I don't see how this is a difficult concepts. It seems pretty simple. And actually, the earth may very well have a mechanism for being self replicating (on an enormously long time scale); us. It's possible that we might one day be able to terraform other planets. At that point, could the earth be considered a living thing, as it meets the definition? So many people misunderstand this hypothesis. Skeptics like to call it woo because new age people like to think it means the earth is a conscious being- when this isn't what the hypothesis is saying. The fact that the Earth seems to meet many of the requirements of living things is because it is made up of living things. Just like our own bodies are composed of individual living things, cells. It's a natural emergent property, a fractal of scale.
People who claim to be skeptics may only be skeptical in certain areas. That's the problem. It is very hard for people to be near objective in their thinking because they are always under the influence of their culture and economic standing. I know for instance that the Skeptics Society don't give it a thought that free will may be an illusion. As well, the problem with the New Age crowd, I have found, is that they rarely are equipped with knowledge of scientific principles and a general understanding of science. I think there is truth to the Gaia theory. You can have feedback without purpose. There is no purpose but there is always at least a cause. Nature doesn't actually have a purpose. There are asteroids in space constantly slamming into each other, what's the purpose in that? We humans have control feedback in our bodies in the form of homeostasis. There is also control feedback in our refrigerators and in the atmosphere. Feedback is necessary in order for things to sustain itself. There is much evidence in support of abiogenesis/mechanistic conception of life. The concept of life has been redefined many times and for good reason. Could it be that life is a complex, reactive machine that responds to the environment? When I flash a flashlight in someone's eyes, the brain responds immediately. If you don't eat, you get sick. If you don't sleep, you sick. So obviously natural laws affect living systems. The sun is NOT alive by any human definition yet it supports life for all. If the sun were removed, life on earth would have a hard time existing. An artificial neural network is not alive yet it can facilitate life on earth. One of the main reasons why humans can do more to affect the environment is because of our larger brains and in particular the development of the neocortex. None of that makes us 'better' though. It means we have a responsibility for using the abilities we have been given by biological evolution for making a planet that is sustainability. This can be done through science and technology. Life on earth is about adapting to the environment. If we, humans, destroy the environment, we hurt our own future. When a human being goes out into space, he has to adapt to that environment with a space suit just as when a person goes to the north pole, he adapts to that environment with thick clothing. If you stand naked in the north pole, your body automatically shivers in an attempt to get back to a steady temperature point.
WE BECOME TO INTELLIGENT THAT WEB FORGOT WHO WE ARE, WHAT WE ARE IN SIMPLE TERMS WHAT IF I TELL YOU THAT WE KNOW VERY LITTLE OF WHAT WE TEND TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE ARE PHYSICAL BEINGS SO WE THINK IT IS ALL IN ALL. WHAT ABOUT THE TRUTH OF OUR SPIRITUAL ASPECT IN WHAT LEVEL ARE WE THIS IS ALREADY 2018. OUR ANCESTORS STARTED IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SPIRIT THEN THE MODERN MAN STARTED IN THE MORE PHYSICAL WORLD OF REALITY SPECIALLY THE WESTERN WORLD,.
Makes sense. Similarly I have heard it explained how it is likely that certain sizes and shapes of sand grains replicate similarly. Sand grains that cause rivers to flow in just such a way to maintain and produce more like it would out compete other shapes. Even so that if a few grains were moved from one river to another- say by clinging to a traveling bird or something- then this new shape may well have vast and subtle effects on t flow of t new river.
I would explain Gaia more simply in terms of types of process. I've identified 3 : process, cyclic process, renewable cyclic process. process has a defined start and end cyclic process has no start or end but has loss. renewable cyclic process has no start no end no loss The planet is an example of a renewable cyclic process. The system is closed (the system boundary being the atmosphere which neither loses or gains to space so the system is essentially in equilibrium. The concept of process can apply to animals too on the planet. If you consider animals existence ie from birth to life only - the animal is just another example of a process with defined start and end. If you consider animals existence ie from birth to life and exchange of its atoms with the planet ie animal lives > animal dies > decomposes > planet obsorbs > mother animal feeds on planet > mother gives birth to new animal. This would be an example of an animal being "a cyclic process". If you consider animals existence ie from birth/to life and exchange of energy with the planet ie animal lives > animal dies > its energy exchanged with planet > planet redistributes energy> other animals absorb energy ie re-incarnation An example of energy is neither created or destroyed just transformed.The animal could be seen as part of a "renewable cyclic process". So you can apply the x3 : "process", "cyclic process" and "renewable cyclic process" to anything... Isnt that Gaia in nutshell?
