That's getting into theology, as one of our "dirty pagans" (only when I've been in the bog for a few days) AND someone with a scientific background, I won't bother to shoot holes in your theory. I'm only going to giggle and say one this:

The Gaia Hypothesis can summed up as "you break it, momma spank". Bees didn't break anything, but humans are sure trying hard. Ipso facto, bees don't get spanked.

Are you thinking of some neopagan, spiritual concept of Gaia as Mother Earth, defending "herself" against the assaults of humanity? That's a different idea from what bentirran is referring to and the Gaia Hypothesis of James Lovelock. A hypotheticial scientific link between the introduction of GMO by people and bee colony destruction is not ipso facto impossible within the framework of the Gaia Hypothesis.

Then lets call it Earth Science Systems, which is an attempt sanitize for, I'll be polite, a wider audience due to cultural bias and bigotry. What's left is basically just an extrapolation of basic chaos theory into an environmental science setting with an arguably anti-human bias. Or Ras' equal and opposite reaction.

Lovelock's initial hypothesis was partially an attempt to reconcile theological and scientific belief systems and included an predeterministic factor of undefined origin. That factor is the significant difference between Lovelock's proposal and Earth Science Systems.


Oh, and FYI, a lot of people consider "neopagan" to be slightly insulting. Not quite a full fledged slur, but getting there. There is nothing new other than a sharing of beliefs among those who have survived ever attempt to stamp us out.

First, we the citizens of Lousy-anna, know it is time to throw a VERY big party.

Re ironraven



Actually Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis was not an attempt to reconcile any theological and scientific belief system into a new age or 'Pagan' belief system. In much the same way that Darwin's Origin of Species was not published for 10 years because of the difficulty and ridicule it would give the author, the Gaia hypothesis has unfortunately been ridiculed in much the same way even by scientists (evolutionary biologists) and geneticists who should know better. Because of the threat Darwin's theory posed to the established religious theological order, the Gaia hypothesis has been ridiculed also because of the association by the so called 'New Age or Pagan' religions in much the same way. The Gaia hypothesis is an attempt to describe the complex chemical and non linear thermodynamic and biological operators in a very complex non linear feedback control system. The main issue is the nature of the macroscopic natural laws which describes the Gaia system (Earth System Science). An analysis of the system quickly concludes that the extra-ordinary effect that life itself (the multitude of organisms, the complex interactions of plant and animal species) has on the stability of the Gaia system. Because of the dynamic nature of an organisms ability to multiply and propagate through out the Gaia system due to the genetics of the organism (DNA is actually a self replicating plastic which has its own unique quantum electronic configuration and therefore carries genetic information to be stored within the molecule for future combinative iterations) this has been theorised to cause the Gaia system's homeostasis. When I mentioned the phrase 'Collective Intelligence', what I meant was that there still is not a full understanding of how the stability of the Gaia system is a consequence of highly non linear grouped chaotic systems, such as climate, genetic biomass and volcanism systems interact to produce a stable Earth system. I think this was the most appropriate phrase to use.

The Gaia hypothesis is hard physical science not a theological reconciliation to prove the existence of a God through science. The theology begins to enter the discussion because even the Book of Genesis is a attempt to describe why the world we all know is here and why it is the way it is. Some may interpret the phrase 'collective intelligence' as a reference to an omnipresent force so as to re-enforce their believe in their faith whether it is neopagan or not.

Lovelock was employed by NASA to determine what physical circumstances would be required for life in general to exist on other planets. As a reference point the Earth was selected for obvious reasons. The exercise was also to determine what life's signature would be also. (Will not go there - Star Trek the Movie wasn't as good as the one with Ricardo Montalban). It soon became clear that there should be no life on the earth purely from the physical point of view. A new hypothesis for life on earth was required.

I don't understand the argument that the Gaia hypothesis has an anti-human bias. If there is one organism on the planet which exemplifies the principle of the Gaia hypothesis it would be the human race simply because of the capacity of the Human race has to change its own environment to suit its own future propagation. Of course that would imply that the Human race is still subject the the laws of nature and not above or out with nature. Most people I suspect feel they are not when in fact they are inextricably linked to the Gaia.

I'm sorry, I may have spoken poorly. The Gaia hypothesis does not have an anti-human bias; ESS does. The two aren't quite the same, just like Marxism and Leninism aren't quite the same. ESS doesn't really humans into the system as positive force, only negative or neutral. Humans are the only form of life on this planet able to actively take large scale steps to modify their environment, but to ignore the possibility of actions taken to have a net benefit rather than merely neutral effect and then relying on the biosphere to be self healing might not be biased. What else could we call it?

