The Gaia Hypothesis was first proposed by James Lovelock back in the 1960s. In its simplest form it is often described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. It proposes that the different parts of the Earth (atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated, and therefore form a complex, interacting system.
It further attempts to explain how these components interact with the natural elements of the Earth (animals and plants). In essence, it tries to demonstrate that there is a physical connection between the natural elements of the Earth, with the other elements just described.
Extracted from Wikipedia:
"This theory is based on the idea that the 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 that constitute its life."
For those with a keen mind and eye, the idea of Gaia was very firmly introduced into the film Avatar. The Navi tribe were portrayed as being physically and spiritually connected to their environment in a manner that is largely compatible with Gaia.
However, as much as the hypothesis may have gained in popularity recently from films such as Avatar, the reality is that it is incompatible with the natural forces that govern our existence.
Gaia has been criticised by many scientists, including Ford Doolittle, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.
In his 1982 book, The Extended Phenotype, Richard Dawkins argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. He rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilise the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".
In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism.
Gaia is at odds with natural selection, and with evolutionary processes. To act for the greater good of the planet, and to ensure its continued survival is unfortunately pure fiction. You only have to look at the wholesale destruction that human beings are inflicting to know this.
Organisms act in their own self interests to ensure they have the lion share of resources (food, water, territory), thus ensuring the survival of not just themselves, but more importantly, their progeny. When group collaboration provides a better solution, then altruistic traits will become more prevalent.
Gaia is also almost certainly a religious metaphor. Every species and component of the Earth interacting together to form a beautiful planet of wondrous variety could have been lifted from the sacred text of practically any religion.
For all of its charm, Gaia is an illusion. It contradicts many well understood scientific theories. It would require planning and foresight, which natural selection simply does not have. It is a work of fiction that belongs in films such as Avatar, and has no place in reality.
It further attempts to explain how these components interact with the natural elements of the Earth (animals and plants). In essence, it tries to demonstrate that there is a physical connection between the natural elements of the Earth, with the other elements just described.
Extracted from Wikipedia:
"This theory is based on the idea that the 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 that constitute its life."
For those with a keen mind and eye, the idea of Gaia was very firmly introduced into the film Avatar. The Navi tribe were portrayed as being physically and spiritually connected to their environment in a manner that is largely compatible with Gaia.
However, as much as the hypothesis may have gained in popularity recently from films such as Avatar, the reality is that it is incompatible with the natural forces that govern our existence.
Gaia has been criticised by many scientists, including Ford Doolittle, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins.
In his 1982 book, The Extended Phenotype, Richard Dawkins argued that organisms could not act in concert as this would require foresight and planning from them. He rejected the possibility that feedback loops could stabilise the system. Dawkins claimed "there was no way for evolution by natural selection to lead to altruism on a Global scale".
In 1981, W. Ford Doolittle, in the CoEvolution Quarterly article "Is Nature Motherly" argued that nothing in the genome of individual organisms could provide the feedback mechanisms Gaia theory proposed, and therefore the Gaia hypothesis was an unscientific theory of a maternal type without any explanatory mechanism.
Gaia is at odds with natural selection, and with evolutionary processes. To act for the greater good of the planet, and to ensure its continued survival is unfortunately pure fiction. You only have to look at the wholesale destruction that human beings are inflicting to know this.
Organisms act in their own self interests to ensure they have the lion share of resources (food, water, territory), thus ensuring the survival of not just themselves, but more importantly, their progeny. When group collaboration provides a better solution, then altruistic traits will become more prevalent.
Gaia is also almost certainly a religious metaphor. Every species and component of the Earth interacting together to form a beautiful planet of wondrous variety could have been lifted from the sacred text of practically any religion.
For all of its charm, Gaia is an illusion. It contradicts many well understood scientific theories. It would require planning and foresight, which natural selection simply does not have. It is a work of fiction that belongs in films such as Avatar, and has no place in reality.