Gaia hypothesis (split from other Lovelock thread)

[Fact-Man]

A key attribute of a living thing is an ability to replicate, and, in doing so, pass some form of inherited information to another generation. Given a less than 100% perfect transmission of this information, and a differential survival/reproduction rate of the descendants, we have an evolutionary process. All true organisms have such characteristics, and it is a more vital part of any definition of an organism than any amount of internal organisation, homeostasis or interconnectedness. The biosphere does not have these characteristics, and yet the lowliest virus does...

Recognition and study of such features in ecosystems, and indeed the biosphere as a whole is vitally important, but it is poor use of terminology and logic to class such systems as organisms.

"Such systems" don't exist, there's only one Gaia, that we know of.

Obviously, Gaia has to be seen as a super-organism or perhaps a supra-organism. The biosphere is comprised of living things that we know as organisms and we know that all of these organisms are interconnected and interelated and interdependent, which forms them into some larger whole living thing, call it what you will.

Theoretically, and perhaps even practically, this whole living thing could replicate itself or be replicated in another context, like on another earth-like planet somewhere. Another clue is the fact that the biosphere could die if it were sufficiently damaged. In fact, the great species extinction event we are currently experiencing could be the beginning of such a death. It might take several millennia for that death to fully play out and leave a lifeless planet in its wake, but it would be a death nevertheless. Even if some disparate forms of life (organisms) remained living in remote ecosystems such as ocean floors or deep caves, we could say that Gaia has died because the remnants in no way represent the biosphere that exists today.

Carl Sagan's concept of a nuclear winter would be another way the biosphere could be executed, or an asteroid strike somehwhat larger than the KT event, which killed off the dinosaurs and a good deal of biological life pretty much in one fell swoop. We can also say that Gaia is a single living organsim of a very unique kind in that it doesn't wholly replicate itself in a single act of reproduction, even though it does replicate itself in in many thousands or millions of separate and individual acts of reproduction as time passes. Life does not continue to live except in unbroken chains of reproduction. Break every reproductive chain and you've killed Gaia.

This goes more to the point that Lovelock was making, which is that he does not think the biosphere will survive the warmed planet that's now rather plainly in our future, and not any distant future either but rather within a very few short decades. Can or will the biosphere as we know it survive a 7C rise in earth's MAT? A 10C rise? What is the temperature threshold beyond which biological life cannot sustain itself in recognizeable form? There is a limit.

I'm sure Lovelock appreciates the notion that "as we know it" is key to understanding what he means by "not surviving."

[JimC]

A key attribute of a living thing is an ability to replicate, and, in doing so, pass some form of inherited information to another generation. Given a less than 100% perfect transmission of this information, and a differential survival/reproduction rate of the descendants, we have an evolutionary process. All true organisms have such characteristics, and it is a more vital part of any definition of an organism than any amount of internal organisation, homeostasis or interconnectedness. The biosphere does not have these characteristics, and yet the lowliest virus does...

Recognition and study of such features in ecosystems, and indeed the biosphere as a whole is vitally important, but it is poor use of terminology and logic to class such systems as organisms.

"Such systems" don't exist, there's only one Gaia, that we know of.

Obviously, Gaia has to be seen as a super-organism or perhaps a supra-organism. The biosphere is comprised of living things that we know as organisms and we know that all of these organisms are interconnected and interelated and interdependent, which forms them into some larger whole living thing, call it what you will.

Theoretically, and perhaps even practically, this whole living thing could replicate itself or be replicated in another context, like on another earth-like planet somewhere. Another clue is the fact that the biosphere could die if it were sufficiently damaged. In fact, the great species extinction event we are currently experiencing could be the beginning of such a death. It might take several millennia for that death to fully play out and leave a lifeless planet in its wake, but it would be a death nevertheless. Even if some disparate forms of life (organisms) remained living in remote ecosystems such as ocean floors or deep caves, we could say that Gaia has died because the remnants in no way represent the biosphere that exists today.

Carl Sagan's concept of a nuclear winter would be another way the biosphere could be executed, or an asteroid strike somehwhat larger than the KT event, which killed off the dinosaurs and a good deal of biological life pretty much in one fell swoop. We can also say that Gaia is a single living organsim of a very unique kind in that it doesn't wholly replicate itself in a single act of reproduction, even though it does replicate itself in in many thousands or millions of separate and individual acts of reproduction as time passes. Life does not continue to live except in unbroken chains of reproduction. Break every reproductive chain and you've killed Gaia.

