The Gaia Hypothesis

Mods, if this gets too SD, feel free to move it.
There is a theory out there that states that the earth is in fact one living entity. I am a firm believer of this theory. Not religion, not Pagan Earth-worship, but scientific hypothesis. And there's in fact several things that may prove the Gaia Hypothesis right.

What does a being need to live?
1. Energy. All beings require some form of energy. We consume food and water for our energy. Plants use photosynthesis. Bacteria absorb nutrients from their environments. The earth is the same. The sun is a source of energy for the things living on the earth.

2. Life span. All living things have a life span. Take away a living thing's energy, and it won't last very long. Take away the sun, and life on the earth wouldn't exist. Once the sun goes away (assuming the earth survived the explosion) earth would be a dead planet like Mars or Mercury.

3. Homeostasis. Homeostasis is what a living thing does to maintain similarity in its environment. The earth performs this with the atmosphere, making sure that too much energy or harmful things can't affect the life on it.

I know what you're thinking right now. "All this describes the life on earth, not the earth itself". And you're right, if you think of it that way. But think of it a different way: Think of each life form on the earth as a cell of the earth, just like one of our own cells. Pretend that each of us is a cell of the earth. If you took away the energy from the cells, then there wouldn't be anything to say that the earth is alive. It would just be a huge ball of rock, flying through space. Then again, each of us would just be a corpse - no, we wouldn't even be corpses - if it weren't for our cells.

There's one last thing that every living thing needs to do to ensure the survival of its species: reproduction.
If you agree with me up until this point, great. If you're thinking "Okay, even if the above stuff might be true, how is a planet going to reproduce?" then just listen.

A planet (one with life on it, for one without is just a dead planet) can reproduce by sending what believers of this theory call a Gaia Spore. This Gaia Spore could be a spaceship with people on it, on a space mission to colonize other planets. Think of this ship as the reproductive cell, for planets would reproduce asexually.
"Why hasn't our planet reproduced yet?" you may ask. Because our planet isn't mature yet, of course. Our planet hasn't reached puberty, if you will permit me that analogy. However, scientists predict that we will have colonies on the moon by 2050, so the day is not far off.

If this has intrigued you, refer to my sources for more info. If not, please discuss it anyway.
Gaia Hypothesis
Gaia hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gaia spore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some things, if I recall correctly from science class, aren't energy from the sun on the Earth.

Originally Posted by Feere Gorone

Mods, if this gets too SD, feel free to move it.
There is a theory out there that states that the earth is in fact one living entity. I am a firm believer of this theory. Not religion, not Pagan Earth-worship, but scientific hypothesis. And there's in fact several things that may prove the Gaia Hypothesis right.

What does a being need to live?
1. Energy. All beings require some form of energy. We consume food and water for our energy. Plants use photosynthesis. Bacteria absorb nutrients from their environments. The earth is the same. The sun is a source of energy for the things living on the earth.

Chemical reactions also consume energy, they are not alive.

2. Life span. All living things have a life span. Take away a living thing's energy, and it won't last very long. Take away the sun, and life on the earth wouldn't exist. Once the sun goes away (assuming the earth survived the explosion) earth would be a dead planet like Mars or Mercury.

Eventually everything will be destroyed, but everything is not alive.

3. Homeostasis. Homeostasis is what a living thing does to maintain similarity in its environment. The earth performs this with the atmosphere, making sure that too much energy or harmful things can't affect the life on it.

No it doesn't.



In essence, all this is is taking an analogy too far. The Earth is not a living organism, it doesn't even act like one outside of strained analogies.

That's not to say we shouldn't look after it, but there's no reason to assume that it's actually alive either.

As Carl Sagan said:

"The notion that the Earth is self aware has lately been growing at the fringes of the "Gaia" hypothesis. But this was a commonplace belief for both the ancient Greeks and the early Christians. Origen wondered whether "the earth also, according to it's own nature, is accountable for some sin." A host of ancient scholars thought the stars alive.

We can recognize a shortcoming--in some circumstances serious--in our ability to understand the world. Characteristically, willy-nilly, we seem compelled to project our own nature onto Nature. Although this may result in a consistently distorted view of the world, it does have one great virtue -- projection is the essential precondition for compassion."