A Schroedinger said ‘ Biological systems feed on their own negative entropy’ the evolution of planets and planetary systems from mostly hydrogen clouds to recycled stellar materials to planets within a star system seem to mirror this. Stars likewise are born grow reproduce evolve and die. This poses the question ‘ Does Gaia perhaps have a big brother Apollo?’ I leave it to others with a greater understanding of Hinduism to continue the the analogy to Universes. His holiness the Dalai Lama pointed out that the study of Quantum interaction and spirituality are two sides of the same coin.
One time on mushrooms, they told me this. They said "you're just here to make the planets grow. The plants are the aliens and they eat us when we die. We're just mammals in a big green house spaceship. Have a good night thinking of that?
I’m so glad that even on my 8 gram extravaganza I never had them talk to me. I did experience myself being born and dying in rapid succession and got a sense of “this is forever snd ever and ever ever ever and the drug will wear off but the cycle will not” so yesh I was depressed but elated for the nest two days. I miss my rave\psychonaut days
Giant plant and animals become small bec. many carbon are locked inside earth. Humans came and dig it up. Then 6th extinction occurs (humans included). Giants come back again.
This is already mentioned in Hinduism as Earth godess / Sun God / other planet god etc, which actually says entire planet as a one living being and entire universe a manifestation of god
But I think what they are saying here is that it's a metaphor..the earth acts LIKE a super organism but it's not actually because of no ability to self replicate and we don't know if these processes are simply mechanistic survival reactions rather than driven by agency.
Super bilgisayardaki bulut teknolojisine yapay zekaları mega simülasyonları yerleştiğinde yapay zekanın oynadığı oyunlar oluşur. Ayni şekilde kuantuamsal ve diğer iletişim ile oluşan super bilgisayarı tabiatta oluşabilir. Bu bitkilerin içinde kimyasal sinyal, ruzgar, DNA değişimi, hayvanlarin ölmesi vb. veriler yolları ile bilgi işlenebilir. Aynı şekilde beyinde de bilgiyi yolları nöronlar yapıyor. Bilgisayarda yari iletken ve metal veri yolları yapıyor. Yani tabiatta simülasyon yapılabilir, yani şekilde cep telefonlarında, kişisel bilgisayarda, beyinde, nanobotlar da yapay zekalı simülasyonlar oluşabilir.
Fuck Lyn. I thought about this today and didn't even know it was a thing. Never have i ever in my life read or come across this concept, and i'm basically someone with 0 achievements compared to the NASA scientist. I say this in a certain tone because we are all connected. So am i really talking shit to you or a part of myself, since we are all somewhat connected.
I have not read Margules or Lovelocks ideas on it but isn't "Gaia Hypothesis" simply what is now called Earth Systems Science? The issue is that GH gets exploited too much by psuedoscience science woo.
gaia hypothesis is obviously wrong. I would argue that the exact opposite is the case. Life is a vast number of ordinary organic chemical reactions. It is easy to falsely perceive order, self-sustainance, different organisms, self-replication, tissues, organs, etc, whenever the observer is a small fraction of the resulting reactions himself, observing the whole thing from the inside...Its all perspective bias, watching the system constantly create systems that functionally resemble us...
Gaia hypothesis is not obviously wrong and your argument is not clear enough. Your limiting definition of life as a vast number of ordinary organic chemical reactions is in itself very biased since that assertion is just a perspective that cannot be demonstrated.
@@danielabreu Take for example a river. It appears to have the perfect size, length, width, slope, inclination, branching, etc etc, given the environment and place it is located, so that it can manage perfectly the amount of water. Thus, it usually does not drain or over-float. It seems that it is always operating optimally. The question is: does the river sustain itself? If a river could think and observe as a human, then for the river the answer is obviously yes. Self-sustainance in life is a very difficult topic because its like if you are trying to see your eyes with your own eyes. Attributing things to supernatural forces should be the last resort. Gaia hypothesis is like saying that earth is the god. Its a modified version of religion.