This goes more to the point that Lovelock was making, which is that he does not think the biosphere will survive the warmed planet that's now rather plainly in our future, and not any distant future either but rather within a very few short decades. Can or will the biosphere as we know it survive a 7C rise in earth's MAT? A 10C rise? What is the temperature threshold beyond which biological life cannot sustain itself in recognizeable form? There is a limit.

I'm sure Lovelock appreciates the notion that "as we know it" is key to understanding what he means by "not surviving."

Point 1: The very fact that only one such system exists means that any study of its properties will proceed very differently to the study of organisms, where many comparisons can be fruitful. Even the study of ecosystems can make use of the great advantage cpmparitive studies bring. However, the interactions between the component systems, particularly feedback systems are scientifically valuable, and any dismissal I make of the "Gaia as organism" hypothesis does not change that.

Point 2:

We can also say that Gaia is a single living organsim of a very unique kind in that it doesn't wholly replicate itself in a single act of reproduction, even though it does replicate itself in in many thousands or millions of separate and individual acts of reproduction as time passes.

This is stretching a point to breaking point. The "separate and individual acts of reproduction" are just that - the central acts of individual organisms, propelled inexorably by natural selection. I repeat, natural selection does not act on entities at a higher organisational level than an individual organism, with the exception of colonial insects, whose genetic peculiarities allow a form of between colony selection. (this passes over the issue of whether selection acts on genes or whole organisms, which would diverge too far from the argument. Suffice to say that, if genes are the ultimate unit of selection, we can still say that selection acts on the differential survival and reproduction of the unitary organisms that carry those genes) Even if humans carried a variety of organisms from Earth to another planet, it would not be Gaia reproducing itself.

Point 3: The "death" of Gaia, in the form of a completely sterilised Earth, would indeed be a major event, although I would see it more as the death of a branching tree of life. It will indeed happen when the sun reaches its Red Giant stage, but it is exceptionally unlikely that humans could cause it to happen.

That is not to say that human generated climate change cannot cause significant damage and reduction in biodiversity, or that we should not bend our best efforts to minimise the harm. I disagree with Lovelock that it is too late to do anything; we can at least reduce the scale of the damage by solid efforts now.

[Fact-Man]

A key attribute of a living thing is an ability to replicate, and, in doing so, pass some form of inherited information to another generation. Given a less than 100% perfect transmission of this information, and a differential survival/reproduction rate of the descendants, we have an evolutionary process. All true organisms have such characteristics, and it is a more vital part of any definition of an organism than any amount of internal organisation, homeostasis or interconnectedness. The biosphere does not have these characteristics, and yet the lowliest virus does...

Recognition and study of such features in ecosystems, and indeed the biosphere as a whole is vitally important, but it is poor use of terminology and logic to class such systems as organisms.

"Such systems" don't exist, there's only one Gaia, that we know of.

Obviously, Gaia has to be seen as a super-organism or perhaps a supra-organism. The biosphere is comprised of living things that we know as organisms and we know that all of these organisms are interconnected and interelated and interdependent, which forms them into some larger whole living thing, call it what you will.

Theoretically, and perhaps even practically, this whole living thing could replicate itself or be replicated in another context, like on another earth-like planet somewhere. Another clue is the fact that the biosphere could die if it were sufficiently damaged. In fact, the great species extinction event we are currently experiencing could be the beginning of such a death. It might take several millennia for that death to fully play out and leave a lifeless planet in its wake, but it would be a death nevertheless. Even if some disparate forms of life (organisms) remained living in remote ecosystems such as ocean floors or deep caves, we could say that Gaia has died because the remnants in no way represent the biosphere that exists today.

Carl Sagan's concept of a nuclear winter would be another way the biosphere could be executed, or an asteroid strike somehwhat larger than the KT event, which killed off the dinosaurs and a good deal of biological life pretty much in one fell swoop. We can also say that Gaia is a single living organsim of a very unique kind in that it doesn't wholly replicate itself in a single act of reproduction, even though it does replicate itself in in many thousands or millions of separate and individual acts of reproduction as time passes. Life does not continue to live except in unbroken chains of reproduction. Break every reproductive chain and you've killed Gaia.