Basically, I don't believe it and I believe when Carl says "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

ARG
I had a whole reply written out and everything. Hit a button on my browser and now it's all gone

Anyway. I agree with gdwarf to put it briefly.

Have you seen the people in the Flat Earth Society...WOW!

Originally Posted by Blitz55

ARG
I had a whole reply written out and everything. Hit a button on my browser and now it's all gone

Anyway. I agree with gdwarf to put it briefly.

Have you seen the people in the Flat Earth Society...WOW!

They are toal pricks.

Living things need to be able to reproduce. Planets can't.

Thread over.

Originally Posted by Old Kentucky Shark

Living things need to be able to reproduce. Planets can't.

Thread over.

This is a great point, although, Stars can I believe. Maybe it's somehow possible for an earth to. I'm not saying I believe this theory, but I'm not against it.

Originally Posted by gdwarf

it doesn't even act like one

...plants?

Originally Posted by Feere Gorone

And you're right, if you think of it that way. But think of it a different way:

I often feel iffy when someone says that, and after reading your post, it reminded me of something.

There is a frog on a table and a man with a bell. The man rings the bell once and the frog once. The man rings the bell twice and the frog hops twice. The man removes one of the frog's legs and then rings the bell; the frog hops. The man removes the frog's second leg and rings the bell. That frog does not hop. He then concludes that the frog's ears are in its legs.

It was one of the most ridiculous things I was ever told. Yet, it could have made sense if looked at from the right perspective and thought about differently. It still doesn't hold to me, though.

I know: What the hell was that?

It's just something I remembered when I came across the OP.

Originally Posted by Feere Gorone

A planet (one with life on it, for one without is just a dead planet) can reproduce by sending what believers of this theory call a Gaia Spore. This Gaia Spore could be a spaceship with people on it, on a space mission to colonize other planets. Think of this ship as the reproductive cell, for planets would reproduce asexually.
"Why hasn't our planet reproduced yet?" you may ask. Because our planet isn't mature yet, of course. Our planet hasn't reached puberty, if you will permit me that analogy. However, scientists predict that we will have colonies on the moon by 2050, so the day is not far off.

Okay, hold on. So according to this theory the organisms that live on the Earth are cells that make up one big Earth organism. So through this model of reproduction, some of the Earth's cells would migrate to another pre-existing planet and collonise it. That's isn't reproduction, is it? It's just sending the cells of one organism over to live of the surface of a new planet, that's not creating a new planet organism.

Also even if that did could as reproduction, it wouldn't count as asexual, the cells of one organism would be interacting with material from somewhere else. It's possible that what I think is asexual reproduction isn't, but I thought that was when a single organism created a new one without any external biological material.

i totaly see where this is comming from. But to be blunt, I think GDwarf said it best:

all this is is taking an analogy too far.

Sure if we look at all this, it adds up to life, but it's just rediculous. Those criteria are being stretched to thier limits, and still not fitting too well. It doesn't even realy describe the earth as a living thing for one main reason. The Earth does not need us to "survive", we need it to survive. Soo if anything, i think it's easier to say we are almost like parasites to the planet, not cells.
I think that in the interest of prolonging our stay on earth, or specie's life, we should keep an idea like this in mind, but in no way is this a scientificly plausible theory

Originally Posted by Old Kentucky Shark

Living things need to be able to reproduce. Planets can't.

Thread over.

I was going to say that, but it isn't true. Mules, for example, are incapable of reproducing, yet are clearly alive.

Originally Posted by gdwarf

I was going to say that, but it isn't true. Mules, for example, are incapable of reproducing, yet are clearly alive.

That's because of a genetic defect as a result of thier breeding. I don't remeber the exact requirements (it's been a while since science class) but I'm pretty sure there is something in there which adresses things like that. Earth on the otherhand is (to simplify) a gigantic rock, the parasites living on it are in now way physicaly part of it, we are not the earth's cells.

I don't know much about the earth, but I'll post the necessary requirements to be alive, and try to say whether the earth does or doesn't meet the requirement.
All living things must follow these characteristics:
-Living things are made up of units called Cells-I don't....think so....
-Living things reproduce-I think it may be possible, stars can.
-Living things are based on a Universal genetic code-...Not a clue
-Living things grow and develop-I believe it does this
-Living things obtain and use materials and energy-I think so
-Living things respond to their environment-Almost positive
-Living things maintain a stable internal environment-Definitely...at least, I'd call it stable
-Taken as a group, living things change over time-Oh yeah, definitely, earth changes over time

Originally Posted by gdwarf

I was going to say that, but it isn't true. Mules, for example, are incapable of reproducing, yet are clearly alive.

