It's been a long time since I read Lovelock, but in the one book and the couple early articles of his that I read, I have never thought that he had any theological/philosophical intentions. In 1990, he stated, "Nowhere in our writings do we express the idea that planetary self-regulation is purposeful, or involves foresight or planning by the biota." (sorry, I don't have any exact reference for this but I believe it was at a conference. I found it on the web.)

I admit that Lovelock used rather literary language in talking about the Gaia Hypothesis at times, but in the context of the writing, it's clear that he is not claiming or even alluding that there is some "higher being" or greater conciousness. He's giving a romanticized packaging to physical or biological phenomena. When he refers to "collective intelligence," he defines "intelligence" rather loosely, likening the "collective intelligence" of the self-balancing Gaia to the self-regulatory capacity of the human body. He affirmatively denies any conciousness to Gaia.

I don't have any problems with belief in Earthmother, Goddess, or any other higher conciousness/supernatural entity, but ascribing it to Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis just doesn't seem to fit what he meant. Sure, people can take the Gaia Hypothesis and add stuff on and still call it Gaia Hypothesis, but that's not Lovelock's original idea. I concede that I haven't read everything of Lovelock, and that he could be unconciously influenced by the writings of other philosophers/theologians before him, but IMHO it just doesn't seem to come out in his writings. He's a scientist writing about the physical world.

No, there's really no evidence. We're just trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here. Bentirran is just saying that under the Gaia Hypothesis, one could be the effect of the other, while Ironraven is also saying that under the Gaia Hypothesis, it is out of the question. Now I think our little debate is, are we talking about the same Gaia Hypothesis?

"Pagan" is fine- the issue many take is the implication that there is something new.

I haven't read everything either, mostly his earlier work when he was rather literary in his choice of wording. I generally operate on the theory that if you are including that type of thing in a scientific paper, you intend it to be there.

Also, keep in mind that gravity, while essentially unchanged in description of the mechanics, has changed a bit since Newton as successive generations attempt to define it. It is possible that the newer papers have modified the Gaia Theory slightly with more recent modeling.

And I apologize to everyone- I was in a pissy mood and took things into the personal more than I should have. I had abandoned my scientific detachment.

Tosses Ironraven another SPAM-cheddar sandwich and a flagon of mead.
No problems mate. It happens to all of us.

-Blast

Latest hypothesis is cell phones

A very interesting theory. I wish they had said who or where the research had been conducted that led to this theory, becuase I'd be interested in looking at the actual data.

Bees being about the only "industrial" bugs other than silk worms would be ones that would spot it. There has to be an organization that organizes butterfly watchers and has data about sightings. I'd also look at the birder clubs, but there are a lot of other factors that are going to come into play to, any of them could also be effecting the bees.

The only problem with theory, and the part that is almost comforting, is back in the 60s, there was something called "disappearing colonies". Very similiar to colony collapse now, but no where near as wide spread and the failed colonies' honey wasn't shunned by scavengers. I've heard that a few times in the recent phenomena.

The other part of it is, isn't that when the African bees were imported?



"Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives."

Yeah, anyone who's spent much time on a college campus in the past few years and loathes cellphones would believe this.

The main problem with the Cell phone theory is that the Colony Collapse Disorder would have happened in the UK a few years before the US as the Cellular Technology infrastructure has been in place in greater density and for a longer period within the UK.

I used to work for a company that designed and manufactured the microwave components that went into the Seimens, Ericsson and Nokia Cellular base stations (also military and NASA microwave communications components also). Most of the excutives and top engineers who work for these companies limited their use or do not own their own products.

I'm sure it won't take long before someone blames the mysterious goings on at that most secretive of establishments in Alaska run by the US military for the demise of the Bees. You know that part of Alaska on Google earth near the Canadian Border, which is completely Blacked Out for some apparent reason.

This makes sense as a possibility.

Where are the cell towers located vis-a-vis the crops and the hives? What frequencies are the cellphones -- analog or digital? How about the microwave links connecting the towers? It's not just one or two cellphones, it's a network and it's all over. I'll bet every farmer and beekeeper has a phone on all day. This hypothesis needs testing quickly to determine true impact of the network and if true, eliminate frequencies that interfere or move the towers away from the crops.