This goes more to the point that Lovelock was making, which is that he does not think the biosphere will survive the warmed planet that's now rather plainly in our future, and not any distant future either but rather within a very few short decades. Can or will the biosphere as we know it survive a 7C rise in earth's MAT? A 10C rise? What is the temperature threshold beyond which biological life cannot sustain itself in recognizeable form? There is a limit.

I'm sure Lovelock appreciates the notion that "as we know it" is key to understanding what he means by "not surviving."

Point 1: The very fact that only one such system exists means that any study of its properties will proceed very differently to the study of organisms, where many comparisons can be fruitful. Even the study of ecosystems can make use of the great advantage cpmparitive studies bring. However, the interactions between the component systems, particularly feedback systems are scientifically valuable, and any dismissal I make of the "Gaia as organism" hypothesis does not change that.

Point 2:

We can also say that Gaia is a single living organsim of a very unique kind in that it doesn't wholly replicate itself in a single act of reproduction, even though it does replicate itself in in many thousands or millions of separate and individual acts of reproduction as time passes.

This is stretching a point to breaking point. The "separate and individual acts of reproduction" are just that - the central acts of individual organisms, propelled inexorably by natural selection. I repeat, natural selection does not act on entities at a higher organisational level than an individual organism, with the exception of colonial insects, whose genetic peculiarities allow a form of between colony selection. (this passes over the issue of whether selection acts on genes or whole organisms, which would diverge too far from the argument. Suffice to say that, if genes are the ultimate unit of selection, we can still say that selection acts on the differential survival and reproduction of the unitary organisms that carry those genes) Even if humans carried a variety of organisms from Earth to another planet, it would not be Gaia reproducing itself.

The "if" in if genes are the ultimate unit of selection might turn out to be a very big if, with what colonial insects do providing some hints along those lines.

I don't think we should simply apply ordinary evolutionary theory to any new concept of what an organism might be. No one ever thought that the biosphere might be a single living thing until Lovelock came along, so we have not looked at that idea in any sort of depth regarding its evolutionary character. It may require a whole new theory or level in existing evolutionary theory.

This could be seen as being akin to the way we saw Newtonian Mechanics for some many decades before Einstein gave us relativity and greatly expanded upon what Newton's laws can explain. Newtonian mechanics are fine when applied to local situations, some given geographical space for example; but they fail at the extremes of scale, the very small and the very large. Who's to say this might not be the case with organisms? That our evolutionary theory works well in explaining how individual organisms function but may not address how supra-organmisms operate, or whatever we wish to call them.

I'm unwilling to take that step, although I have no interest in making a federal case of it, either. It's mainly a curiosity. I don't think it is wise to be quite so dismissive of ideas like the Gaia hypothesis, as we have seen here. The Universe is too big for that. I think we need to keep our minds more open than that.

Point 3: The "death" of Gaia, in the form of a completely sterilised Earth, would indeed be a major event, although I would see it more as the death of a branching tree of life. It will indeed happen when the sun reaches its Red Giant stage, but it is exceptionally unlikely that humans could cause it to happen.

That is not to say that human generated climate change cannot cause significant damage and reduction in biodiversity, or that we should not bend our best efforts to minimise the harm. I disagree with Lovelock that it is too late to do anything; we can at least reduce the scale of the damage by solid efforts now.

Except we're not making "solid efforts now" and such efforts aren't even on the horizon. Just when we might begin reducing our emissions of GHGs remains unknown, we may never begin. And this I think is part of what Lovelock is trying to tell us.

We are not acting.

This makes the danger an increasing probability. We don't know what the threshold is, is it 2C, 6C, 8C? We simply do not know. We do know that any rise in earth's mean annual temperture that's more than about 2C degrees in the year 2100 will pose some very serious consequences, but what those consequences might entail are not known with any great specificity.

And that's the rub.