@@minassakellakis8390 Everything in life is supernatural... Scientists are just beginning to explain how the supernatural things have happened... Eventually they will find God... Afterall, they are explaining and learning everyday how he put things together... and one can look at their own eye... just need a reflection... Aliens are angels... But we will all keep digging and find the truth... Godbless and Shalom
But isn't what you are saying what Lovelock and Margules were saying? Essentially what's now called Earth Systems Science? They were not saying that earth is a living organism, but it does have feedback loops,. climactic balance mechanisms, emergent properties, and the biosphere specifically has many factors of symbiosis and originated in abiogenesis.
I would take this further. The earth gives off its own electromagnetic field, as living organisms do. It also has a heated core, which we assume is from lava that hasn't cooled, but the lava is circulating under the earth's crust.
@@christinearmington I like the self-reflectiong you have informed anyone coming across your comment with. It shows a high level of humility. You got good in you. I wish you optimal health.
aspect the living aspect the non living organic inorganic acclimatized similar [none absolute] -- matter absorb and dissipate human create build and destroys also factor differentiate -- 'state of invulnerability' ---- an extension and so we extend.... apropriately not "back" but forward front [true] as intended ---- the cyclical changes at planetary scale gave us enough time to learn identify dawn of civilization and before the next great upheaval of all life on earth ---- some choose to be vulnerable yet there are who don't the fate of intellectual species rest entirely in their own hands .... but there will be an extension there will be life outside no matter of our own beyond earth boundary only question -- will any of you be part of the living? ---- some says.... if only gaia could "utter" "words" see? ----
What if the earth is capable of just creating life according to its needs. Like it doesn’t know what shape the species will take but it comes to life according to the atmospheres/earths gases needs? Holy shit. Or did I just exactly what the video is saying in a different way? Lol
this is a good intro for as far as it goes, but completely omits the next essential piece of Gaia Theory that microbiologist Lynn Margulis contributed, and which carries Gaia from hypothesis to theory.
To me the Gaia hypothesis sounds similar to creationism in the sense they both are teleologiocal or imply purpose and perfection in complex chemical reactions
Really? I haven't read the book but it seems like it's more about earth systems science, feedback loops, sometimes symbiosis, abiogenesis and emergent properties. I don't see how it implies a purpose or a sort of orthogenetic evolution.
Hold on you say at 3:52 "this causes more heat to be absorbed" did you not mean to say "this causes more LIGHT to be absorbed thus raising the temperature" ?
Another question: Suppose the sun's output is variable and the sun (for whatever reason) reduces it's output, since co2 is a green house gas, would the planet not respond by allowing more co2 into the atmosphere (and not absorbed by plants and animals) and wouldn't this cause a dramatic spike in co2 possibly causing the sentient inhabitants of the planet to THINK they are the cause of the spike in co2? Because the spike only started around the time the sentient beings began producing co2 via industrial means of their own?
The planet is not sentient so could not decide to release more CO2. The CO2 released into the atmosphere from biologic functions (metabolism in organisms including decay) is for the most part net neutral with CO2 absorbed by the plants during photosynthesis. This would not affect the amount of CO2 released from the carbon sink of fossil fuels released by the actions of the humans which has occurred during the last 100 years. Additionally the changes in atmospheric CO2 amounts in the last 100 years are on a faster pace that it is understood as to the rate of atmospheric CO2 fluctuation prior to introduction of burning of fossil fuels. You can grasp at straws that maybe, just maybe humans haven't caused this change and then maybe, just maybe, it will all be ok for us in the next 10 - 100 years. Or we could accept the overwhelming science and take actions. If I was diagnosed with cancer and 99 out of 100 doctors said I should pursue treatment if I want to live, and only 1 said, nah, it'll be alright, I'd most likely listen to the 99. Not a perfect analogy. Another way to look at it, if the 99% linking human burning of fossil fuels as a major contributor and we switch to renewable are actually wrong we still eliminate all of the other harmful pollution of burning fossil fuels. Even if renewables are not perfect they are a cleaner option than fossil fuels. If we listen to the 1% and they are wrong, then we all die. Doesn't seem like a hard choice to me.
The sun's output does fluctuate. But the fact that atmospheric C12 isotopes are increasing more in the atmosphere and than a slight C13 with the ratio found in plants, but with no increase in the radioactive C14 isotope means the increase is from a fossil plant, mainly coal, which are fossil plants from the Carboniferous and Permian periods.
I found this video when I was doing my assignment. The same video I found in Chinese website has no translation, so if you don't mind, I would like to ask your permission to share this video plus translation to other website in China because of the embarrassing reason that RU-vid is blocked from accessing in China. Of course I will give sources of this original website. Thank you very much.
