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.