[Fact-Man]

A key attribute of a living thing is an ability to replicate, and, in doing so, pass some form of inherited information to another generation. Given a less than 100% perfect transmission of this information, and a differential survival/reproduction rate of the descendants, we have an evolutionary process. All true organisms have such characteristics, and it is a more vital part of any definition of an organism than any amount of internal organisation, homeostasis or interconnectedness. The biosphere does not have these characteristics, and yet the lowliest virus does...

Recognition and study of such features in ecosystems, and indeed the biosphere as a whole is vitally important, but it is poor use of terminology and logic to class such systems as organisms.

Dawkins gives a similar and lengthy critique of it in The Extended Phenotype.

Even if the system had evolved by some non-Darwinian process... it would have to work like a ladder of progression to perfection, as one mistake, one negative mutation could kill the whole system immediately. Unless you want to invoke the anthropic principle, then Gaia seems impossible... and even if you do, then it's merely a coincidence.

Gaia evolves as a collective of individually evolving organisms, not through any process it activates all by its lonesome.

Any one of said organisms can wither and die out owing to a negative mutation without having a fatal negative impact on the collective, which just keeps going, adapting to local changes such a negative mutation might induce in the relationships among organisms.

No aspect of Darwinian evolutionary theory is negated by seeing the biosphere as an collective organism, although such a view might certainly add a new layer tor level to Darwinian theory.

We didn't see the earth as one thing until 1970, when Apollo astronauts brought photos of it back from one of their moon missions. Now that's a fairly recent occurrence and just as many new views of reality have sparked new ideas regarding its nature, it seems perfectly normal that this would occur with an heretofore unseen view of planet earth.

The imagination and creativity necessary for new thinking apears lacking here. You're trying to squeaze something into Darwinian theory it was never intended to address, no wonder you can't get there from here. But what about a new theory? Lovelock gave us a new idea, now it seems to me it's up to us to invent/develop a new theory to explain it, or some addidive adjunct to Darwinian theory, whichever.

I smell scientific ossification, or scientific provincialism or even dogma, "It can't be because its never been."

But I like to think we should never say never.

[macdoc]

Try considering Gaia in terms of a tropical reef ecosystem as a composite entity.

To a significant degree humans themselves are composite.

I see interlocking neural nets in all life forms and the Gaia concept does not counter that.

The interlocked neural nets ARE something other than an aggregate alone and I think that's all Lovelock is on about...no needed.

Your stomach biota have evolved to modify your acid response.....where do YOU end in that case?

odd how this popped up today - good article

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -come.html

[Reverend Blair]

As an allegory It works very well .. it got people to understand the earth as a highly complex system of Linked cycles and smaller systems ...

It falls apart only when taken too far because the planet is Not one organism but a highly complex system of linked cycles and smaller systems .

Consider your own body from the perspective of a single-celled organism living in your gut though. You wouldn't appear much different from the earth from that perspective.

I disagree with the Gaia hypothesis because, at least as far as we know, planets don't reproduce. No, I don't think we're going to suddenly discover that they do. I do think that it's a valid explanation for how the various interconnected systems of the planet work though. Is it a truly scientific hypothesis? Likely not, but that doesn't keep it from being true. More than that, given when Lovelock first came out with it and what we've learned since, it has been largely borne out by the science.

Lovelock is a very perceptive individual. He deserves to be listened to, if not as a scientist, then as an individual who tends to get the big picture right.

[macdoc]

Yet planets are emergent...how different is abiogenesis from reproducing? just on a very long time scale.

I think life gets fractal in the neural net interactions - to try and differentiate all the time is rather useless when life forms are only defined in relation both to other life forms and to the environment.

Lovelock is talking about the connections...

[Twiglet]

Inthe body of the book, Lovelock draws the analogy that a human being has heaps of different cells, bacterium etc which are independently alive, yet part of a much bigger living organism. It isn't some hippie "the Earth is Alive Man, it's Alive!!". He is talking about feedback mechanisms which have evolved to make life sustainable, and uses evolution-based arguments to back that up.

He is an extremely credible scientist in his own right see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock#Career

There is nothing especially contentious about the Gaia hypothesis, viewed as feedback mechanisms which create an environment that is conducieve to sustaining life.

[macdoc]

[Fact-Man]

As an allegory It works very well .. it got people to understand the earth as a highly complex system of Linked cycles and smaller systems ...

