Gaia hypothesis in mainstream textbook - somewhat surprised

[Lazar]

I am currently reading 'Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record' by Benton and Harper when I came across the following:

This paved the way for our present concept of the earth as a dynamic system, a forerunner to the Gaia hypothesis, which describes the Earth as a living organism in equilibrium with its biosphere. Although the earth is not actually a living organism, this concept now forms the basis for Earth system science

Is the Gaia hypothesis considered mainstream? I had the impression it was not.

[JimC]

I am currently reading 'Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record' by Benton and Harper when I came across the following:

This paved the way for our present concept of the earth as a dynamic system, a forerunner to the Gaia hypothesis, which describes the Earth as a living organism in equilibrium with its biosphere. Although the earth is not actually a living organism, this concept now forms the basis for Earth system science

Is the Gaia hypothesis considered mainstream? I had the impression it was not.

I read this as that the mainstream certainly sees the Earth as a dynamic system, which could be considered "Gaia lite", without the somewhat absurd implication of the full gaian model, which to some, almost implies a consciousness...

[Mr.Samsa]

Palindnilap's original submission (from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 24#p351266) included a section on the Gaia hypothesis where it's suggested to be an intricate form of a feedback loop. It's not without its objections but Palindnilap seems to think most of these objections are mistaken.

I don't think he's arguing that the Earth is actually alive though, but rather he's investigating the definition of "life" and seeing whether the Earth as a dynamical system would fit this category.

I'll PM him and ask him to come over here, or whether I can copy and paste material from the article he sent me over at RDF.

[Lazar]

I am currently reading 'Introduction to Paleobiology and the Fossil Record' by Benton and Harper when I came across the following:

This paved the way for our present concept of the earth as a dynamic system, a forerunner to the Gaia hypothesis, which describes the Earth as a living organism in equilibrium with its biosphere. Although the earth is not actually a living organism, this concept now forms the basis for Earth system science

Is the Gaia hypothesis considered mainstream? I had the impression it was not.

I read this as that the mainstream certainly sees the Earth as a dynamic system, which could be considered "Gaia lite", without the somewhat absurd implication of the full gaian model, which to some, almost implies a consciousness...

Yes I agree this is the most likely reading, yet it was not overly clear to me. Thanks

[Lazar]

Palindnilap's original submission (from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 24#p351266) included a section on the Gaia hypothesis where it's suggested to be an intricate form of a feedback loop. It's not without its objections but Palindnilap seems to think most of these objections are mistaken.

I don't think he's arguing that the Earth is actually alive though, but rather he's investigating the definition of "life" and seeing whether the Earth as a dynamical system would fit this category.

I'll PM him and ask him to come over here, or whether I can copy and paste material from the article he sent me over at RDF.

I really have no opinion either way as this is all relatively new to me (hence the introductory textbook) so I would be very interested to see what he has too say about this. I will not wander off to have a read of his article.

[palindnilap]

I really have no opinion either way as this is all relatively new to me (hence the introductory textbook) so I would be very interested to see what he has too say about this. I will not wander off to have a read of his article.

Well I am no authority on the question, all I know about it comes from the research I did for said article, plus some generalities about complex systems. But from what I gathered about it, the wording of your textbook seems absolutely perfect (I wish I could have told the same in such a concise manner). Lovelock's original exposition of the Gaia Hypothesis had several misconceptions in it, but the way he came to it was correct, and "forms the basis for Earth system science" as your textbook says. In that sense, it probably was a wrong idea that was worth ten right ideas.

Here are three misconceptions I exposed in my article before cutting it all out :
1) Earth does not meet the conditions set by biologists for being called alive.
2) The Gaia Hypothesis must be purged of the teleology of its initial formulation, that had living organisms actively "striving" to regulate the Earth system.
3) Most importantly, the ability of living organisms to regulate Earth's conditions can't have evolved by natural selection alone (that's in my article).

What is left of the Gaia Hypothesis after that purge is what I tried to tell in my article. Whether that still deserves to be called "Gaia Hypothesis" is probably not more than a question of label. Personally I would prefer to abandon that label because of all the mushy science that has been associated to it.