However, they DO have reproductive systems and it's obvious that they're meant to reproduce, they just aren't fertile.

Originally Posted by Forte

I don't know much about the earth, but I'll post the necessary requirements to be alive, and try to say whether the earth does or doesn't meet the requirement.
All living things must follow these characteristics:
-Living things are made up of units called Cells-I don't....think so....
-Living things reproduce-I think it may be possible, stars can.
-Living things are based on a Universal genetic code-...Not a clue
-Living things grow and develop-I believe it does this
-Living things obtain and use materials and energy-I think so
-Living things respond to their environment-Almost positive
-Living things maintain a stable internal environment-Definitely...at least, I'd call it stable
-Taken as a group, living things change over time-Oh yeah, definitely, earth changes over time

The Earth is not made of cells

The only way you're going to get the Earth to reproduce in any way at all would be if you broke it into smaller pieces. These smaller pieces would not grow back to how the Earth started; Earth is not a starfish.

Here's a hint: DNA is genetic coding. (which the Earth does not have.)

Grow? No. Develop? Not really. Change? Yes, but this doesn't mean it fits this point.

No actually; it hasn't done this ever since it first formed billions of years ago. The living beings ON Earth on the other hand...

It responds to it's environment only in passive ways - gravity, heat, etc. - this is only comparable to single celled organisms (which, unlike the Earth, actually fit all the previous points too), and barely so at that, as I could say the same for something as simple as a pebble.

Stable? Yeah, sure; I'll give it this.

You missed the part "taken as a group". There are multiple planets, and the effect the Earth has on the others is comparable to the effect one rock has on another rock which it is not touching.

Originally Posted by Sabbo

The Earth is not made of cells

The only way you're going to get the Earth to reproduce in any way at all would be if you broke it into smaller pieces. These smaller pieces would not grow back to how the Earth started; Earth is not a starfish.

Here's a hint: DNA is genetic coding. (which the Earth does not have.)

Grow? No. Develop? Not really. Change? Yes, but this doesn't mean it fits this point.

No actually; it hasn't done this ever since it first formed billions of years ago. The living beings ON Earth on the other hand...

It responds to it's environment only in passive ways - gravity, heat, etc. - this is only comparable to single celled organisms (which, unlike the Earth, actually fit all the previous points too), and barely so at that, as I could say the same for something as simple as a pebble.

Stable? Yeah, sure; I'll give it this.

You missed the part "taken as a group". There are multiple planets, and the effect the Earth has on the others is comparable to the effect one rock has on another rock which it is not touching.

I know DNA is genetic coding, but I don't think that's all genetic coding is. I believe there's something called RNA or something.

I don't know, Biology is one of the few subjects I suck at, because I don't find it interesting.

You're right, I did forget the, "Taken as a group" part.

An interesting theory, I guess, but I think it ends there.

I mean, if the Earth maintained homeostasis, then it seems like species would stop going extinct, and there also wouldn't be a giant debate over climate change.

Edit: Please forgive me of my ignorance of the complexities of Biology. I just started my first Biology class a couple months ago.

Originally Posted by Forte

I know DNA is genetic coding, but I don't think that's all genetic coding is. I believe there's something called RNA or something.

I don't know, Biology is one of the few subjects I suck at, because I don't find it interesting.

You're right, I did forget the, "Taken as a group" part.

RNA is, for all a non-biology student needs to know, half a strand of DNA - it's single helix rather than double-helix.

DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid

RNA - Ribonucleic Acid


RNA is in all the living creatures you know, just as much as DNA is.



I found Biology interesting, but never had any intention to continue past Year 12. It was just another source for random information.

Originally Posted by Sabbo

RNA is, for all a non-biology student needs to know, half a strand of DNA - it's single helix rather than double-helix.

DNA - Deoxyribonucleic Acid

RNA - Ribonucleic Acid


RNA is in all the living creatures you know, just as much as DNA is.



I found Biology interesting, but never had any intention to continue past Year 12. It was just another source for random information.

So, you're saying, rather than two swirly strands connected to each other, it's just one swirly strand....I don't like Biology.