The Gaia Hypothesis does not imply any purposefulness, and only implies some dynamic directionality if you track those variables that are showing trends.
One should note there is as Lovelock and Margolis presented it and it was absorbed by the biological community, the implication that the Earth is a closed system, one with a myriad interacting sub-systems. But in fact the Earth is not a closed system: the sun, the moon and some of the other planets, asteroids and comets all have evident physical impacts on Earth processes. And then there is starlight... Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Weick > Sent: Thu, June 05, 2003 1:06 PM > To: pete; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gaia Hypothesis... > > > Thanks, Pete, I believe I understand what you are saying, but doesn't Gaia > imply some form of direction and purposefulness? An item on the James > Lovelock website puts the matter this way: > > "James Lovelock argues that such things as the level of oxygen, the > formation of clouds, and the saltiness of the oceans may be controlled by > interacting physical, chemical and biological processes. He believes that > "the self-regulation of climate and chemical composition is a process that > emerges from the rightly coupled evolution of rocks, air and the > ocean - in > addition to that of organisms. Such interlocking self-regulation, while > rarely optimal - consider the cold and hot places of the earth, > the wet and > the dry - nevertheless keeps the Earth a place fit for life." The New York > Times Book Review has called his arguments in favor of Gaia "plausible and > above all illuminating." http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/ > > Note the use of the phrase "rightly coupled evolution" in the foregoing. > The concept as a whole seems to come pretty close to the > intelligent design > movement in current Christianity, the major difference being, I suppose, > that man is the center in the ID movement, but may be unnecessary in Gaia. > > Ed Weick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 11:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gaia Hypothesis... > > > > > > On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >But what if the system is not interacting and closed looped? What if > > >each species (or family) looks after itself and promotes > itself without > > >enhancing or embellishing the others, but really crowding them out and > > >getting rid of them to make room for itself? Gaia may not be > > >primordially cooperative, but primordially inherently viciously > > >competitive. > > > > These things are not mutually exclusive: the system as a whole > > is inescapably closed looped, because of the finite size of > > the ecology, which is the "sink" for all the actions of the > > biota on the earth, but also their "source", so the ecology > > is circumscribed like a yeast colony in sugar syrup whose > > population is self limiting because the alcohol it excretes > > pervades its environment and is toxic above a threshhold > > concentration. > > > > My cerebral, intelligent dinosaur would never have thought > > >that it (he or she) would ever be eclipsed, but there wase a little > > >proto-mammal lurking near by, avoiding being eaten. Then along came a > > >rock from outer space, landing in the Gulf of Mexico. Random? > > >Absolutely. > > > > The Gaia system is a vastly complex netork of interacting feedback > > paths, which have evolved to interact within a range of values > > for lots of critical variables. The equilibria for the system are > > metastable, that is, there are lots of different potential plateaux > > of stability within the overall range, and the system is subject > > to being knocked from any one such state to another by external > > shock or mutation driven internal alteration of constituents of > > the biota. The point of the theory is that the long development > > time of the global-level selection processes for all the multiple > > feedback paths make it likely that the overall system can recover > > to one of its equilibria within its comfort zone from any such > > perturbation. As far as the Gaia system as a whole is concerned, > > mammals or dinosaurs, either work as well as the other their > > niche in the system. The system as a whole is only concerned with > > keeping its environment within the habitable range for earth brand > > (DNA, amino acid, cellular)life in general, not life of any particular > > variety of manifestation thereof - in fact, viewed in the time > > scale where its operation is most apparent, all individual species > > are churned as part of the process. > > > > Note, by the way, I'm only trying to express the theory as I > > understand it. I don't know whether I buy it completely - I can > > see how some individual instances of feedback paths can work, but > > I don't know that that justifies developing the meta-level of an > > overarching theory. That is, I don't know if that offers more > > explanatory power than simply taking each case individually > > and working out their interactions. It would seem the metatheory > > implies a more extensive set of conclusions than you get from > > treating its components as autonomous, but I don't know if they've > > ever been articulated, let alone demonstrated. > > > > -Pete Vincent > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "pete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:20 PM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Gaia Hypothesis... > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Don't know about Gaia being 'new-agey.' I was thinking more in > terms > > > >>> of James Lovelock's notion that 'earth, in all its > interactions and > > > >>> transformations, added up to a single giant living system.' > > > >> > > > >> arthur > > > >> > > > >> I would make one change. An additional word. Random. > > > > > > > >I agree with Arthur. I read the Gaia stuff years ago and > felt that the > > > >notion that the Earth and all it's living systems were somehow > > > >directional or purposeful is nonsense. The beauty of Gaia is that it > is > > > >essentially chaotic and you never know where it is going > next. Picture > a > > > >very clever and very cerebral dinosaur. Could it have contemplated a > > > >world without it but with us? > > > > > > Not directional or purposeful, in the sense of consciously goal > > > oriented, simply persistent and self-correcting, by negative > > > feedback, as a closed loop system in the systems engineering sense. > > > A living system is a special case of a CL system, where the > > > feedback is developed by the actions of organisms, which > > > behave actively to contribute to th feedback mechanisms, > > > allowing for much more and more rapid opportunities for > > > feedback subsystems to arise than in passive, inanimate > > > natural environments, where such systems can arise, but are > > > rare and of limited range and flexibility. Once a living > > > system is established, the requirements of the living components > > > tend to enhance and embellish the feedback aspects through > > > natural selection operating on a macrosopic scale on populations. > > > > > > You have to distinguish the "hardnosed" core Gaia Hypothesis from > > > the froth whipped up around it by the soft-of-thinking. > > > > > > -Pete Vincent > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Futurework mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