EDIT : Errr, no, not that perfect, I just noticed that the textbook said "in equilibrium with its biosphere". I think that equilibrium is technically the wrong word.

[Lazar]

I really have no opinion either way as this is all relatively new to me (hence the introductory textbook) so I would be very interested to see what he has too say about this. I will not wander off to have a read of his article.

Well I am no authority on the question, all I know about it comes from the research I did for said article, plus some generalities about complex systems. But from what I gathered about it, the wording of your textbook seems absolutely perfect (I wish I could have told the same in such a concise manner). Lovelock's original exposition of the Gaia Hypothesis had several misconceptions in it, but the way he came to it was correct, and "forms the basis for Earth system science" as your textbook says. In that sense, it probably was a wrong idea that was worth ten right ideas.

Here are three misconceptions I exposed in my article before cutting it all out :
1) Earth does not meet the conditions set by biologists for being called alive.
2) The Gaia Hypothesis must be purged of the teleology of its initial formulation, that had living organisms actively "striving" to regulate the Earth system.
3) Most importantly, the ability of living organisms to regulate Earth's conditions can't have evolved by natural selection alone (that's in my article).

What is left of the Gaia Hypothesis after that purge is what I tried to tell in my article. Whether that still deserves to be called "Gaia Hypothesis" is probably not more than a question of label. Personally I would prefer to abandon that label because of all the mushy science that has been associated to it.

EDIT : Errr, no, not that perfect, I just noticed that the textbook said "in equilibrium with its biosphere". I think that equilibrium is technically the wrong word.

Thanks for the overview. Rest assured while I said " I will not wander off to have a read of his article." I meant I will NOW go and read the article. Which I plan to do tonight. Thanks again

[eversbane]

I really have no opinion either way as this is all relatively new to me (hence the introductory textbook) so I would be very interested to see what he has too say about this. I will not wander off to have a read of his article.

Well I am no authority on the question, all I know about it comes from the research I did for said article, plus some generalities about complex systems. But from what I gathered about it, the wording of your textbook seems absolutely perfect (I wish I could have told the same in such a concise manner). Lovelock's original exposition of the Gaia Hypothesis had several misconceptions in it, but the way he came to it was correct, and "forms the basis for Earth system science" as your textbook says. In that sense, it probably was a wrong idea that was worth ten right ideas.

Here are three misconceptions I exposed in my article before cutting it all out :
1) Earth does not meet the conditions set by biologists for being called alive.
2) The Gaia Hypothesis must be purged of the teleology of its initial formulation, that had living organisms actively "striving" to regulate the Earth system.
3) Most importantly, the ability of living organisms to regulate Earth's conditions can't have evolved by natural selection alone (that's in my article).

What is left of the Gaia Hypothesis after that purge is what I tried to tell in my article. Whether that still deserves to be called "Gaia Hypothesis" is probably not more than a question of label. Personally I would prefer to abandon that label because of all the mushy science that has been associated to it.

EDIT : Errr, no, not that perfect, I just noticed that the textbook said "in equilibrium with its biosphere". I think that equilibrium is technically the wrong word.

A dynamic system with feedback can be dynamically stable or dynamically unstable. I assume here that the word 'equilibrium' refers to an assumption that the Earth system is, as far as we can tell, a dynamically stable system. This is essentially what the Gaia Theory was trying to model. Of course, a dynamically stable system is such only until it becomes dynamically unstable. There is evidence from the Earth's own natural history that the system has at times come close to tipping over the line.

[Berthold]

EDIT : Errr, no, not that perfect, I just noticed that the textbook said "in equilibrium with its biosphere". I think that equilibrium is technically the wrong word.

Before I poked my nose into the physical sciences, I found nothing wrong with the abundant use of "equilibrium" where actually "steady state" is meant. Even physics (and chemistry) has such a habitual relic: radioactive equilibrium.

[palindnilap]

A dynamic system with feedback can be dynamically stable or dynamically unstable. I assume here that the word 'equilibrium' refers to an assumption that the Earth system is, as far as we can tell, a dynamically stable system. This is essentially what the Gaia Theory was trying to model. Of course, a dynamically stable system is such only until it becomes dynamically unstable. There is evidence from the Earth's own natural history that the system has at times come close to tipping over the line.