Becuase I'm not going to rule out the possibility of some of the more theoretical repairative actions and technologies we could develop just because they are complicated, and ESS supporters rule that out. I truly belive that humanity can take active steps to undo some of the damage we've done rather than going into a state of zero impact and sitting on our hands and watching. Perhaps then it is not the theory that is flawed, but those who back it. But it does not change that Earth Systems Science has been used to paint the species with a dark brush.

And I am familiar with the hypothesis, thank you for explaining it for those might not be however. I am also familiar with what Lovelock himself has said about it. Read his earliest writings, rather than what his co-author (her name escapes me at the moment) to the some of the later papers has written. She has tried to minimize the importance of the homeostatic balances in favor of her take on the theory which is that homeorhetic forces have a greater importance, and have been greater published. Lovelock had originally required a much greater emphasis on homestasis, and while his statements have never stated that a supernatural force is directly involved perhaps the life signature or collective intelligence that you make mention of and that Lovelock is a supporter of might be better described as a supranatural force.

Either way, saying "we don't understand it" and "but it isn't this" are the same time is unscientific. We've twisted science into the act disproving things, while truly scientific thought tries to prove things. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable if we just gave it a sterile variable name rather than implying that it has a sense of self? Personally, I'd rather call it Gaia or the Earthmother, and think of it as that which gives us life, and if you'd rather think of that as biological mechanics rather than philosophy or religion it is your choice.

I'm also inclined to say "magic" because it is faster and uses less time and thought than "technology or phenomena that my understanding and application of the universe does not yet include." Odd for a computer engineer, but I tell people all the time "it's computer geek magic, just accept that it works" when they ask me silly things like how a modem works and they want more detail than computers talking to each other. I also don't work out the proofs for things like LaPlace transforms or trig identities when I have to use them, I just grab my CRC book and accept that they work, either automatically or "automagically" depending on my mood.

It's about reaching equilibrium. The system will attempt to balance things and we might not like that balance -- so we'll mess it up some more to try and fix it. The problem is that we (mankind in general) are not satisfied with some parts of the system, so we change things thinking everything will be better. Not so, now the system has to react to reach equilibrium. One thing changes and the system compensates. We get GM corn and lose honeybees, people look for a connection. Nature can play tit for tat and win; nature always wins. We look for results next year, nature looks for balance over eons.

I think we are jumping to conclusions here. I haven't seen any hard evidence that GM crops are killing the bees. Aren't bees dying in counties that don't allow GM crops?

Y'know, this admonishment is rather ironic coming from you. That said, I do apologize if you are offended by my use of this term, and I'll refrain from using it in the future.

Another article on the problem. I only quoted a few paragraphs, read the rest of the article for more information. (BTW, whoever suggested that if the bee population collapses the entire flowering ecosystem collapses with it is just FEAR MONGERING. Bees are not the only insect or method of pollination.)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insects/index.html
The plight of the honeybee

Are honeybees becoming an endangered species? Their numbers have been declining drastically across North America, more so in the United States than in Canada, but how serious is the problem?

The latest phenomenon threatening honeybees is known as "colony collapse disorder," referred to as CCD by scientists, beekeepers and farmers. It has not yet been detected in Canada — perhaps because spring results are not yet in — but a Canadian authority on bees says CCD in the United States is "an absolute catastrophe."

Dr. Peter Kevan, an associate professor of environmental biology at Guelph University in Ontario, says the cause of CCD remains a mystery. It might be caused by parasitic mites, or long cold winters, or long wet springs, or pesticides, or genetically modified crops — or stress.
.
.
.
"In Canada, we can be proud that Canadian beekeeping seems to be a gentler practice than in the U.S.A., especially when it comes to the major commercial operations there. Canadian beekeepers, by and large, seem to use fewer chemical and antibiotic control agents against pests and diseases than do their U.S. counterparts, and those that are used are applied more conservatively.

"Migratory beekeeping for pollination services is not so much a part of commercial beekeeping in Canada as it is in the U.S.A., and where it is practised in Canada, the moves are shorter and fewer. Nevertheless, vigilance is required. Beekeeping in Canada and the U.S.A. share too many similarities for Canadians to dismiss the problem out of hand." http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/insects/index.html