that he could make a prediction, then run computer simulations to defend it. Lovelock actually provides something original to science, which requires imagination and logic. So what if he couched the terms in a not so conservative manner, or made a bold statement too much here and there ? Trial and error, with a touch of grandiose vision is needed for progress. The fact is hes done something bold and creative, a trait dawkins lacks… in science anyway.

[Mr P]

WTF has this shit got to do with Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis?

[Brain Man]

WTF has this shit got to do with Lovelocks Gaia hypothesis?

Gaia is a complex systems theory, one of many, which has met with fierce resistance from prominent darwinists like dawkins. If you have read the book i presume you will have done some background reading in the history of systems theory, so it does not need explained how far reaching that is.

The darwinists like dawkins proposed that everything living must be framed in darwinistic terms, and if it couldnt be it was invalid. He then rejected lovelocks hypothesis, because it didnt fit his view of life.

Its then necessary to point out the limitations of darwinism, and that darwinism itself was really just a crude subset of systems theory. Gaia clearly illustrates the dangers of getting entrenched in paradigms, and shows that Darwinism in itself can become a rigid mantra, closing doors on new concepts.

i.e. You can easily define and improve on darwinism with systems theory and its associated branches of maths, physics and modelling. You can then take these tools to other complex entities like our planet, human culture, social behaviour. We can also use systems theory to provide definitions for alternative forms of life or consiousness

You cant do this too well with darwinism. Thats only good for describing life based on its own terms.

The danger is if you take darwinism too seriously you limit your thinking strategies. Another danger is lot of people use darwinism as a clear cut philosophy for life, learn it inside out, and then become extremely lazy defending it rigidly, when clearly it has major limitations.

Thats fine, the average person needs something solid like that as a kind of mantra for themselves. Scientists at the cutting edge faced with complex problems and issues cannot afford to be entrenched, so are developing a whole new toolset based on systems theories. Magazines like New scientist, Scientific American etc are responding to and communicating this fact.

[Brain Man]

i.e. Gaia is a major application of general systems theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_systems_theory

and general systems theory argues the problem solving limitations of dawkins strict standpoint in developmental systems theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ems_theory

Developmental systems theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In biology the developmental systems theory (DST) is a collection of models of biological development and evolution that argue that the emphasis the modern evolutionary synthesis places on genes and natural selection as explanation of living structures and processes is inadequate. Developmental systems theory embraces a range of positions, from the view that biological explanations need to include more elements than genes and natural selection, to the view that modern evolutionary theory profoundly misconceives the nature of living processes.Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Developmental systems theory: Topics
2.1 A computing metaphor
2.2 Fundamental asymmetry
2.3 DST approach
3 Related theories
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links

[edit]
Overview

All versions of developmental systems theory espouse the view that:

All biological processes (including both evolution and development) operate by continually assembling new structures.

Each such structure transcends the structures from which it arose and has its own systematic characteristics, information, functions and laws.

Conversely, each such structure is ultimately irreducible to any lower (or higher) level of structure, and can be described and explained only on its own terms.

Furthermore, the major processes through which life as a whole operates, including evolution, heredity and the development of particular organisms, can only be accounted for by incorporating many more layers of structure and process than the conventional concepts of ‘gene’ and ‘environment’ normally allow for.

In other words, although it does not claim that all structures are equal, development systems theory is fundamentally opposed to reductionism of all kinds. In short, developmental systems theory intends to formulate a perspective which does not presume the causal (or ontological) priority of any particular entity and thereby maintains an explanatory openness on all empirical fronts.[1] For example, there is vigorous resistance to the widespread assumptions that one can legitimately speak of genes ‘for’ specific phenotypic characters or that adaptation consists of evolution ‘shaping’ the more or less passive species, as opposed to adaptation consisting of organisms actively selecting, defining, shaping and often creating their niches.[2].

[Brain Man]

it just occurred to me that the Gaia hypothesis has brought to light something far more profound.

Dawkins proposes Gaia does not describe life in Darwinian terms e,g. Reproduction.

Lovelock then proposes that Terraforming mars for example is an example of us reproducing earth ..but lovelock gives in to dawkins, he should never have conceded to debating on these limited terms for life, but its understandable considering Lovelock was isolated from the scientific community for so long. Why is reproduction so important anyway ?

Reproduction through death, selection is incredibly wastefull, inneficient and painfull anyway. We are only this way we are because our DNA evolved to fight entropy in bacteria. Its clearly evident that we dont need to go on like this. It takes too long for anything to happen. Only after nearly a billion years can we now concieve of means to rebuild ourselves pemanently, without the constant shadow of a death knell looming over our consciousness as we live.