Yes, that is correct wording. What you are saying is interesting. Do you have references for those near catastrophes ? As I told, I wrote about Earth since it was the subject of the writing contest, but Earth sciences are not my domain.

[palindnilap]

Before I poked my nose into the physical sciences, I found nothing wrong with the abundant use of "equilibrium" where actually "steady state" is meant. Even physics (and chemistry) has such a habitual relic: radioactive equilibrium.

Yes, I have seen other occurrences of such a use for "equilibrium". There are some other examples in scientific terminology where a qualified X is not an X. Maybe I am being a bit pedantic, but I think that it is a misleading use.

[halucigenia]

EDIT : Errr, no, not that perfect, I just noticed that the textbook said "in equilibrium with its biosphere". I think that equilibrium is technically the wrong word.

My understanding of Gaia hypothesis was that Lovelock stated that the Earth's atmosphere was out of it's natural equilibrium because of the Earth's biosphere but that the Earth as a dynamic system was stable because of the feedback loops between the biosphere and atmosphere hence the use of the words "at equilibrium" or homeostasis would be more appropriate, as in able to maintain a stable state.

Lovelock was consulted on the Mars missions and stated something like "but the Martian atmosphere is at a natural equilibrium and therefore without life and a biosphere".

As a scientific hypothesis Gaia was just an unfortunate name to give it as it became associated with the "New Age" crowd which had nothing to do with the original hypothesis IMHO.
Similar kinds of popular misconceptions abound around ambiguously named scientific concepts e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest, selfish gene etc.

James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis did initially come up with a good scientific hypothesis in Gaia IMHO, that of the atmosphere being kept in homeostasis by the biosphere. However, that does not mean that some of their other ideas were a bit unscientific - wacky even, especially when taken too far (mostly by others) in the Earth as a living organism direction.

[palindnilap]

My understanding of Gaia hypothesis was that Lovelock stated that the Earth's atmosphere was out of it's natural equilibrium because of the Earth's biosphere but that the Earth as a dynamic system was stable because of the feedback loops between the biosphere and atmosphere hence the use of the words "at equilibrium" or homeostasis would be more appropriate, as in able to maintain a stable state.

Lovelock was consulted on the Mars missions and stated something like "but the Martian atmosphere is at a natural equilibrium and therefore without life and a biosphere".

As a scientific hypothesis Gaia was just an unfortunate name to give it as it became associated with the "New Age" crowd which had nothing to do with the original hypothesis IMHO.
Similar kinds of popular misconceptions abound around ambiguously named scientific concepts e.g. natural selection, survival of the fittest, selfish gene etc.

James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis did initially come up with a good scientific hypothesis in Gaia IMHO, that of the atmosphere being kept in homeostasis by the biosphere. However, that does not mean that some of their other ideas were a bit unscientific - wacky even, especially when taken too far (mostly by others) in the Earth as a living organism direction.

Yes, basically that is what I said in the article that Mr.Samsa linked. I just refrained from using "homeostasis" because it looks like that is still very controversial. And it does look like Lovelock and Margulis have get ahead of themselves at some point, before retreating to a safer ground. I have no issue with people pushing ideas too far, especially if they are able to correct them. I wish it would not be such a blow for the credibility of their good and correct ideas.

[macdoc]

There are three misconceptions I exposed in my article before cutting it all out :
1) Earth does not meet the conditions set by biologists for being called alive.

2) The Gaia Hypothesis must be purged of the teleology of its initial formulation, that had living organisms actively "striving" to regulate the Earth system.

3) Most importantly, the ability of living organisms to regulate Earth's conditions can't have evolved by natural selection alone (that's in my article).

Why would you think that about # 3 and you need to define striving as many organisms including in your own body create their own microbiomes and some even control your body sub systems having evolved along with you.

#2 is also questionable as organisms do "strive" for optimal conditions...ants farm aphids...why ever would you think intelligence and purpose is restricted to humans...??

The biome is very complex and on a par with other geo-physical systems such as cryosphere and hydrosphere and atmosphere in altering our planet...