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.