Even if we can live with dying, its still inneficient as an individual then has a limit on the complexity within their own mental processes in the time and space we currently inhabit. Its then curtains, and let somebody else have a go. Of course we offset this with culture as the current driver of evolution, i.e. Memetics. But memetics does not fit easily into darwinistic terms. We had to shoehorn culture into genetic format, which is another subject in itself.

Our future as living beings is clearly not going to reside in the limitations of our previous form, so why reject definitions of life outside darwinism ?

[Trolldor]

Because you underestimate Evolution by Natural Selection. It has produced an animal capable of shaping the environment faster than it can adapt to it.


Reproducing Earth? Nonsense. If we "terraformed" Mars it wouldn't be reproducing Earth at all, it would be recreating the conditions which are necessary for our survival, the conditions that shaped how we evolved. The conditions of which we can not escape.

Clearly evident that we don't need to continue on "like this"? Under what base, arrogant notion does this stem from? Death is a necessity for a species which thinks itself worthy of immortality.

[Trolldor]

memetics does not fit easily into darwinistic terms.

It fits quite snugly if you understand the importance of the human brain.

[Trolldor]

as an individual then has a limit on the complexity within their own mental processes in the time and space we currently inhabit.

Bullshit. We progress so rapidly because the information that took the philosophers and scientists of antiquity decades to deduce can be learnt in a matter of hours by a child tucked away in to some unspectacular classroom.

[Trolldor]

Our future as living beings is clearly not going to reside in the limitations of our previous form

"Previous form"? And what does this mean? Or do you not understand basic grammar. We are not longer in this 'previous form' or it would not be labelled 'previous'.

[Trolldor]

Why is reproduction so important anyway ?

Because reproduction is change, progress, development, mutation.

[Trolldor]

let somebody else have a go.

Perfect. The value of change is beyond comprehension, the contribution of variation is on a cosmic scale.

[Brain Man]

Because you underestimate Evolution by Natural Selection. It has produced an animal capable of shaping the environment faster than it can adapt to it.

Now you mean after nearly a billion years... and thats thanks to culture itself transcending our genetic form. Genetic comparisons to culture do not easily translate to memetics, an ongoing area of intense debate that would be a thread in itself.

Reproducing Earth? Nonsense. If we "terraformed" Mars it wouldn't be reproducing Earth at all, it would be recreating the conditions which are necessary for our survival, the conditions that shaped how we evolved. The conditions of which we can not escape.

Recreation, reproducing...hardly much difference it gets semantical at this stage, except that we become the machinery of reproduction itself. But in any case, i am not going to make an effort to defend reproduction like Lovelock has tried to do. There really isnt any great need for the idea of reproduction, except that it can be considered a weakness we need to overcome.

Clearly evident that we don't need to continue on "like this"? Under what base, arrogant notion does this stem from? Death is a necessity for a species which thinks itself worthy of immortality.

Really that just sounds like you are being hardline in an effort to take control of death. Something many people do because they have to. Be honest now.. if you had the option of another 100 years would you refuse it ? Think what you can do with another 100 years of good health and brain function. The complexity you could build inside yourself, the skills and achievements would compound themselves, the experience and depth would be of an incredible magnitude.

At the moment we are forced to cram in as much info as we can get till our brain starts sealing itself up in our mid 20's, then we have 10-35 years of good functioning and creativity from that time on, then its all over. Death gives urgency to life, so you can say that infuses a passion. I am sure there will always be dangers and limits to invoke passion even if we re-engineer ourselves to live three times longer.

We are going of track here from the thread, but the reality is lovelock and the other systems theorists have shown us that there are all kinds of new means to evalute life and how we define it. The fact is the earth does not reproduce because it does not have to.

[Brain Man]

as an individual then has a limit on the complexity within their own mental processes in the time and space we currently inhabit.

Bullshit. We progress so rapidly because the information that took the philosophers and scientists of antiquity decades to deduce can be learnt in a matter of hours by a child tucked away in to some unspectacular classroom.

Copied maybe, but thats off track from the point, and again goes into memetics. Nobody has actually done any science i am aware of that can prove memes operate in a similar manner to genetic mutation, selection and reproduction.

For example a work of literature with todays technology will be able to be written in a format that can survive a thousand years without being recopied. So the "memes" are already beating that evolutionary constraint. Any changes that occur to them are not easily described as "mutations" and actions upon them as "selections". You can stretch genetic terms to do this, but there are also many non genetic methods to transcribe and define this cultural information.

Cultural information, and the self organizing systems we enter into, are what retain and feeds the information back into the fresh brains of youth. That as you rightly point out (not genetics) is what is really behind the recent acceleration in human activity. You can argue genes made all this, but its pretty obvious this new level of activity will be the undoing of genes themselves. And will the genes care ? Not really, as its just a code..an information format. Only people, or cultures care of these things, and usually thats a knee jerk reaction to any dangers that could result from that change itself.