Sunday, August 17, 2008

gaia hypothesis

sounds weird.... the fact-reason relationship all wrong..very difficult to digest!


  1. i had heard of this theory before... well the following is my impression of it.... read this up and reply...
    (this is my imprtession on reading the wikipedia version and nothing else)

    1) what regulated the earth's "spheres" before life?... this Q eats me since gaia theory conspicuously sidesteps this central issue.
    2) So did the gaia born when life got created? or did gaia born when life on earth had reached a complexity level that it could by its sheer scale dent the various spheres??
    3) It states that and i quote "biomass self-regulates the conditions on the planet to make its physical environment (in particular temperature and chemistry of the atmosphere) on the planet more hospitable to the species which constitute its life"
    Is it this way?? when photosynthetic organisms evolved and started excreting a poison called as O2 it was life that changed itself to escape the poison and come up with aerobic respiration... we also call this evolution btw!!! so then biomass regulated the environment to actually produce a poison that wasnt so good for other species which constitued life!!... biomass always regualtes itself in response to the envorinment... whether that environment is good or bad is immaterial...thats the whole point of natural selection.. and if in that process the environment is changed (as happened when first photosynthetic org came on earth) then biomass would find ways to adapt to the new environment... it is never the other way round.... today when man is changing his environment profoundly it is not for the general good of the species which constitute life!!!
    4) Life will always interact with its environment cause it depends on the outside for its survival... and so in short time spans it is not only expected but obvious that we will see some form of homeostasis as gaia puts forward. However when large time spans are looked at i feel the gaia breaks since do we see any relation between changes in life and changes in environment??? there were more than 5 mass exinctions on earth which resulted in a 95% loss of species. What was the environment at that time... also when the environment was in general harsh for life.. as in the ice ages.. life survived well and good. Were these changes related...cause in an interconnected system one would expect one thing to lead to another and not two independent events....

  2. hmm..completely agree with your argument...

    if truly biomass regulates this planet...then don't you think the one which regulates it or maintains it...should be the first one to come???
    also all the reasons that the hypothesis mentions about the occurrence of a phenomenon seem to be a wrong cause and effect relationship...
    and if thats really true...what are we as the most intelligent species on this planet doing....creating the worst possible living conditions for our future generations???? and for that matter even for ourselves....

  3. u know what.... theres one good side to gaia.... it has started some form of an awakening i wud say....... as in look what we are doing to earth....ripping it up... it has started atleast that much,....

    gaia ka jo author hai his last book was titled revenge of the gaia in which he looks at our burning and rampage of the earth from a gaia point of view scientifically and ofcourse concludes what we are doing is wrong and harmful to all....atleast it has done that much even if the theory is garbage as such!!!!!!!