It falls apart only when taken too far because the planet is Not one organism but a highly complex system of linked cycles and smaller systems .

Consider your own body from the perspective of a single-celled organism living in your gut though. You wouldn't appear much different from the earth from that perspective.

I disagree with the Gaia hypothesis because, at least as far as we know, planets don't reproduce. No, I don't think we're going to suddenly discover that they do.

Lovelock's not talking about the planet, he's talking about the biosphere, which resides on the planet (some part of it, the atmosphere, actually floats above the planet). This is an importan distinction. I think it's rather easy to imagine an astronaut leaving behind some earth-based organisms on anorher earth-like planet where life has not evolved (or has yet to evolve) and those organisms spawning another biosphere on said planet. That would at least be a form of reproducng Gaia.

I do think that it's a valid explanation for how the various interconnected systems of the planet work though. Is it a truly scientific hypothesis? Likely not, but that doesn't keep it from being true. More than that, given when Lovelock first came out with it and what we've learned since, it has been largely borne out by the science.

Lovelock is a very perceptive individual. He deserves to be listened to, if not as a scientist, then as an individual who tends to get the big picture right.

Indeed.

The great value of his Gaia hypothesis is that it got us to see the biosphere as one grand and very interrelated and interconnected thing, so that if you damage it here there will be repercussive effects that show up over there. The concept of food chains grew out of this, along with ecology and ecosystem management practices. It allowed us to understand that you can't just dump toxic wastes into a river and let it go at that, as the Russians did in the Soviet era and the West did before the advent of environmental science and ecology. It allowed us to see the interconnectedness of all things and their multitudinous dependencies.

If someone slices their wrist or punctures their jugular they'll bleed to death within minutes. There is a threshold beyond which if we damage the skein of life it too will die, it just might take 500 years instead of a few minutes. Biodiversity is as important to robust organic life as reproduction, which is why we work to preserve as much biodiversity as we can.

We don't know that the threshold is, but we ought not be doing any experiments to find out.

[macdoc]

Tho we are and have been for millenia now....regional bio-spheres like southern Iraq have not recovered...others damaged recently byt the 1998 spike have recovered robustly.

I have little concern for the planet itself and even the larger bio-sphere in the short term....it's gone through much worse.

It's just we are losing top predators and much of the diversity - some of which we will never know what we lost.

So - liveable??...yeah for sure for a long time....magnificent??....it's certainly fading

[JimC]

Tho we are and have been for millenia now....regional bio-spheres like southern Iraq have not recovered...others damaged recently byt the 1998 spike have recovered robustly.

I have little concern for the planet itself and even the larger bio-sphere in the short term....it's gone through much worse.

It's just we are losing top predators and much of the diversity - some of which we will never know what we lost.

So - liveable??...yeah for sure for a long time....magnificent??....it's certainly fading

I always remember reading Gerald Durrel, who alerted us early to the problemsd of extinction, likening a species to a unique art form that will never be repeated...

I will do my best, as I teach science to a new generation. My eldest son works for the Victorial EPA, monitoring invertebrate biodiversity in our state's rivers and lakes. He is fighting the good fight...

[macdoc]

I'm encouraged in some ways....wolves back in Yellowstone, bears back in Germany and some real return to wildness as rural areas shrink while cities bulge.
The meme of nature to be mastered and tamed seems to be fading in some areas and wildness treasured.

The ongoing rape of the ocean bio-diversity through botom trawling ( a crime in my view ) and top predator decimation ( worse than decimation ) along with acidification does have some long term consequences that could be irreversible if not addressed soon.
The rebound in protected areas tho is heartening and ocean farming in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner is also encouraging.

Were coal out of the picture I would have less deeply serious concern.
Ongoing coal extraction and burning is truly dire and the money behind those interests frightening.

Loss of habitat - in particular in Africa and SE Asia spells doom for the big cats in the wild and that is truly a shame tho the likes of Kruger continue to expand.

Animals find new homes in world's biggest reserve

By Fred Bridgland in Kruger National Park
Published: 12:01AM BST 18 Aug 2002

Wild animals began crossing the border from South Africa's Kruger National Park into Mozambique last week in the first phase of a visionary plan to create a 38,000 sq mile "peace park" larger than Scotland.

The Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area will become the world's biggest wilderness refuge for wild animals. It will stretch from the Drakensberg Mountains in South Africa to the Mozambiquecoast, and will encompass huge tracts of Zimbabwe. Tourists will be able to travel across frontiers in the park without having to show their passports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... serve.html

It's too bad Zanzibar is could no somehow be de-peopled and heavily replanted while there remains some tiny bit of core forest and biota remaining.

Just reading about the history of the Amazon and I'm a bit more encouraged as that is a very big forest and still remains resistant.

Not so sure of the other areas like Papua New Guinea as to their fate

[Fact-Man]

Tho we are and have been for millenia now....regional bio-spheres like southern Iraq have not recovered...others damaged recently byt the 1998 spike have recovered robustly.

I have little concern for the planet itself and even the larger bio-sphere in the short term....it's gone through much worse.

It's just we are losing top predators and much of the diversity - some of which we will never know what we lost.

So - liveable??...yeah for sure for a long time....magnificent??....it's certainly fading

I always remember reading Gerald Durrel, who alerted us early to the problemsd of extinction, likening a species to a unique art form that will never be repeated...

I will do my best, as I teach science to a new generation. My eldest son works for the Victorial EPA, monitoring invertebrate biodiversity in our state's rivers and lakes. He is fighting the good fight...

Loss of biodiversity has greatly accelerated in recent years, partly as a function of accumulating ecosystem and habitat degradations that go on from "development" (dam building, water diversions, timber harvesting, tar sands projects, gold mining, mineral and ore extraction, coal mining) and ongoing and growing industrial pollution.

There are a few bright spots, like Macdoc's wolves in Yellowstone, but they are few and far between and becoming fewer and farther between as time moves on. The recession has slowed development activity. Time and again what we see are biologists saving some species or other with captive breeding programs, parrots in Amazonia for example, and barely making headway, fighting what appears to be a losing battle. Blue fin tuna, whales, the big cats, all seem doomed. Half of the world's 5,000 species of frogs have already gone extinct. We've punched lots of holes in the biospere's web of life.

I drove across Boulder dam three weeks ago and behind it found Lake Mead standing 120 feet below its 1936-2006 averge, a shocking sight. It has been a tough decade in the American Southwest for water.

If the economy were to wake up and regain the level of activity it had in the 1998-2008 era, the biosphere would be in for some severe pummeling on an accelerating basis. But I don't think that's what's going to happen; I think we're in limp mode and will remain in it for some times to come, which basically what amounts to a moribund economy. That's a good thing in my mind because I'm more interested in a healthy biopshere than I am in a healthy economy. Fuck the economy, it isn't worh fuck all all anyway.

But even with this bit of moderating, I think things are going to hell in a handbasket and doing so fairly rapidly. We're losing a thousand species a day, day in, day out. How long can that go on before the SHTF?

[hackenslash]

AFAIK, Lovelock never said that the Earth was an organism, but that there was value in viewing it as one. I agree. I am ready to stand corrected on this point, of course. I haven't read much of Lovelock, but that is my understanding of what he said, and if that's what he said, then we can have little argument.

I think the problem is that the new-age wibble merchants picked up the idea and ran too far with it. Lovelock was gutted about this. His intent was only to get us to think about our reliance on the fine balance of the ecosystem.

His other points with regard to whether or not it's too late are, of course, his own conjecture. It has to be said, though, that we don't know enough about the balance of the ecosystem to be able to say that the damage we have caused is reversible or even undoable. We simply don't know at which point we pass the point of no return. His conjecture is that we have already passed it. He may well be right. Given the rate of climate change at the moment, and especially with such factors as the release of methane from the permafrost almost certainly accelerating the warming trend, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that this point has indeed been passed. I think that the probability is not insignificant.

I don't agree with him that nuclear fission is the solution to our energy problems in the long term but, much as I hate the idea of nuclear fission, it is still the best solution in the short to middle term. Fusion is the real way forward, but we aren't very close to getting that working yet, and the resources for this kind of research are not nearly enough to get any kind of real solution in the short to middle term. We're probably 20 years away from getting it to work safely and reliably, and that's assuming a) that we can get it to work and b) that the resources are devoted to the issue.

So, maverick? Certainly. Crackpot? Not remotely.